Dosage Probation

Dosage Probation web_admin
Dosage Probation Power

Rethinking the structure of probation sentences

Dosage Probation suggests that the length of supervision should be determined by the number of hours of intervention necessary to reduce risk, as opposed to a standard probation term of three, four or five years. It motivates behavior change by providing an opportunity for the individual under supervision to receive early termination from probation if they successfully engage in risk-reduction interventions tailored to their criminogenic needs, in a "dose" matched to their risk level. For the supervising agency, it provides an opportunity to manage scarce resources more efficiently.

Click Here to Read More

 
Dosage Probation Infographic showing 4 phases and each of their steps

“Dosage probation has dramatically increased our clients’ motivation to work with the criminal justice system. Probation officers report experiencing little or no resistance while working one on one with probationers. Our program providers report they are seeing our clients enter the first day of programming motivated and engaged."

Terry Thomas, Deputy Director, Washington County Community Corrections, Minnesota

a headshot of Terry Thomas, Deputy Director of Minnesota

Dosage Probation
A prescription based on two pilot sites' experience
Dosage Probation, a prescription based on two pilot sites' experiences
Dosage Probation
Rethinking the structure of probation sentences
Dosage Probation Rethinking the structure of probation sentences

About Dosage Probation

About Dosage Probation web_admin

The dosage probation model suggests that the length of supervision should be determined by the number of hours of intervention necessary to reduce risk as opposed to a standard probation term, such as 3, 4, or 5 years. Dosage probation is designed to incentivize behavior change by providing an opportunity for the individual under supervision to receive early termination from probation if they successfully engage in risk reduction interventions tailored to their criminogenic needs, in a “dose” matched to their risk level.

The Benefits of Dosage Probation

  • For the supervising agency, it positions officers to focus their work on risk reduction activities and to manage scarce resources more efficiently.
  • For community service providers, the dosage model establishes a method to effectively match probationers to services and to encourage individuals’ active participation in treatment.
  • For external stakeholders, the dosage probation model offers transparency around the case management process and clear criteria for the granting of early termination from supervision.
  • For probationers, the dosage model provides a compelling incentive for engaging in risk reducing interventions and enhances the meaningfulness and impact of probation supervision.

Preliminary Outcomes from Pilot Sites

  • Experiences from the dosage probation pilot sites demonstrate that:
  • Justice system decision makers (particularly prosecutors and judges) can embrace the approach;
  • Many justice-involved individuals demonstrate significantly higher levels of motivation to engage in risk reduction services;
  • Supervision officers are more directed in their case planning efforts and one-on-one interactions;
  • Treatment providers willingly modify practices to more closely align with evidence-based practices; and
  • Probation terms can be dramatically reduced.

Core Elements of the Dosage Probation Implementation Model

The following outlines the anticipated elements necessary to support the implementation of the

Dosage Probation Model:

  1. The legal/statutory authority to formally discharge offenders from probation early based upon successful accomplishment of dosage probation requirements.
  2. The use of an empirically based risk/needs instrument.
    1. The jurisdiction must have the capacity to assess offenders’ risk level prior to sentencing and share this information with decision makers (e.g., court, DA, PD) or otherwise have the ability to determine offenders’ eligibility and secure judicial agreement to dosage probation.
  3. An engaged, committed, knowledgeable Policy Team interested in and willing to implement the
  4. Dosage Probation Model. Support from the following policy leaders is necessary:
    1. The local Chief Judge
    2. The local Chief Public Defender
    3. The local elected District Attorney
    4. The local Chief Probation Officer
    5. The chief law enforcement officer (Chief of Police and/or Sheriff).

Where state officials have authority over local jurisdictions, support from state leadership is also necessary.

  1. A judiciary willing to sentence eligible and appropriate offenders to dosage probation and willing to set supervision conditions supportive of the Dosage Probation Model.
  2. A Probation Department that has:
    1. Staff skilled and knowledgeable in evidence-­‐based practices, including Motivational Interviewing and the core correctional practices
    2. The ability to cap dosage probation caseloads at requisite levels (approximately 45–60 medium/high risk offenders, depending on other non-­‐casework responsibilities)
    3. A currently operating evidence-­‐based supervision model. Such a model includes, for example:
      1. Use of risk/needs assessments to guide interventions
      2. Application of professional alliance techniques to engage offenders in the change process
      3. One-on-one sessions of 20+ minutes
      4. Focus on offenders’ top criminogenic needs, with priority given to the most influential four
      5. 2–4 contacts per month (depending upon whether medium or high risk) in circumstances that allow for one-on-one skill-building sessions
      6. Skill practice sessions conducted by probation staff to address offenders’ skill deficits
      7. Use of specific tools to structure and direct one-on-one sessions
      8. Use of case plans to establish specific goals and SMART action steps
      9. Use of structured responses to antisocial/noncompliant behavior
      10. Use of structured responses to prosocial attitudes/behavior
      11. Methods to record dosage
      12. Methods to objectively assess offender behavioral changes
      13. In‐house continuous quality improvement strategies.
    4. The availability of evidence-­‐based programming for the target population such as:
      1. An array of cognitive behavioral programs b. Services targeting criminogenic needs
      2. Services provided by probation (e.g., Thinking for a Change), governmental organizations
      3. (e.g., Behavioral Health), community-­‐based providers, or a combination d. A service delivery system with sufficient capacity to avoid waiting lists
      4. Sufficient funding available to ensure offenders’ ability to participate in programming
      5. Service providers who are willing to participate in a collaborative relationship with justice system partners and to share specified information about offenders’ program participation (e.g., attendance, level of engagement, progress, amount of “dosage” delivered in each session)
      6. Service providers who have been or are willing to be assessed using the Correctional
      7. Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) or the Correctional Program Checklist (CPC)
      8. Service providers who have been or are willing to participate in corrective action planning if deficiencies are identified through the CPAI/CPC evaluation process.
    5. Sufficient capacity to engage in the Dosage Probation Project, Sufficient number of offenders assessed as medium/high risk according to the jurisdiction’s risk assessment instrument sentenced to probation terms within any given year.
    6. Identification of a target population within the medium/high risk probation-­‐eligible population
      1. Identification of exclusionary charges (e.g., malicious homicide, 1st degree sexual assault)
      2. Identification of other exclusionary conditions (e.g., ICE hold, non-­‐resident of the County, diagnosed serious mental illness)
      3. Minimum probation terms of 1+ years
    7. Number of probation staff who would work with offenders participating in the Dosage Probation Project.
  3. Ability to collect and analyze performance measurement and outcome data
    1. Availability of staff knowledgeable about data collection and analysis
      1. At the offender level
      2. At the program level
    2. Availability of manual/automated systems to capture and analyze performance and outcome data
    3. Adaptability of manual/automated systems to capture new data elements.

    The implementation is presented throughout this website in four phases and 13 discreet steps.

Projects

Projects web_admin
Monograph

This is a great introduction to a new probation strategy which links “the duration of probation supervision to the optimal amount of intervention an offender needs in order to reduce risk of reoffense”. This monograph “provides a policy and practice framework upon which this new model of supervision can be constructed. It offers a review of evidence-based approaches to reducing recidivism in our communities, the most recent research on dosage, and its applicability to sentencing and community supervision practices. It describes the model’s promise for increasing community safety through recidivism reduction, as well as achieving fiscal savings by reducing periods of supervision. Finally, the monograph offers a summary of the work of Milwaukee County’s criminal justice stakeholders as they design and conduct the nation’s first dosage probation experiment.” Sections of this publication include: introduction to the dosage model of probation; the principles of effective intervention—who we target for intervention matters (the risk principle), what we target for intervention matters (the need principle), how we intervene and interact matters (the responsivity principle), how well interventions are implemented matters, fidelity and integrity of corrections professionals’ interventions, and the relationship between early termination of supervision and recidivism; adding dosage to the equation—how much dosage is delivered matters, and further study needed; implications—the dosage probation model of supervision; and dosage probation in Milwaukee County.

White Paper

The dosage probation model suggests that the length of supervision should be determined by the number of hours of intervention necessary to reduce risk as opposed to a standard probation term, such as 3, 4, 5, etc., years. Dosage probation is designed to incentivize behavior change by providing an opportunity for the individual under supervision to receive early termination from probation if they successfully engage in risk reduction interventions tailored to their criminogenic needs, in a "dose" matched to their risk level. For the supervising agency, it positions officers to focus their work on risk reduction activities and to manage scarce resources more efficiently. For community service providers, the dosage model establishes a method to effectively match probationers to services and to encourage individuals’ active participation in treatment. For external stakeholders, the dosage probation model offers transparency around the case management process and clear criteria for the granting of early termination from supervision. Indeed, the pilots have demonstrated that justice system decision makers (particularly prosecutors and judges) can embrace the approach; many justice-involved individuals demonstrate significantly higher levels of motivation to engage in risk reduction services; supervision officers are more directed in their case planning efforts and one-on-one interactions; treatment providers willingly undergo an independent evaluation of their services and modify practices to more closely align with evidence-based practices; and, importantly, probation terms can be dramatically reduced. This document, the second in a series, provides background information on the dosage probation project; a summary of the literature pertinent to dosage; and information about the dosage pilot sites, including key lessons that emerged from the pilot project. It also lays the foundation for a forthcoming set of resources on this topic: The Dosage Probation Toolkit.

Technical Assistance

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) provides training, technical assistance, and information services to federal, state, local, and tribal corrections facilities. Technical assistance connects NIC’s Correctional Program Specialists (CPS) and/or Technical Resource Providers (TRP) with the local staff to evolve policies, procedures, and practices at institutions like yours. If you are interested in getting guidance and help from NIC to improve the practices and programs your organization offers, please connect with us.

Toolkit

Toolkit web_admin

Phase 1 - Assess Readiness

Phase 1 - Assess Readiness web_admin

The dosage probation implementation model consists of four sequential phases: (1) Assess Readiness, (2) Preparation, (3) Planning, and (4) Implementation and Evaluation. The readiness assessment phase ensures that probation agencies and jurisdictions interested in adopting the dosage probation model are well-positioned for successful implementation and sustainability.

Effective implementation of the dosage probation model requires the following:

  • A jurisdiction that has the legal/statutory authority to grant early termination from probation
  • A probation agency with deep knowledge and skill in the use of evidence-based practices and infrastructure to ensure fidelity and continuous quality improvement
  • System stakeholders—representing the judiciary, prosecution, defense, probation, law enforcement, people harmed by crime, and possibly other entities—who support implementation and engage in collaborative policymaking related to probation sentencing, supervision, and discharge
  • Community service providers with the capacity to partner around the delivery of high-fidelity, evidence-based interventions that reduce the likelihood of recidivism

The readiness assessment phase guides you through the steps and activities to determine whether your probation agency and jurisdiction are ready to implement the dosage probation model. Please begin by reviewing the information below.

Preparing for Your Readiness Assessment

Before you begin your readiness assessment, you and others who may be helping to spearhead, oversee, manage, or conduct the assessment (e.g., executives, directors, managers, supervisors, select line staff) should take several preliminary steps to ensure you are well-prepared.

TIP

When preparing for your readiness assessment, be intentional about whom you enlist to help carry out the assessment's activities (e.g., reviewing statutes/local legal provisions, delivering formal orientations, etc.), which you will learn more about below. For example, you could recruit the assistance of all probation leadership to convey to line staff and system stakeholders the importance of your proposed dosage probation initiative. You could involve line staff members who are well-respected among their peers, knowledgeable or skilled in applying evidence-based practices, or enthusiastic about dosage probation. The readiness assessment is an opportune time to relay that collaboration—a team effort—is critical to successfully implementing dosage probation.

 

Get Comfortable with the Dosage Probation Literature

You and possibly others helping to spearhead, oversee, manage, or complete your readiness assessment are your jurisdiction's resident experts on dosage probation. Everyone should be well-read in the dosage probation literature and prepared to speak with others about the dosage probation model, whether through formal presentations, informal meetings, or other interactions with system stakeholders, probation staff, or community service providers. To prepare for these discussions, you and your resident experts will want to familiarize yourselves with the following publications and handouts:

You should also familiarize yourselves with the readiness assessment documentation to be completed to assist you in determining your probation agency's and jurisdiction's preparedness to implement dosage probation (see “Completing Your Readiness Assessment,” below).

Understand the Readiness Assessment Process

You and possibly others helping to spearhead, oversee, manage, or complete your readiness assessment should also familiarize yourselves with the assessment's four steps. The four steps, each containing a set of activities, include the following:

  1. Determine if Legal/Statutory Authority Permits Early Termination

    This part of the assessment ensures that your jurisdiction has the legal authority to permit early termination from probation. The activities include reviewing your statutes and/or local legal provisions to determine whether and how you proceed with the readiness assessment.

  2. Assess Your Probation Agency's Readiness to Implement the Dosage Probation Model

    This part of the assessment determines whether your probation agency is well-positioned to implement and sustain the dosage probation model. The activities include conducting a formal orientation to dosage probation and assessing the agency's preparedness in critical areas, including leadership, departmental morale and organizational culture, evidence-based practices, continuous quality improvement, and data management.

  3. Assess Stakeholder Interest in the Dosage Probation Model

    This part of the assessment determines whether your system stakeholders are positioned to support implementation and engage in collaborative policymaking around probation sentencing, supervision, and discharge. The activities include conducting a formal orientation to dosage probation and interviewing stakeholders to assess their support for implementation.

  4. Assess Service Provider Capacity to Deliver Evidence-Based Dosage Hours

    This part of the assessment determines whether your community service providers have the interest and capacity to deliver dosage-eligible programs. The activities include conducting a formal orientation to dosage probation and gathering and assessing initial information about providers' organizations and programs.

TIP

Dig deeper into the Dosage Probation Toolkit. The more you know about what's coming up in the readiness assessment, the more efficiently you can plan for and complete its activities. From start to finish, the readiness assessment typically spans 6–12 months, depending on resources and work pace.

Complete the first and second steps in order. The third and fourth steps may be completed at the same time. In other words, you will want to ensure your jurisdiction has the legal/statutory authority to permit early termination before you allocate time and resources to assessing your probation agency's readiness. Similarly, you will want to ensure your agency is well-positioned for implementation before you engage your system stakeholders' and community service providers' attention and time.

Gather Preliminary Support for Your Readiness Assessment

Before formally involving probation staff and system stakeholders in the readiness assessment, you will want to ensure they know about your agency's interest in, and generally support the concept of, dosage probation (i.e., discharging people from probation early through earnest engagement in recidivism-reduction interventions). You would not want to begin conducting formal orientations to dosage probation only to discover that probation staff or one or more stakeholders strongly oppose implementation. You also would not want them to feel surprised when they receive an invitation to a dosage probation orientation later in the readiness assessment process.

TIP

Lessons learned in the dosage probation pilot sites demonstrate that, to effectively implement and sustain dosage probation, the initiative must be perceived as a jurisdiction-level, not a "probation-only," effort. Engaging stakeholders early in the process is a great way to convey that implementing dosage probation is a multidisciplinary, collaborative initiative.

How you engage probation leadership and line staff before they attend their respective orientation is at your discretion, based on your agency's dynamics and staff members' needs. For example, you may wish to discuss the prospect of implementation during a monthly staff meeting—but only after you have spoken collectively or individually with all leadership to ensure their support. You may also want to share one or more of the dosage probation publications and/or handouts listed above.

How you engage system stakeholders before formally inviting them to their respective orientation is also at your discretion, based on your jurisdiction's dynamics and stakeholders' needs. At a minimum, you will need to speak with your jurisdiction's policymakers whose support is necessary for implementation. They include, at a minimum, the following people:

  • Your local chief judge
  • Your local chief public defender
  • Your local elected district attorney
  • Your local chief of probation
  • Your local chief law enforcement officer (police and/or sheriff)
  • One or more local representatives of people harmed by crime

Where state officials have authority over local jurisdictions, support from state leadership is also necessary. You may wish to connect with these stakeholders by phone or in person and email or share a printed copy of one or more of the dosage probation publications and/or handouts listed above.

Completing Your Readiness Assessment

You and possibly others helping to spearhead, oversee, manage, or complete your readiness assessment may find it helpful to "skip to the end." Before beginning your readiness assessment, familiarize yourselves with the documentation and closeout activities that will assist you in determining your probation agency's and jurisdiction's preparedness to implement the dosage probation model.

Fill Out Your Readiness Assessment Documentation

Complete the Dosage Probation Implementation Checklist as or after you complete the four readiness assessment steps guided by the Dosage Probation Toolkit. The checklist describes the essential characteristics and conditions of all probation agencies and jurisdictions wishing to implement dosage probation. It answers the question: What must we have in place now (versus what can we put in place later) to know that we are in a good position for implementation? If all criteria are checked, your agency and jurisdiction meet the minimum requirements and can feel confident moving forward with implementation.

TIP

Not all probation agencies or jurisdictions will be ready to implement dosage probation immediately. Don’t worry if this is the case for you. All it means is that your agency or jurisdiction has additional steps to take before implementation begins. Consider the barriers standing in the way and create an action plan to resolve them. Rest easy that implementation is a marathon, not a race. No matter how enthusiastic or eager we are to provide the best services for the people we work with, effective and sustainable implementation takes strategy and time.

Complete the Dosage Probation Readiness Assessment: Probation Agency Rating Form (.doc) as you complete the corresponding readiness assessment step guided by the Dosage Probation Toolkit: Assess Your Probation Agency's Readiness to Implement the Dosage Probation Model. The rating form assists in determining your probation agency's strengths, areas for improvement, and significant challenges relevant to implementing dosage probation. It answers the questions: What, if any, barriers must our agency resolve before implementation, and what improvements should we plan to make through implementation?

The Dosage Probation Readiness Assessment: Jurisdiction Rating Form (.doc) addresses three readiness assessment steps: Legal/Statutory Authority to Grant Early Termination, Stakeholder Interest in the Dosage Probation Model, and Community Service Provider Capacity to Deliver Evidence-Based Dosage Hours. Complete each part of the rating form as you complete each step guided by the Dosage Probation Toolkit. The rating form assists in determining the strengths, areas for improvement, and significant challenges outside of the probation agency relevant to implementing dosage probation. It answers the questions: What, if any, barriers must our jurisdiction resolve before implementation, and what dynamic forces in our jurisdiction should we be prepared to address during implementation?

Share Your Readiness Assessment Results

The successful implementation of dosage probation relies on strong collaboration, communication, and transparency in information sharing among all agencies and people involved. Once you have completed the readiness assessment documentation and determined whether your jurisdiction is ready to implement dosage probation, it is recommended that you share the totality of the assessment’s results with all probation staff and system stakeholders. Their understanding of the probation agency’s and jurisdiction’s areas of strength, opportunities for improvement, and barriers or challenges will prepare them to make collaborative policy decisions and engage in collective activities during implementation.

TIP

If your probation agency or jurisdiction is still situating itself to be ready for implementation, consider still sharing your assessment results with those who participated. They will likely be interested in knowing the outcome of the assessment and how your agency or jurisdiction plans to resolve the barriers to begin implementation.

How you share the results with probation staff and key system stakeholders is at your discretion, depending on their needs and your jurisdiction’s dynamics. Some probation agencies prepare a written memo, while others coordinate in-person or virtual meetings or brown bag lunches to present the findings and address questions or concerns. When sharing your readiness assessment’s results, consider including the following information:

  • A brief description of dosage probation
  • A brief description of the readiness assessment’s purpose and four-step process
  • The probation agency’s and jurisdiction’s most notable strengths
  • The probation agency’s and jurisdiction’s most notable opportunities for improvement
  • The probation agency’s and jurisdiction’s challenges and how they will be addressed or resolved before or during implementation
  • Expectations for the next steps

Please click here to leave your feedback for this page

 

Step 1 - Determine if Legal/Statutory Authority Permits Early Termination

Step 1 - Determine if Legal/Statutory Authority Permits Early Termination web_admin

The dosage probation model is predicated on people's ability to earn early termination from supervision through earnest engagement in interventions that reduce their likelihood of recidivism. In this way, the dosage probation model should be implemented only in jurisdictions with the legal authority to grant early termination from probation.

One of the first steps in conducting your dosage probation readiness assessment is to ensure that your jurisdiction has the statutory or local legal provisions to allow the probation agency, court, and/or another entity the authority to grant early discharge from probation. This section guides you through making such a determination and understanding its implications for implementing dosage probation.

TO DO

  • Review statutory/local legal provisions regarding early termination
  • Determine how to proceed with the readiness assessment
  • Complete the relevant portion of the readiness assessment rating form

Review Your Statutory/Local Legal Provisions

Agencies interested in implementing dosage probation should determine the exact, current state statutes and/or local provisions that stipulate the legal authority to grant or seek, with the court's permission, an early discharge from probation supervision.

Determine How You Will Proceed

If your jurisdiction does not have the express authority to grant early termination, it is recommended that you not complete the readiness assessment or implement dosage probation. Agencies interested in implementing dosage probation should work within their agency, with local criminal justice system stakeholders, and with the legislature to consider adopting changes in statutory or local legal provisions to support early termination from probation.

If your jurisdiction has the express authority to grant early termination, proceed with your readiness assessment. Before moving on, however, begin to think critically about the impacts of your jurisdiction's legal authority on early discharge policies and practices you may adopt through dosage probation.

Many statutes do not permit probation agencies, the courts, and/or other entities unlimited discretionary power to discharge people from probation early. Instead, many statutory and/or local legal provisions stipulate specific eligibility criteria or restrictions to guide authorities in making this determination. For example, a statute or local provision may permit early termination from probation but only for people convicted of certain offenses, who serve half of their sentence, who remain violation-free for a certain period, or who meet other “earned time credit” criteria. In addition, some statutory or local legal provisions do not permit early termination for people with outstanding fines, fees, or restitution. From a dosage probation perspective, consider how these stipulations might impact someone who has worked hard to achieve their dosage target of 100, 200, or 300 hours and has earned an early discharge.

If specific criteria exist for early termination in your jurisdiction, it is essential to identify them upfront and consider how they might support or challenge early discharge through dosage probation. You may review the Dosage Probation Model Fundamentals to help you consider the possible impact of your jurisdiction's legal authority on early discharge as a core element of the dosage probation model.

TIP

In addition to the statutory or local legal provisions available to you through your state or jurisdiction, you may find it helpful to review the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Community Supervision Significant Enactment Database, developed in partnership with Arnold Ventures. The database tracks significant law enactments related to community supervision and can be filtered by bills relating to “length of supervision” and “fines and fees impact on supervision.”

While you are not expected to solve potential early termination challenges at this point, you may wish to inquire about them further as you continue your readiness assessment. For example, when assessing stakeholder interest in the dosage probation model, you may want to speak with judges, prosecutors, or others about concerns they may have and about your statutory and/or local legal provisions regarding early discharge. During future implementation efforts, your jurisdiction's Dosage Probation Policy Team will grapple with developing specific policies related to early termination. The information you gather during the readiness assessment can help frame these future policy discussions and decisions.

Complete the Readiness Assessment Rating Form

Once the above-described activities have been accomplished, complete Part 1 of the Dosage Probation Readiness Assessment: Jurisdiction Rating Form. Use your assessment of the statutes/local legal provisions you reviewed to help you determine whether the legal/statutory authority to grant early termination from probation is an area of strength, an area for improvement, or a significant challenge to implementing dosage probation in your jurisdiction.

Please click here to leave your feedback for this page

 

Step 2 - Assess Probation Department’s Readiness to Implement the Dosage Probation Model

Step 2 - Assess Probation Department’s Readiness to Implement the Dosage Probation Model web_admin

The dosage probation model requires a probation agency with deep knowledge and skill in implementing evidence-based practices (EBP). Exposure to EBP alone is insufficient. Strong, active leadership and an infrastructure that ensures fidelity and continuous quality improvement are crucial to implementing and sustaining evidence-based policies and practices.

A critical step in conducting your dosage probation readiness assessment is ensuring your probation agency is well-positioned to implement and sustain the dosage probation model effectively. This section guides you through assessing your probation agency's readiness for implementation.

TO DO:

  • Complete the probation agency readiness assessment rating form
  • Conduct a dosage probation orientation session

Complete the Readiness Assessment Rating Form for Your Probation Agency

You may begin completing the Dosage Probation Readiness Assessment: Probation Agency Rating Form (.doc) anytime. However, it is recommended that you ensure your jurisdiction has the express authority to grant early termination from probation before allocating the time and resources to fill out the form. The rating form consists of eight parts, each containing questions to help you assess your probation agency’s preparedness in critical implementation areas, including leadership, departmental morale and organizational culture, evidence-based practices, and data management.

As you complete the rating form, you may want to take additional information-gathering steps to fully answer the questions. For example, to accurately assess departmental morale and organizational culture, you may wish to conduct a staff survey to learn more about their EBP attitudes/beliefs or knowledge. You may want to complete random case file reviews to determine whether staff realistically integrate EBP into their daily work, such as administering risk/needs assessments according to policy or developing and updating case plans with the necessary components. You may also wish to observe how well staff apply EBP to their interactions with people on probation, such as using cognitive behavioral interventions, motivational interviewing, or effective responses to compliance or noncompliance. Additionally, you may need to meet with staff responsible for collecting and analyzing probation data (whether they are internal or external personnel) to learn more about their capacity to conduct data management and the capabilities of automated information systems to collect data related to the implementation of dosage probation.

TIP

Look online to find inspiration for your staff survey, if you choose to conduct one. There are many organizational or cultural readiness surveys available. You may also reference the National Institute of Corrections' Evidence-Based Decision Making (EBDM) Starter Kit for more information about Conducting an EBP Knowledge Survey (.pdf) .

Prepare and Conduct Your Dosage Probation Orientation

Another step in assessing your probation agency's readiness is to conduct an orientation to dosage probation. Probation staff should have already received a preliminary introduction to dosage probation and expressed their initial support as you prepared for your readiness assessment.

The orientation serves several purposes. It is an opportunity for probation staff to learn about the dosage probation model and what to expect from the implementation process and readiness assessment. It is also an opportunity for your team to come together in one place and time to receive accurate and consistent information about dosage probation and why leadership is interested in implementing the model. It also prepares staff to engage in readiness assessment activities as may be needed, such as case file reviews or observations, as mentioned above.

Decide Whom to Invite

It is highly recommended that you invite all probation personnel to the orientation, including leadership, supervision staff regardless of caseload, intake or support staff, and others who may be responsible for in-house cognitive behavioral programming, coaching/staff development, and data collection and management. It is also recommended that agents who may supervise people on parole or supervised release, juveniles on probation, or people on pretrial release attend.

While not all attendees may ultimately supervise people eligible for early discharge through dosage probation, the orientation can help ensure everyone is unified in understanding and supporting your agency's vision for change. It can also make future cross-training and coaching in evidence-based practices much easier.

NOTE

Lessons Learned: Implement Dosage Probation Agencywide

An important lesson learned from the dosage probation pilot sites is that dosage probation is most effectively implemented as a probation-wide model of adult supervision for people with a moderate or higher likelihood of recidivism.

In other words, everyone on probation meeting those criteria, regardless of their eligibility for early discharge, should receive effective intervention and supervision according to the dosage probation model. Likewise, all adult probation supervision agents should deliver effective case management and intervention according to the dosage probation model, regardless of their caseload.

Establishing dosage-specific caseloads or units in the pilot sites had several unintended consequences:

  • Siloed implementation created division among staff. Those carrying a dosage probation caseload felt they were subject to greater expectations and more rigorous standards of practice. In contrast, those with a non-dosage caseload felt left behind and that their counterparts were favored by leadership.
  • As select staff members received specialized training and coaching in evidence-based practices, staff across the agency lacked a shared vision and language for delivering probation services.
  • Dosage-specific caseloads or units created inequities in service. People assigned to a non-dosage caseload were not consistently offered, and thus could not benefit from, the same behavior-change opportunities as people assigned to a dosage caseload.
  • Overall, the approach resulted in a counterproductive atmosphere among staff and leadership.

Review and Customize the Orientation Materials

You may start preparing for the orientation by reviewing the Dosage Probation Orientation for Probation Staff Agenda Template (.doc). It includes the recommended meeting goals, topics, and discussion points to be covered and the time frames for each, totaling two hours. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your probation agency.

You may also begin by reviewing the Dosage Probation Orientation for Probation Staff Presentation Template (.ppt). The presentation follows and expands on the information in the agenda and contains suggested talking points and approaches to discussions and activities. You must customize the slides with [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your probation agency. The modifications you make to the presentation may require changes to the agenda and vice versa.

The following handouts supplement the information in the agenda and presentation: Dosage Probation: Rethinking the Structure of Probation Sentences (.pdf) , Dosage Probation: A Prescription Based on Two Pilot Sites' Experiences (.pdf) , Dosage Probation Model Fundamentals (.pdf), and Dosage Probation Implementation Checklist (.pdf). Share these materials with staff to familiarize themselves with the information before the orientation.

TIP

Consider creating a shared electronic folder to house all dosage probation information for easy reference. A centralized location for all dosage probation materials will come in handy during implementation.

 

Please click here to leave your feedback for this page

 

Step 3 - Assess Stakeholder Interest in the Dosage Probation Model

Step 3 - Assess Stakeholder Interest in the Dosage Probation Model web_admin

For many jurisdictions, the dosage probation model represents a significant shift away from often long-held policies, practices, and beliefs, such as how case settlements are negotiated, how probation sentences are comprised, or what stakeholders' expectations are regarding the goals and outcomes of probation supervision. Aligning stakeholders around such matters is crucial to implementing dosage probation and to sustaining and strengthening the model's policies and practices.

Effective implementation of the dosage probation model requires critical system stakeholders—policy leaders representing the judiciary, prosecution, defense, probation, law enforcement, people harmed by crime, and possibly other entities—to come together as dosage probation policymakers for the jurisdiction. Establishing and maintaining an effective policy team necessitates stakeholders' willingness and commitment to collaborate; develop policies that adhere to evidence-based standards of community supervision, recidivism reduction, and other successful outcomes; and manage the data-driven performance of the dosage probation model over time.

A critical step in conducting your dosage probation readiness assessment is determining whether system stakeholders are supportive of dosage probation and willing to engage as future members of your jurisdiction's Dosage Probation Policy Team. This section guides you in assessing the position of your stakeholders to implement the dosage probation model in your jurisdiction.

TO DO

  • Conduct a dosage probation orientation session
  • Interview stakeholders
  • Assess stakeholder support for implementation
  • Complete the relevant portion of the readiness assessment rating form

Prepare and Conduct Your Stakeholder Orientation

One of the first steps in assessing stakeholder interest is to conduct an orientation to dosage probation. The stakeholders critical to implementation should have already received a preliminary introduction to dosage probation and expressed their initial support as you prepared for your readiness assessment.

The orientation serves several purposes. It is an opportunity for stakeholders to learn about the dosage probation model and what to expect from the implementation process and readiness assessment. It is also an opportunity for stakeholders to come together in one place and time (in person or virtually) to receive accurate and consistent information about dosage probation and why your agency is interested in implementing the model. It also prepares stakeholders to engage in follow-up interviews regarding their support for implementing dosage probation.

Decide Whom to Invite

Invite all stakeholders whose support for your jurisdiction's implementation efforts is vital, who may be interested in learning about dosage probation, or whom you expect to interview as part of your readiness assessment. At a minimum, the following key stakeholders must be invited to the orientation:

  • Your local chief judge
  • Your local chief public defender
  • Your local elected district attorney
  • Your local chief of probation
  • Your local chief law enforcement officer (police and/or sheriff)
  • One or more local representatives of people harmed by crime

Their support for dosage probation and eventual membership on your jurisdiction's policy team are required for implementation; however, depending on your jurisdiction, you may also invite the full bench of judges, state leadership officials, county commissioners, city attorneys, or other local authorities. While not everyone attending the orientation may be involved in future policymaking, their knowledge of dosage probation can make future communication and implementation efforts much easier.

Review and Customize the Orientation Materials

You may start preparing for the orientation by reviewing the Dosage Probation Orientation for Stakeholders Invitation Template (.doc). The letter offers suggested language and resources to acquaint stakeholders with the concept of dosage probation and to invite them to the orientation. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to best suit your needs.

You may also review the Dosage Probation Orientation for Stakeholders Agenda Template (.doc). It includes the recommended meeting goals, topics, and discussion points to be covered and the time frames for each, totaling 90 minutes. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet your needs. For example, you may wish to skip introductions if participants already know each other, or you may need to hold the meeting over an hour-long session instead.

In addition, you may review the Dosage Probation Orientation for Stakeholders Presentation Template (.ppt). The presentation follows and expands on the information in the agenda and contains suggested talking points. You must customize the slides with [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet your needs. The modifications you make to the presentation may require changes to the agenda and vice versa.

The following publications supplement the information in the invitation letter, agenda, and presentation: Dosage Probation: Rethinking the Structure of Probation Sentences (.pdf), Dosage Probation: A Prescription Based on Two Pilot Sites' Experiences (.pdf), Dosage Probation Model Fundamentals (.pdf), and Dosage Probation Implementation Checklist (.pdf). Attach these handouts to your invitation letter or otherwise share them with stakeholders so they can familiarize themselves with the information before the orientation.

Interview Stakeholders

Following the orientation, you will want to schedule interviews with the stakeholders critical to dosage probation implementation. The interviews will offer insight into their level of support for dosage probation and, for those required (as noted above), their interest in serving on your jurisdiction's Dosage Probation Policy Team.

While individual interviews are recommended, depending on your jurisdiction, you may conduct interviews in small groups or a combination thereof. Personal meetings are advantageous for gathering candid information and perspectives and when speaking with elected officials, who may prefer meeting one-on-one. Small group interviews can be efficient for engaging multiple stakeholders of the same discipline (e.g., meeting with all judges), especially when individual meetings are hard to schedule. While the efficiency of small groups may sound appealing, they often come with natural trade-offs. For instance, small groups usually require participants to set aside more time than they would for individual interviews, can be dominated by a few people's perspectives, and could preclude participants from speaking honestly.

You may review the Readiness Assessment Stakeholder Interview Questions (.doc) to help you prepare for your individual or small group interviews. The document contains questions regarding stakeholders' interest in the dosage probation model, experience with collaborative policymaking, and commitment to implementation. You can add or adjust questions to best suit your jurisdiction's or stakeholders' needs.

Most individual interviews can be accomplished in 30–45 minutes, although you may wish to schedule them for longer, depending on the stakeholder. Small group interviews usually take more time as the number of participants increases. However, it is recommended that you schedule these for no more than 60 minutes to maintain participants' engagement and respect for their time.

Assess Your Stakeholders' Support

Once you complete the stakeholder interviews, you will want to gather and review your notes to consider what you learned and what the implications are for your jurisdiction's Dosage Probation Policy Team and future implementation efforts. Use the questions below to help you assess the level of support for dosage probation and commitment to implementation that stakeholders demonstrated during the readiness assessment. You may need to follow up with stakeholders to address outstanding concerns, issues, or questions.

All key stakeholders are essential to successfully implementing dosage probation and must agree to serve on the policy team. If a critical stakeholder (e.g., chief judge, elected district attorney, etc.) expresses opposition to implementation or unwillingness to serve on the policy team, you will want to talk with them to understand the reason for their hesitation, address their concerns, and secure their support and commitment. It is strongly recommended that you implement dosage probation only if all key stakeholders agree to participate on the policy team.

TIP

Some key stakeholders may wish to refrain from participating as policy team members and, instead, to appoint a designee. While using designees should not be considered a deal breaker, you will want to try to secure the participation of the stakeholders themselves to avoid the possible future backtracking of policy decisions and related confusion. Elected officials are strongly recommended to serve on the policy team themselves, given the nature of their position in the criminal justice system and the critical policy decisions made through implementation.

 

Complete the Readiness Assessment Rating Form

Once the above-described activities have been accomplished, complete Part 2 of the Dosage Probation Readiness Assessment: Jurisdiction Rating Form (.doc). Use your assessment of the information gathered during the stakeholder orientation and interviews to help you determine whether stakeholder support is an area of strength, an area for improvement, or a significant challenge to implementing dosage probation in your jurisdiction.

Please click here to leave your feedback for this page

 

Step 4 - Assess Service Provider Capacity to Deliver Evidence-Based Dosage Hours

Step 4 - Assess Service Provider Capacity to Deliver Evidence-Based Dosage Hours web_admin

People on probation accumulate dosage hours by participating in cognitive behavioral interventions that address their criminogenic needs and skill deficits. People can complete cognitive behavioral interventions in three ways: (1) during one-on-one interactions with their probation agent, (2) as take-home assignments, and (3) through programs delivered by the probation agency and/or community service providers.

In most jurisdictions, community-based programming contributes the largest portion of people's dosage hours. Many probation agencies operate with limited resources, hindering the delivery of sufficient dosage hours through one-on-one appointments, take-home assignments, and in-house programming. To fill the gap, agencies often depend on community service providers to offer the amount and type of programming needed to help people achieve their 100-, 200-, or 300-hour dosage targets and earn early discharge as efficiently as possible. For this reason, partnering with community service providers is considered essential to successfully implementing the dosage probation model.

A critical step in conducting the dosage probation readiness assessment is determining community service providers' interest in partnering around dosage probation and their capacity to deliver evidence-based dosage hours. This section guides you in assessing the position of your community service providers to support the implementation of dosage probation in your jurisdiction.

TO DO

  • Conduct a dosage probation orientation session
  • Gather and assess information from community service providers
  • Complete the relevant portion of the readiness assessment rating form

Prepare and Conduct Your Community Service Provider Orientation

The first step in assessing community service providers' interest is to conduct an orientation to dosage probation. The orientation serves several purposes. It is an opportunity for community providers to learn about the dosage probation model and what to expect from a dosage probation partnership. It brings together providers in one place and time (in person or virtually) to receive accurate and consistent information. It also outlines the next steps for providers interested in exploring a partnership.

Decide Whom to Invite

The community service providers you invite to the orientation are at your discretion. However, it is recommended that you invite, at a minimum, those whom you know deliver evidence-based programs; with whom your probation agency or jurisdiction has a good working relationship, memorandums of understanding, or established contracts; and to whom your agency regularly refers people for programs addressing the five most influential criminogenic needs.

Some probation agencies invite all community service providers, regardless of the criminogenic needs their programs address, to get the word out about the agency’s dosage probation initiative and to foster the potential for future partnership growth. For instance, providers delivering services primarily targeting employment, education, or leisure/recreation may be interested in partnering around dosage probation and willing to implement new programs that incorporate cognitive behavioral or structured skill building interventions addressing the underlying causes of problems in those need areas (i.e., one or more of the five most influential criminogenic needs). Agencies taking this approach may not prioritize partnering with these providers over those addressing the five most influential criminogenic needs upon implementation. Still, they can work with them over time to build the community’s capacity to deliver dosage-eligible programs.

TIP

Regardless of your approach, it is recommended that you identify the criminogenic needs your community providers address before you send invitations to the orientation. This knowledge will help you begin thinking strategically about the landscape of dosage-eligible programs in your community and with whom your agency may or may not prioritize partnerships.

Review and Customize the Orientation Materials

You may start preparing for the orientation by reviewing the Dosage Probation Orientation for Community Service Providers Invitation Template (.doc). The letter offers suggested language and resources to acquaint community providers with the concept of dosage probation and to invite them to the orientation. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to best suit your needs.

You might also review the Dosage Probation Orientation for Community Service Providers Agenda Template (.doc). It includes the recommended meeting goals, topics, and discussion points to be covered and the time frames for each, totaling 90 minutes. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet your needs.

In addition, you might review the Dosage Probation Orientation for Community Service Providers Presentation Template (.ppt).The presentation follows and expands on the information in the agenda and contains suggested talking points. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet your needs. In particular, you will need to insert specific information on the slide about the next steps for providers interested in further exploring a dosage probation partnership (see "Gather and Assess Information from Community Service Providers" below). The modifications you make to the presentation may require changes to the agenda and vice versa.

TIP

Before you conduct the orientation, familiarize yourself with the community service provider information and activities presented in the Dosage Probation Toolkit. The more you know about how your probation agency will identify community service provider partners and align community-based services with the dosage probation model, the more comprehensively you can speak to these processes during the orientation.

The following handouts supplement the information in the invitation letter, agenda, and presentation: Dosage Probation: Rethinking the Structure of Probation Sentences (.pdf), Dosage Probation: A Prescription Based on Two Pilot Sites' Experiences (.pdf), and Dosage Probation Model Fundamentals (.pdf). Attach these handouts to your invitation letter so community service providers can familiarize themselves with the information before the orientation.

Gather and Assess Information from Community Service Providers

In addition to reviewing and customizing the orientation materials above, you will want to prepare for the next steps that service providers interested in exploring a dosage probation partnership will follow. At the end of the orientation, interested providers will be asked to share specific information about their organizations and programs.

TIP

"Further exploring" means that the providers who share information after the orientation express interest in a possible partnership and are not committing themselves or their organization to team up with your agency to implement dosage probation. During the next (preparation) phase of implementation, your agency will establish a community service provider subcommittee to continue engaging interested providers. By the end of the preparation phase, the subcommittee will identify those best positioned to partner around the delivery of evidence-based dosage hours depending on your agency's and dosage probation population's programming needs. In other words, your agency may initially partner with only some interested providers.

These next steps are an opportunity to (1) assess the level of interest in dosage probation among your community service providers and (2) gather preliminary information from interested providers to assess their willingness to engage in a partnership around dosage probation and to deliver—or build their capacity to deliver—evidence-based dosage hours. The questions below will help you assess these.

You may prepare by reviewing the Readiness Assessment Community Service Provider Information Template (.doc). The document contains instructions, introductory language, and questions for gathering information from interested providers about their organizations and programs. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet your needs. For efficiency purposes, it is recommended that you transfer the template into an electronically accessible form or survey that automatically populates responses into one spreadsheet (e.g., Google Forms, SurveyMonkey, Smartsheet). Agencies that cannot access web-based programs like these may consider gathering information from providers via email or interview instead. Regardless of how information is collected, it should be compiled into one spreadsheet for easy reference—which your future community service provider subcommittee will also appreciate.

TIP

You may wish to review the Community Service Provider Inventory Template (.xls) that your future community service provider subcommittee will complete for all interested providers. The spreadsheet contains the organizational and program elements valuable for understanding the landscape of programs in your community and for identifying the providers best positioned to partner with your agency around dosage probation. Some of the spreadsheet's items are also included in the above information template for the purpose of the readiness assessment.

 

Complete the Readiness Assessment Rating Form

Once the above-described activities have been accomplished, complete Part 3 of the Dosage Probation Readiness Assessment: Jurisdiction Rating Form (.doc). Use your assessment of the information gathered from community service providers to help you determine whether their interest and willingness to deliver or build their capacity to deliver dosage programming hours are an area of strength, are an area for improvement, or pose significant challenges to implementing dosage probation in your jurisdiction.

TIP

A critical activity in the third (planning) implementation phase is conducting fidelity assessments to ensure community-based programs adhere to the known principles of effective intervention (i.e., are effective at reducing recidivism) and can be counted as dosage. The University of Cincinnati's Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist (CPC) is a well-known fidelity assessment with weighted scoring across five domains correlated with recidivism: (1) leadership and development, (2) staff characteristics, (3) quality assurance, (4) assessment, and (5) treatment characteristics. It is recommended that you begin familiarizing yourself with the CPC and planning for its training process and cost.


Other evidence-based practices correctional program fidelity assessments may be available. If you choose another fidelity assessment, give it your due diligence to ensure it is an empirically validated assessment.

Please click here to leave your feedback for this page

 

Phase 2 - Preparation

Phase 2 - Preparation web_admin

The preparation phase is the second of the dosage probation implementation model’s four phases. You may begin this phase when you have completed the dosage probation readiness assessment and determined that your jurisdiction and probation agency are well positioned to implement the dosage probation model. All key stakeholders must support implementing dosage probation and agree to serve as dosage probation policy team members before you begin the implementation process.

The preparation phase lays the foundation for the work your jurisdiction and probation agency will complete during the third (planning) and fourth (implementation and evaluation) phases. 

The steps in this phase include the following:

  1. Establish a Dosage Probation Policy Team

  2. Establish a Dosage Probation Workgroup

  3. Identify Community Service Provider Partners

  4. Develop a Dosage Probation Logic Model

Please click here to leave your feedback for this page

 

Step 5 - Convene stakeholder group; establish Dosage Probation Policy Team

Step 5 - Convene stakeholder group; establish Dosage Probation Policy Team web_admin

Establishing your jurisdiction's Dosage Probation Policy Team is a critical step in preparing for implementation. This section helps you understand the purpose of the policy team and guides you in establishing and kicking off the team's activities and preparing for the next steps.

TO DO

  • Familiarize yourself with the primary role, responsibilities, and activities of the policy team
  • Secure commitment from your team members
  • Prepare for and conduct the policy team kickoff meeting
  • Develop your team charter
  • Get ready for the team's next steps

The Policy Team's Role and Responsibilities

The policy team is the jurisdiction's formal, multidisciplinary decision-making council that prepares and plans to implement the dosage probation model. The policy team comprises, at minimum, key stakeholders representing the judiciary, prosecution, defense, probation, law enforcement, and people harmed by crime. In addition, the policy team oversees the jurisdiction's implementation and evaluation efforts to ensure that the model's desired impacts (e.g., recidivism reduction, desistance from crime) are achieved.

When established and managed with intentionality, the policy team effectively collaborates with the probation agency's Dosage Probation Workgroup to develop and revise policies and practices that align with the dosage probation model, such as those related to sentencing, supervision, and discharge. Following implementation, the policy team continues working closely with probation to safeguard the effectiveness of the dosage probation model by monitoring progress regularly and recommending data-driven policy and practice adjustments as appropriate. Throughout these processes, the policy team actively ensures their colleagues receive the communication, education, and support required to integrate the new policies and practices into their professional duties and responsibilities, for example, enrolling all judges in dosage probation to help ensure their fidelity to the policy team's sentencing and discharge decisions.

NOTE

Collaboration Resources

The word "collaboration" is often used interchangeably with terms such as "communication," "coordination," and "cooperation" when, in fact, collaboration encompasses all of these meanings and more. Collaboration is the exchange of information, altering of activities, sharing of resources, and enhancement of the capacity of another for the mutual benefit of all and to achieve a common purpose.

When launching the Dosage Probation Policy Team, the chairperson (and possibly others responsible for convening and leading the policy team) is strongly urged to review the following resources on establishing and maintaining a collaborative policy-making environment.

 

The Policy Team's Core Activities

  • The policy team's primary activities throughout implementation include those listed below. The Dosage Probation Toolkit will lead the team through these activities.
  • Develop and approve a dosage probation logic model in collaboration with the Dosage Probation Workgroup.
  • Develop dosage probation policies and procedures by gathering and reviewing relevant data, current policies and practices, input from the workgroup on behalf of the probation agency, and other information—such as feedback from colleagues—and discussing and reaching an agreement on the Dosage Probation Policy Questions. The policy questions relate to sentencing, early discharge, performance measures and other data needs, stakeholder education or training, communications strategies, and the continuous quality improvement and sustainability of dosage probation.
  • Provide input on the policy decisions made by the workgroup on behalf of the probation agency.
  • Review data regarding the implementation and evaluation of dosage probation and recommend policy adjustments in collaboration with the probation agency as appropriate.

It is recommended that the policy team meet for at least 90 minutes monthly to accomplish their work and maintain a progressive and steady implementation pace. Ultimately, the policy team must agree on the frequency and duration of their meetings. The team should have sufficient time each month to share information, delve into discussions, and make informed policy decisions.

The policy team may also, at its discretion, establish ad hoc subcommittees to streamline the team's efforts. Subcommittees are often useful for gathering more information about a topic or issue, diving more deeply into discussions, or developing policy recommendations for the team's review and approval. For example, a communications subcommittee can create and offer to the policy team a protocol for responding to a dosage probation case that results in an unwanted, and perhaps public, outcome.

Secure Commitment from Your Policy Team Members

The first steps in mobilizing your Dosage Probation Policy Team are to garner support from the required stakeholders and confirm their willingness to serve as policy team members. At a minimum, the policy team must include the following key stakeholders:

  • Your local chief judge
  • Your local chief public defender
  • Your local elected district attorney
  • Your local chief of probation
  • Your local chief law enforcement officer (police and/or sheriff)
  • A local representative of people harmed by crime

 

Each key stakeholder should have been interviewed during the readiness assessment to determine their level of support for dosage probation and willingness to serve as a policy team member. All key stakeholders are essential to successfully implementing dosage probation and must have already agreed to join the policy team. It is not recommended that you implement dosage probation without the support and policy team participation of all key stakeholders. As some time has typically passed since the interviews, it is recommended that you follow up with each stakeholder accordingly to confirm their membership.

TIP

While your key stakeholders agreed to participate on the policy team, not all of them may fully support dosage probation or be 100% committed when they come to the table. Some stakeholders may have concerns about pledging their time, changing long-held policies and practices, or something else. Hesitation or indecision is a common response to change and can signify healthy skepticism. Sometimes simply agreeing to join and being open-minded and willing to learn are good first steps to building a collaborative and effective policy team.

Some policy teams choose to include additional stakeholders as permanent members or temporary guests, depending on the policy question or issue being addressed. For example, other criminal justice system officials—such as another judge, assistant/deputy personnel, or a communications specialist—might have expressed interest in or be invited to join at the policy team's discretion. Some policy teams also choose to assign delegates should members be absent from a meeting. The policy team typically consists of no more than 10 members—a group size that is large enough to bring diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives to the table but not so large that the number of people hinders the team's efficiency in making policy decisions and moving forward other implementation activities.

All policy team members must be champions of dosage probation. Experience demonstrates that the most effective policy teams consist of people who embrace their role as advocates and leaders of the dosage probation model for their jurisdiction. They make policy decisions impacting system stakeholders across various disciplines and continuously educate, enroll, and support their colleagues in implementing those policies. They also demonstrate positivity and optimism, respond to questions and inquiries, share information, collaborate with and gather input from others, spotlight successes, and resolve challenges for their jurisdiction.

TIP

Shared agreements among policymakers and stakeholders are critical to implementing dosage probation successfully. As learned through the original dosage probation pilot sites, all parties must be knowledgeable about and feel confident in dosage probation. For example, in Milwaukee County, ongoing communication and education proved critical to achieving buy-in among stakeholders, as some had a misperception that dosage would be "probation light." It is thus essential to secure agreement from each policy team member to continuously educate and engage leadership and other colleagues about the dosage model, the implementation plan, and progress made.

For more lessons learned regarding stakeholder support, see Dosage Probation: A Prescription Based on Two Pilot Sites' Experiences.

 

Prepare and Conduct Your Policy Team Kickoff

Getting your policy team off to a good start requires preparation. The kickoff meeting is designed to lay a strong foundation of knowledge and collaboration to support the policy team's decision making and other activities moving forward.

You may start preparing by reviewing the Dosage Probation Policy Team Kickoff Agenda Template (.doc). It includes the recommended meeting goals, topics, and discussion points to be covered and the time frames for each, totaling two hours. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your policy team or jurisdiction. For example, you may not want to allocate time for introductions if the policy team members know each other already. Or, you may decide to hold the meeting over two one-hour sessions instead of one two-hour session.

You may also begin by reviewing the Dosage Probation Policy Team Kickoff Presentation Template (.ppt). The presentation follows and expands on the information in the agenda and contains suggested talking points and approaches to discussions and activities. You must customize the slides with [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your policy team or jurisdiction. The modifications you make to the presentation may require changes to the agenda and vice versa.

TIP

Effective facilitation is critical to a successful meeting and much more. It is often the key to turning a group into a team and guiding them to make well-informed, consensus-based decisions. As you prepare to facilitate the policy team kickoff, you may find it useful to review the following resources: The Role of Facilitators and Staff in Supporting Collaborative Teams and Principles of Facilitation.

The following handouts supplement the information in the agenda and presentation: Dosage Probation Model Fundamentals, Dosage Probation Policy Team and Workgroup Leadership Roles and Responsibilities, and Dosage Probation Policy Questions. The presentation slides specify when each handout should be reviewed with the policy team during the kickoff. You may also include the National Institute of Corrections' dosage probation monographs: Dosage Probation: Rethinking the Structure of Probation Sentences and Dosage Probation: A Prescription Based on Two Pilot Sites' Experiences.

Develop Your Policy Team Charter

The next step in laying a strong foundation for your policy team is to develop a charter. A charter is a document that clarifies the policy team's purpose, goals, roles, and responsibilities and establishes the ground rules to be followed as the team carries out its activities. It is a source of information for team members and others to understand the direction and focus of the policy team and can help reduce confusion and duplication of efforts.

You may use the Dosage Probation Policy Team Charter Template (.doc) to develop your policy team's charter. The template includes your team's vision, mission, and values for the dosage probation initiative (see below); purpose; activities; meeting frequency and duration; membership; meeting norms; and roles and responsibilities. It also includes appendices with supplemental information. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your policy team or jurisdiction. For example, your jurisdiction may have other initiatives that complement or overlap with dosage probation. In this case, you could describe in your charter how dosage probation aligns with, and how the policy team can help avoid duplicate work, across the initiatives.

The policy team should have the opportunity to review and approve the final charter.

Craft Your Policy Team's Vision, Mission, and Values

A critical component of the charter is the policy team's vision, mission, and values statements. Together, they articulate what the team aspires to accomplish—where the team wants to go—and establish a clear direction and focus for achieving those goals—how the team intends to get there. When agreed upon, the vision, mission, and values represent the policy team's shared commitment to achieving its goals and act as a touchstone for collaboration and ongoing activities.

The policy team should begin developing its vision, mission, and values statements in a meeting soon after the kickoff and should strive to complete them within six months. It is also recommended that the policy team revisit the statements before implementation to ensure they are most salient.

TIP

The vision, mission, and values statements are your team's guidepost and should be crafted with careful thought. Some policy teams wait until after they give input on the dosage probation logic model, whose creation is led by the Dosage Probation Workgroup, when they better understand the desired impacts of implementing dosage probation. Other policy teams complete the statements earlier to help inform their input on the logic model and their policy decisions.

For more tips, see the National Institute of Corrections' Getting It Right: Collaborative Problem Solving for Criminal Justice, Evidence-Based Decision Making (EBDM) Starter Kit, Creating a Vision for Your Policy Team, and Developing a Mission for Your Policy Team.

 

Get Ready for Next Steps

Once the policy team is established and completes the kickoff, the policy team chairperson should begin preparing team members for their involvement in developing a dosage probation logic model. The logic model is the blueprint or roadmap for all activities leading to implementation. It establishes a shared understanding of the plans for change, drives how changes will be implemented, serves as a tool to assess progress, and ensures the desired results are achieved. While the Dosage Probation Workgroup will lead the logic modeling activities, the policy team should be knowledgeable and ready to share their input on the logic model's various components.

The Dosage Probation Policy Team chairperson should also begin guiding the policy team through the process of developing dosage probation policies and procedures. The policy team can start answering their assigned dosage probation policy questions and memorializing their decisions as soon as they finish their kickoff discussions. In contrast, the Dosage Probation Workgroup does not typically begin to concentrate on this process until the third (planning) phase of implementation. By then, the policy team will likely have remaining policy decisions and implementation activities to complete. The team will also diverge its attention to provide input on the dosage-specific policies and procedures developed by the workgroup.

Please click here to leave your feedback for this page

 

Step 6 - Establish Dosage Probation Workgroup

Step 6 - Establish Dosage Probation Workgroup web_admin

Establishing your jurisdiction's Dosage Probation Policy Team is a critical step in preparing for implementation. This section helps you understand the purpose of the policy team and guides you in establishing and kicking off the team's activities and preparing for the next steps.

TO DO

  • Familiarize yourself with the primary roles, responsibilities, and activities of the workgroup
  • Decide on your workgroup members
  • Prepare for and conduct the policy team kickoff meeting
  • Prepare for and conduct the workgroup kickoff meeting
  • Develop your workgroup charter
  • Get ready for the workgroup's next steps

The Workgroup's Roles and Responsibilities

The workgroup acts as your probation agency's core leadership in preparing and planning to implement the dosage probation model. The workgroup may also oversee implementation and subsequent policy and practice adjustments, depending on how your agency structures its implementation and evaluation efforts.

When established and managed with intentionality, the workgroup effectively guides the probation agency through the implementation process by developing and revising policies and practices and leveraging resources (within the probation agency, local criminal justice system, and community) to align with the dosage probation model. In addition, the workgroup actively provides all probation staff with the communication, education, engagement, and support needed to ready themselves for the new policies and practices they will be expected to incorporate into their daily work.

While primarily responsible for leading implementation efforts for your probation agency, the workgroup is also responsible for ensuring its policy and practice decisions align with those of system stakeholders, including judges, prosecutors, defense counselors, representatives of people harmed, law enforcement, and possibly others impacted by probation. For these reasons, the workgroup must engage collaboratively among themselves, with their peers, and with your jurisdiction's Dosage Probation Policy Team (comprised minimally of the system stakeholders mentioned above).

 

NOTE

The word "collaboration" is often used interchangeably with terms such as "communication," "coordination," and "cooperation," when in fact, collaboration encompasses all of these meanings and more. Collaboration is the exchange of information, altering of activities, sharing of resources, and enhancement of the capacity of anotherfor the mutual benefit of all and to achieve a common purpose.

When launching the Dosage Probation Workgroup, the chairperson (and possibly others responsible for convening and leading the workgroup) is strongly urged to review the following resources on establishing and maintaining a collaborative policy-making environment.

The Workgroup's Core Activities

The workgroup's primary activities throughout implementation include those listed below. The Dosage Probation Toolkit will lead the workgroup through these activities.

  • Develop a dosage probation logic model in collaboration with the Dosage Probation Policy Team, create related action plans, and use them to drive the agency's activities leading up to implementation.
  • Develop dosage probation policies and procedures by gathering and reviewing relevant data, current policies and practices, input from the policy team, and other information—such as feedback from probation staff—and discussing and reaching an agreement on the Dosage Probation Policy Questions. The policy questions relate to communications, early discharge, case planning and management, counting dosage, behavior management, cognitive behavioral programming delivered by probation and community-based service providers, training and coaching for fidelity, performance measures and other data needs, and the sustainability of dosage probation.
  • Share available data, current probation policies, and other information to assist the policy team in making informed policy decisions about dosage probation for your jurisdiction.
  • Identify local community-based service providers with whom to partner around dosage probation, and establish partnerships to align community-based services with the dosage probation model.
  • Ensure probation staff receive, before implementation, appropriate and sufficient training and coaching on evidence-based supervision policies and skills.
  • Collect, analyze, and share data with the policy team (and possibly others) regarding the implementation and evaluation of dosage to adjust probation policies and practices accordingly.

It is recommended that the workgroup meet two hours monthly, at minimum, to accomplish their work and maintain a progressive and steady implementation pace. Ultimately, the workgroup must agree on the frequency and duration of their meetings. The group should have sufficient time each month to share information, delve into discussions, and make informed policy decisions.

It is also recommended that the workgroup establish and regularly convene ad hoc subcommittees. Establishing subcommittees typically occurs after the workgroup develops their jurisdiction's dosage probation logic model—when more groundwork is needed to create and carry out specific action plans and other implementation activities.

Decide on Your Workgroup Members

The first step in mobilizing your Dosage Probation Workgroup is to invite interest and decide who will serve on the workgroup. You may speak with potential members individually, hold lunch-and-learns, or meet in another way to share information about dosage probation, the implementation model, and expectations of workgroup membership. Those who participated in the readiness assessment should be familiar with the information and may have already expressed interest in becoming more involved.

The workgroup typically consists of 12–15 probation staff—a group size that is large enough to bring diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives to the table but not so large that the number of people hinders the workgroup's efficiency in making policy decisions and moving forward other implementation activities. Some jurisdictions choose to involve others in the workgroup as permanent members or temporary guests, depending on the policy question or issue being addressed. For example, some workgroups may invite advocates of people harmed by crime, communications specialists, data analysts, or people with lived experience on probation.

Regardless of affiliation, all workgroup members must be ambassadors of dosage probation. Experience demonstrates that the most effective workgroups consist of people who embrace their role as leaders and champions of the dosage probation model. They continuously educate, enroll, and support their peers and other stakeholders (those in the local criminal justice system and community) in the implementation process. They demonstrate positivity and optimism, respond to questions and inquiries, share information, collaborate with and gather input from others, spotlight successes, and resolve challenges.

NOTE

Technical vs. Adaptive Leadership

The effective and sustainable implementation of new evidence-based programs or practices necessitates strong leadership to manage the change process. Two types of leadership are necessary to respond to implementation challenges effectively: technical and adaptive.

Technical leadership is used when there is a straightforward problem with a cut-and-dry solution (e.g., finding more space to deliver programming or adding language to a written policy or procedure). Technical leaders use existing knowledge and techniques to address problems and make decisions that are useful in practice.

Adaptive leadership is used when the problem or solution is not entirely straightforward or requires an experimental or nuanced approach or response (e.g., the agency lacks funding to hire additional staff to reduce workloads or staff are reluctant to use a new intervention). Adaptive leaders use their interpersonal skills to transform values, beliefs, roles, relationships, and how people approach their work.

All workgroup members must also be willing and have the time to undertake the legwork needed to reach implementation. Membership involves more than monthly meetings and policy decisions. Workgroup members develop and carry out action plans, write official policies and procedures, produce manuals, create educational materials and other new resources, and complete additional tasks to meet their agency's and jurisdiction's needs. These activities are usually done through individual, subcommittee, or workgroup efforts, or some combination thereof, depending on the decided course of action.

Prepare and Conduct Your Workgroup Kickoff

Getting your Dosage Probation Workgroup off to a good start requires preparation. The kickoff meeting is designed to lay a strong foundation of knowledge and collaboration to support the workgroup's policy decision making and other activities moving forward.

You may start preparing by reviewing the Dosage Probation Workgroup Kickoff Agenda Template (.doc). It includes the recommended meeting goals, topics, and discussion points to be covered and the time frames for each, totaling two hours. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your probation agency or workgroup. For example, you may wish to skip introductions if the workgroup members already know each other. Or, you may decide to hold the meeting over two one-hour sessions instead of one two-hour session.

You may also begin by reviewing the Dosage Probation Workgroup Kickoff Presentation Template (.ppt).The presentation follows and expands on the information in the agenda and contains suggested talking points and approaches to discussions and activities. You must customize the slides with [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your probation agency or workgroup. The modifications you make to the presentation may require changes to the agenda and vice versa.

TIP

Effective facilitation is critical to a successful meeting and much more. It is often the key to turning a group into a team and guiding them to make well-informed, consensus-based decisions. As you prepare to facilitate the workgroup kickoff, you may find it useful to review the following resources: The Role of Facilitators and Staff in Supporting Collaborative Teams(.pdf) and Principles of Facilitation (.pdf).

 

The following handouts supplement the information in the agenda and presentation: Dosage Probation Model Fundamentals (.pdf), Dosage Probation Policy Team and Workgroup Leadership Roles and Responsibilities (.pdf), and Dosage Probation Policy Questions (.pdf). The presentation slides specify when each handout should be reviewed with the workgroup during the kickoff. You may also include the National Institute of Corrections' dosage probation monographs: Dosage Probation: Rethinking the Structure of Probation Sentences (.pdf) and Dosage Probation: A Prescription Based on Two Pilot Sites' Experiences (.pdf) .

Develop Your Workgroup Charter

The next step in laying a strong foundation for your workgroup is to develop a charter. A charter is a document that clarifies the workgroup's purpose, goals, roles, and responsibilities and establishes the ground rules to be followed as the group carries out its activities. It is a source of information for group members and others to understand the direction and focus of the workgroup and can help reduce confusion and duplication of efforts.

You may use the Dosage Probation Workgroup Charter Template (.doc) to develop your workgroup's charter. The template includes your group's vision, mission, and values for the dosage probation initiative (see below); purpose; activities; meeting frequency and duration; membership; meeting norms; and roles and responsibilities. It also includes appendices with supplemental information. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your probation agency, workgroup, or jurisdiction. For example, your agency or jurisdiction may have other initiatives that complement or overlap with dosage probation. In this case, you could describe in your charter how dosage probation aligns with, and how the workgroup can help avoid duplicate work across, the initiatives.

The workgroup should have the opportunity to review and approve the final charter.

TIP

See the National Institute of Corrections' Evidence-Based Decision Making (EBDM) Starter Kit for more information about Creating a Charter (.pdf)

Craft Your Workgroup's Vision, Mission, and Values

A critical component of the charter is the workgroup's vision, mission, and values statements. Together, they articulate what the workgroup aspires to accomplish— where the group wants to go—and establish a clear direction and focus for achieving those goals— how the group intends to get there. When agreed upon, the vision, mission, and values represent the workgroup's shared commitment to achieving its goals and act as a touchstone for collaboration and ongoing activities.

The workgroup should begin developing its vision, mission, and values statements in a meeting soon after the kickoff and should strive to complete them within six months. It is also recommended that the policy team revisit the statements before implementation to ensure they are most salient.

TIP

The vision, mission, and values statements are your workgroup's guidepost and should be crafted with careful thought. Some workgroups wait until after they draft the dosage probation logic model, when they have a more well-rounded understanding of dosage probation and what the implementation process will entail for their agency and jurisdiction. Other workgroups complete the statements earlier to help inform their development of the logic model.

For more tips, see the National Institute of Corrections' Getting It Right: Collaborative Problem Solving for Criminal Justice (.pdf) , Evidence-Based Decision Making (EBDM) Starter Kit , Creating a Vision (.pdf) , and Developing a Mission (.pdf) .

 

 

Get Ready for Next Steps   

Once the workgroup is established and completes the kickoff, the workgroup chairperson should begin preparing members to develop a dosage probation logic model. Completing the logic model—in collaboration with the policy team—is one of the workgroup's core activities during the second (preparation) phase of implementation. The logic model is your blueprint or roadmap for all activities leading to implementation. It establishes a shared understanding of your plans for change, drives how changes will be implemented, serves as a tool to assess your progress, and ensures you achieve the expected results.

The workgroup chairperson should also establish a subcommittee to take charge of all activities related to identifying and aligning community service provider partners around dosage probation. As these activities require strategizing spanning the second (preparation) and third (planning) phases of implementation and will likely continue into the fourth (implementation and evaluation), it is recommended that the subcommittee start as soon as possible.

TIP

The preparation phase of implementation may also be a good time for the workgroup to begin developing dosage probation policies and procedures by answering some of their assigned dosage probation policy questions. While the logic model and community service provider efforts should take precedence, the policy questions are a productive alternative should the workgroup need to address any issues specific to the jurisdiction's or agency's needs. For example, the workgroup may want to agree on an internal communications strategy sooner rather than later to educate other probation staff about the group's efforts and alleviate any anxious feelings. The group may also have time to address questions as work is in progress or completed earlier than expected.

Please click here to leave your feedback for this page

 

Step 7 - Identify Community Service Provider Partners

Step 7 - Identify Community Service Provider Partners web_admin

A critical step in preparing for implementation is identifying which community service providers the probation agency wants to partner with to deliver dosage-eligible programming. To count as dosage, community-based programs must target one or more of the five most influential criminogenic needs—antisocial cognition, antisocial personality or temperament, procriminal companions, family/marital relationship challenges or stressors, and substance abuse—using cognitive behavioral interventions demonstrated by the research to reduce recidivism.

This section describes the scope of work for establishing a dosage probation partnership with providers and offers guidance in identifying your community service provider partners. The information in this section builds on your probation agency’s community service provider activities during the readiness assessment, specifically to assess service providers' capacity to deliver evidence-based dosage hours.

TO DO

  • Familiarize yourself with the scope of work for partnering with community service providers
  • Establish a community service provider subcommittee
  • Gather information from community service providers
  • Gather risk/needs assessment data
  • Determine which providers are best suited to partner with your probation agency
  • Get ready for the next steps

What Does "Partnership" with Community Service Providers Mean?

Under the dosage probation model, community service providers must deliver quality evidence-based programming that meets the needs of your dosage probation population. To achieve this goal, your probation agency must identify providers with whom to partner, establish a high level of collaboration with them, and support them as they help your jurisdiction implement dosage probation.

NOTE

What Exactly Is Collaboration?

The word "collaboration" is often used interchangeably with terms such as "communication," "coordination," and "cooperation." In fact, collaboration encompasses all these terms and more:

  • Communication: The exchange of information for mutual benefit
  • Coordination: Exchanging information and altering activities for mutual benefit and to achieve a common purpose
  • Cooperation: Exchanging information, altering activities, and sharing resources for mutual benefit and to achieve a common purpose
  • Collaboration: Exchanging information, altering activities, sharing resources, and enhancing the capacity of one another for the mutual benefit of all and to achieve a common purpose

In this way, collaboration requires a formal and sustained commitment to working with others rather than alone, thinking about shared outcomes and strategies rather than siloed activities, and demanding long-term results rather than short-term accomplishments. Collaboration relies heavily on the conviction that organizations that share values and goals can accomplish more by working together than on their own while retaining uniqueness and autonomy.

Partnering with community service providers to implement dosage probation involves two steps, each containing a set of activities:

1. Identify your community service provider partners. This step is completed during the dosage probation implementation model's second (preparation) phase. The step’s activities (explained below) generally include establishing a community service provider subcommittee, gathering information about the programs offered in the community, collecting relevant data, and determining which providers are best suited to partner around dosage probation.

2. Align community-based services with the dosage probation model. This step is completed during the dosage probation implementation model's third (planning) phase. The step’s activities generally include establishing partnership expectations, developing collaborative policies and procedures (such as those related to referrals, information sharing, and counting dosage), conducting an evidence-based practices fidelity assessment (such as the Correctional Program Checklist (CPC) or equivalent) of providers’ programs, and developing a follow-up process to assist community providers in strengthening their delivery of recidivism-reduction programming.

Establish Your Community Service Provider Subcommittee

The first step in mobilizing your partnership with community service providers is establishing a community service provider subcommittee. The subcommittee is responsible for leading and carrying out the above activities and other relevant tasks identified through your jurisdiction's dosage probation logic model.

Subcommittee members are your jurisdiction's resident experts on partnering with your community providers and the primary contact points for providers throughout implementation. The subcommittee typically comprises Dosage Probation Workgroup members or a combination of workgroup members and other probation staff with experience or interest in working with local community service providers.

Subcommittees may start with only a few members or several, depending on the probation agency's resources. Membership number and composition will likely evolve as the subcommittee continues its activities. Depending on the issue or challenge being addressed, the subcommittee may invite others as temporary guests. For example, other probation staff, a community liaison from the health and human services department, or someone from a local nonprofit coordinating community-based services may help gather information from or engage local providers.

Prepare for Subcommittee Meetings

It is recommended that subcommittee members accomplish the following agenda items during their first meeting or two, although these may be adapted to meet the subcommittee’s needs:

  1. Identify your subcommittee’s leadership
    • Decide on a chairperson to develop the subcommittee’s meeting goals and agendas, facilitate discussions and decisions, delegate tasks as needed, and oversee activities and progress
    • Decide on a meeting coordinator to schedule the subcommittee’s meetings, arrange the meeting location and needed technology, and ensure that members have the information, resources, and assistance needed to participate in meetings and complete their work
    • Decide on a meeting recorder to take notes and prepare the subcommittee’s meeting records
  2. Develop a shared understanding of the community service provider information and activities presented in the Dosage Probation Toolkit 
  3. Identify your subcommittee’s next steps regarding the community service provider information and activities presented in this section of the Dosage Probation Toolkit
  4. Agree on a regular meeting time

The subcommittee's subsequent efforts focus on the activities listed below:

  • Develop a shared understanding of the work to be accomplished by the subcommittee according to your jurisdiction's dosage probation logic model (when available)
  • Create a logic model action plan including the goals, tasks, timelines, persons responsible, etc., for completing the logic model’s relevant activities and the community service provider steps and activities described above
  • Complete the relevant logic model action plan tasks according to the decided timelines
  • Provide progress updates and gather input from the Dosage Probation Workgroup and Dosage Probation Policy Team as appropriate
  • Adapt or update the action plan as needed (e.g., based on feedback from the Dosage Probation Workgroup, Dosage Probation Policy Team, and community service providers, or based on challenges or lessons learned)
  • Leverage resources to ensure your probation agency and community service providers can partner around delivering evidence-based dosage hours
  • Address barriers or challenges to partnering with community service providers

The subcommittee should adapt its work to meet the needs of the probation agency, community service providers, and jurisdiction. The subcommittee should meet regularly and will likely assign interim work to be completed by individual members or small subsets of the committee. A progressive and steady work pace must be maintained to ensure the probation agency and its community service provider partners are well-prepared on the date of implementation (as agreed upon by the policy team and workgroup).

Gather Information from Community Service Providers

The next step toward identifying your community service provider partners is gathering information about the programs they offer to people in your community who are justice-involved. The community service provider subcommittee should take charge of these efforts.

The goal of information gathering is to develop an inventory of programs delivered by community providers interested in partnering with your agency and to understand the intricacies of these programs. For example, it may be clear which providers offer treatment for people with a substance use disorder, but it may not be readily apparent whether the programming also addresses, for example, antisocial cognition, or how much of the programming time is spent on criminogenic needs versus administrative or other tasks such as check-ins, paperwork, and so on. Let's say a program dedicates 15 minutes to housekeeping or checking in, 45 minutes to the intervention, and 15 minutes to debriefing or completing administrative tasks. In this case, only 45 minutes of the total time can be counted as dosage.

Information gathering is also an opportunity to educate, engage, and strengthen relationships with local providers around recidivism-reduction practices and dosage probation. Providers are experts at delivering services that align with the disease or medical treatment model and often need to become more familiar with the recidivism-reduction model. While they learned about recidivism-reduction interventions during their readiness assessment orientation, they may benefit from continued learning and reinforcement of these concepts. In addition, a critical part of educating and engaging providers involves sharing more information about what they can expect from the fidelity assessment process—participating in the CPC (or equivalent) and subsequent action planning to strengthen their programs based on the assessment’s results—in which they will need to partake should they decide to partner around dosage probation.

NOTE

Cognitive Behavioral Interventions

In short, cognitive behavioral interventions help people identify and change negative thinking patterns and behaviors to improve outcomes. Cognitive behavioral interventions that produce the most significant reductions in recidivism:

  • Offer one-on-one interventions or limit group programming to 6–12 participants
  • Use a structured, manualized, evidence-based curriculum
  • Use a trained facilitator
  • Address criminogenic needs (especially the five most influential)
  • Build skills through demonstration and practice
  • Are of sufficient length and intensity to ensure skills are modeled, practiced, and reinforced

You may find the following resources helpful if you want to learn more about effective cognitive behavioral interventions.

  • The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) offers many resources on its Cognitive Behavioral Therapy web page, including broadcasts, videos, webinars, information about cognitive behavioral therapy and populations with specific needs, program evaluations, and more. In addition, NIC’s Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment: A Review and Discussion for Corrections Professionals has several chapters describing cognitive-behavioral treatment and evaluating the most prominent programs for people who are justice-involved.
  • The National Institute of Justice’s CrimeSolutions.gov is a searchable database of criminal justice programs, interventions, and practices rated on a continuum of evidence ranging from effective to promising, inconclusive, or no effects. CrimeSolutions uses a standardized process of reviewing and summarizing research to assist the field in understanding what works and does not work to achieve criminal justice-related outcomes.

Subcommittee members may begin by familiarizing themselves with the Community Service Provider Inventory Template (.xls) The spreadsheet contains the organizational and program elements valuable for understanding the landscape of programs in your community and identifying the providers best positioned to partner with your agency around delivering dosage-eligible programming. The spreadsheet also contains prompts for when to complete relevant tasks, such as collecting materials and conducting observations. Your subcommittee may modify the spreadsheet to address the unique dynamics or needs of your agency or community providers.

TIP

Program inventories can take time to complete. You may need to connect with providers more than once to gather all the information and complete all the tasks necessary. While the information-gathering process should not be rushed, your subcommittee may find it beneficial to set a soft deadline to ensure the inventory is completed in a timely manner.

Community providers who attended the dosage probation orientation—delivered during the readiness assessment phase of implementation—will have already received information about their next steps in exploring a dosage probation partnership with your agency. For example, providers may have been invited to contact someone in your agency with their interest, provide preliminary information about their programs, or a combination of the two. The subcommittee should follow up with interested providers accordingly.

Subcommittees typically correspond with and gather information from providers by phone, email, meetings (virtual or in-person), electronic forms, group observations, or some combination thereof, depending on how the subcommittee and providers prefer to engage in the process.

Gather Risk/Needs Assessment Data

Gathering information about community-based programming is critical but insufficient to determine the community service providers best positioned to partner with your agency around dosage probation. In addition to understanding the intricacies of community-based programs, the subcommittee must also gather data to understand the needs of the expected dosage probation population and how the programs in the community align or misalign with these needs.

You may not have to start from scratch if relevant data was collected during the readiness assessment. Additionally, if you have data analysts or support specialists, it could be helpful to seek their assistance.

The subcommittee may start by reviewing the available risk/needs assessment data. The data should meet the criteria listed below:

  • Include people on active, non-administrative probation supervision
  • Include people sentenced to two or more years
  • Exclude people with disqualifying conditions, such as non-resident or transfer cases, detainers through ICE or other jurisdictions, etc.
  • Exclude people with offenses that the Dosage Probation Policy Team has determined are ineligible for early discharge through dosage probation

You may run preliminary data and need to conduct a secondary data pull once all listed fields are known. The data should ultimately indicate the following:

  • The number of people expected to be eligible for early discharge through dosage probation with a moderate, moderate/high, and very high likelihood of recidivism
  • Percentages reflecting the most influential or highest-scoring criminogenic need areas for each risk level

Data collection is fluid. It is not uncommon for probation agencies to change or modify how and what data is collected. If your probation agency lacks the data you want to collect, now is the time to begin planning how those data needs will be met. If you have the data but, upon review, you suspect its accuracy (e.g., people with a high likelihood of recidivism have low-scoring needs in antisocial cognition or antisocial personality or temperament), now is a good opportunity to identify the cause. For example, the issue could be the method of data collection or analysis or the administration of the assessment. Discuss the issue with others (e.g., probation leadership, data analysts, or IT staff) as needed and add it to your jurisdiction’s dosage probation logic model for improvement.

Risk/needs assessment data is crucial for performance measurement, but don’t let a lack of data be a showstopper. Take this opportunity to assess your agency’s data capabilities, and use the logic model action planning process to strategize how your agency will build its data capacity during the implementation process and beyond.

Choose Your Community Service Provider Partners

When completed, the subcommittee's inventory of community-based programs and review of risk/needs assessment data will provide the information needed to examine which community service providers are willing and able to partner with your probation agency around dosage probation.

The entire subcommittee should convene to interpret the results and agree on the community service provider partners to recommend to the Dosage Probation Workgroup for review and input. Each subcommittee member should review the completed inventory and risk/needs assessment data beforehand. The complexity of the discussion will depend on the number and quality of evidence-based programs offered in your community and the estimated needs of your dosage probation population, among other considerations.

At a minimum, your community service provider partners should have the willingness and ability to:

  • Deliver evidence-based programs—using structured curricula—that teach cognitive behavioral techniques and/or prosocial skill building
  • Offer programming that meets one or more of your dosage probation population's most influential criminogenic needs
  • Provide accessible programming to the people on probation in your area
  • Engage in developing a memorandum of understanding, contract, or something similar with your agency to agree on partnership expectations
  • Engage in regular fidelity assessments and participate in action planning to strengthen programs, as identified by the assessment

Every community is different. Some have access to an abundance of evidence-based treatment programs, others are critically limited, and most face service delivery challenges and difficulties. With input from the Dosage Probation Workgroup or other interested stakeholders, your subcommittee will likely need to consider the unique challenges of community service providers and the quality of programs in your area when weighing the potential for and deciding on future partnerships.

Get Ready for Next Steps

Once you have identified your community service provider partners, you can align community-based services with the dosage probation model. The community service provider subcommittee will work hand in glove with your agency’s provider partners to establish an infrastructure to support and sustain the implementation of dosage probation (i.e., putting into place memorandums of understanding, contracts, or something similar; establishing policies and procedures; and completing a fidelity assessment to strengthen the delivery of quality cognitive behavioral programming in the community).

The subcommittee will also want to start planning how to manage other community service providers who may express interest in a dosage probation partnership. As providers often share information with each other, additional providers may become interested in and want to learn more about dosage probation.

Please click here to leave your feedback for this page

 

Step 8 - Develop Dosage Probation Logic Model

Step 8 - Develop Dosage Probation Logic Model web_admin

Developing a dosage probation logic model is essential in preparing for implementation. The logic model is your jurisdiction’s blueprint or roadmap for implementing dosage probation and reflects the areas for advancement identified by your Dosage Probation Policy Team and Dosage Probation Workgroup. It illustrates current resources and activities supportive of implementation, the immediate changes expected from the activities, and desired long-term impacts. In other words, the logic model establishes a shared understanding of the plans for change, drives how changes will be put in place, serves as a tool to assess progress, and ensures the expected results are achieved.

TIP

Have a look at the logic models developed by two dosage probation pilot sites: Washington County, Minnesota, and Dodge-Olmsted Counties, Minnesota. While the logic models reflect the individualities of the different counties, they both include the essential components of a logic model and share a vision for implementing dosage probation. Your jurisdiction’s logic model should do the same.

The workgroup and policy team will work together to develop the logic model. The workgroup should expect to develop the logic model, and the policy team should expect to provide input. In fact, both the workgroup and policy team have already started the logic modeling process by completing the “What Does Success Look Like?” activity during the kickoff meetings (more on that below).

The policy team and workgroup chairpersons should formally begin the logic modeling process with their team and group members after completing their kickoff discussions. From start to finish, the process typically takes 4–6 months—approximately 3–4 months for the workgroup to develop the logic model and 1–2 months to “finalize” it, assuming both the workgroup and policy team meet monthly. The workgroup will then establish subcommittees responsible for developing and carrying out action plans based on the logic model during the following two implementation phases.

TIP

Don’t expect to finish your logic model by the end of this (preparation) phase of implementation. Instead, strive to draft a near-complete version that addresses each logic model component and accurately reflects your jurisdiction’s vision for change. Many workgroups wait until the next implementation phase to collect baseline data and insert specific numbers or percentages into the logic model. In addition, your logic model will continue to evolve, and the workgroup and policy team should work together to refine it throughout implementation.   

This section guides the collaborative development of a dosage probation logic model for your jurisdiction, action planning, and preparation for the next steps. The chairpersons of the Dosage Probation Policy Team and Dosage Probation Workgroup are encouraged to familiarize themselves with all the information in this section to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the logic modeling process and effective collaboration.

TO DO

•    Complete logic modeling with the policy team 
•    Complete logic modeling and action planning with the workgroup
•    Get ready for the workgroup’s next steps

Complete Logic Modeling with the Policy Team

The Dosage Probation Policy Team chairperson(s) will lead their team members’ logic modeling efforts. As the chairperson, you can anticipate completing the following tasks:

•    Plan and facilitate a policy team meeting to develop initial input on the logic model
•    Share the policy team’s initial input with the Dosage Probation Workgroup chairperson(s)
•    Ensure the policy team has the opportunity to provide feedback on the near-complete logic model developed by the workgroup

Prepare and Facilitate the Policy Team Meeting

You may start preparing by reviewing the Dosage Probation Policy Team Logic Modeling Agenda Template (.doc). It includes the recommended meeting goals, topics, and discussion points to be covered and the time frames for each, totaling 90 minutes. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your policy team. For example, you may wait to introduce the vision, mission, and values at the next meeting or extend the meeting time to allow for more discussion.

You may also review the Introduction to Logic Modeling for the Dosage Probation Policy Team Presentation Template (.ppt). The presentation examines the importance of a logic model, defines its components, and includes a brainstorming activity on desired impacts of dosage probation and the contextual conditions that can affect implementation. This activity will provide the workgroup with the policy team’s initial input on the logic model. The presentation contains suggested talking points and approaches to discussions and activities. You must customize the slides with [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your policy team. The modifications you make to the presentation may require changes to the agenda and vice versa.

Following the meeting, share the policy team’s brainstorming results with the workgroup’s chairperson(s) to incorporate into the logic model.

Plan for Next Steps

Once input has been provided on the logic model, you can guide the policy team through its next core activity of developing dosage probation policies and procedures. In meetings during the second (preparation) and third (planning) phases of implementation, and likely into the fourth (implementation and evaluation), the policy team will make evidence-based and data-informed policy decisions regarding the sentencing, supervision, and early discharge of people on probation in collaboration with the workgroup.

In several months, you will hear from the workgroup chairperson(s) to coordinate a policy team meeting time to present a near-complete version of the logic model to the team. In preparation for the presentation and discussion, develop the meeting agenda accordingly and ensure it is shared with members beforehand, along with a copy of the logic model. You may also include a few questions for them to consider in advance (e.g., Does the logic model include the impacts and contextual conditions we identified early on? Do the impacts align with our team’s vision, mission, and values? What questions do you have about the logic model?).

The policy team and workgroup’s chairperson will want to agree on when subsequent briefings may be appropriate (e.g., delivering additional logic model presentations or sharing updated versions). The policy team should also receive opportunities to review and refine the logic model in the following implementation phases.

Complete Logic Modeling with the Workgroup

The Dosage Probation Workgroup chairperson(s) will lead their group members in developing the logic model. As the chairperson, you can expect to guide your workgroup through the following activities:

•    Plan and facilitate a series of logic modeling meetings with the workgroup
•    Create and revise the logic model diagram based on the workgroup’s discussions
•    “Finalize” the logic model with the policy team and workgroup
•    Plan for and establish subcommittees based on the logic model
•    Oversee the subcommittees’ development of action plans based on the logic model

Consider enlisting help from group members with skills beneficial to the logic modeling process, such as the ability to create the logic model diagram, envision the logic model in its totality (i.e., understand how each component leads to the next and reflects the vision for change), facilitate brainstorming, present to a diverse group of stakeholders, or lead or motivate other group members in subcommittee work.

Introduce Logic Modeling to the Workgroup

You may start preparing by reviewing the Dosage Probation Workgroup Introduction to Logic Modeling Agenda Template (.doc). It includes the recommended meeting goals, topics, and discussion points to be covered in the workgroup’s first meeting following kickoff and the time frames for each, totaling two hours. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your workgroup. For example, you may wait to introduce the vision, mission, and values at the next meeting and reallocate the time to begin logic modeling (see “Begin Logic Modeling with the Workgroup,” below) in the same meeting, while the information is fresh.

You may also review the Introduction to Logic Modeling for the Dosage Probation Workgroup Presentation Template (.ppt). The presentation follows and expands on the information in the agenda and contains instructional videos, discussion questions, and information about upcoming logic modeling activities. The presentation comprises suggested talking points and approaches to discussions and activities. You must customize the slides with [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your workgroup. The modifications you make to the presentation may require changes to the agenda and vice versa.

The group may watch the videos together during the meeting, or you may share them beforehand. The videos include Logic Model Chapter 1 (.mp4) and Logic Model Chapter 2 (.mp4).  The Carey Group developed the logic modeling video series used in this section with permission from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the Center for Effective Public Policy based on the materials they developed for jurisdictions participating in NIC’s Evidence-Based Decision Making Initiative (EBDM).

TIP

Begin identifying any preliminary steps that need to be taken to ensure the workgroup is ready to establish subcommittees when the time comes. In addition to reviewing the “Plan Your Logic Model Subcommittees” guidance below, your probation agency will want to consider how these additional efforts may impact existing workloads and make needed adjustments.

Begin Logic Modeling with the Workgroup

You may start by reviewing the Dosage Probation Workgroup Logic Modeling Agenda Template (.doc). It includes the recommended meeting goals, topics, and discussion points to be covered, totaling four hours. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your workgroup. For example, you may adjust the break times, extend the meeting length, or hold it over a series of shorter weekly or biweekly sessions.

You may also review the Dosage Probation Workgroup Logic Modeling Presentation Template (.ppt). The presentation follows and expands on the information in the agenda, contains the Logic Model Chapter 3 (.mp4)  instructional video, and helps guide the workgroup’s brainstorming activity. The presentation includes suggested talking points and approaches to discussions and activities. You must customize the slides with [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your workgroup. In particular, you will need to adjust several slides to tailor the brainstorming activity to your jurisdiction (see below). The modifications you make to the presentation may require changes to the agenda and vice versa.

To ensure a successful brainstorming session, you will want to prepare to facilitate the session in advance. The brainstorming activity engages group members in generating ideas for each component of the logic model, which will provide the information needed to develop a first draft (see “Create and Refine Your Logic Model,” below). Start by reviewing the Dosage Probation Workgroup Logic Model Brainstorming Guide (.doc), which references the Brainstorming Activity Flip Chart Headers (.doc).

TIP

A good timetable to complete brainstorming is 4–6 hours. For many groups, the activity elicits thoughtful discussions and questions and spotlights challenges and concerns regarding how your probation agency or jurisdiction will implement dosage probation. This is a good sign: group members are engaged and thinking strategically about what implementation will look like. Allow them space to share their ideas, questions, and concerns while keeping their participation productive and progressive.

Create and Refine Your Logic Model

Once the workgroup completes the brainstorming activity, the chairperson(s) and/or anyone helping to create the logic model diagram can review the group’s ideas and draw up the first draft. To format your logic model, you can use any application that allows you to create a flow chart (e.g., Adobe Illustrator, Canva, PowerPoint, Visio, or Word).

Before you begin, you may wish to refresh yourself on the steps to developing a logic model in the Logic Model Chapter 3 (.mp4) video. You may also find helpful pointers in the first 1 minute and 47 seconds of Logic Model Chapter 4 (.mp4) . Start your diagram using the Dosage Probation Logic Model Template (.ppt), which may be adjusted to meet your needs, or create your own.

TIP

Drawing up the diagram gives structure to the workgroup’s brainstorming for the first time. This process can be time-consuming and challenging, like putting together a puzzle. While the logic model should accurately reflect the group’s brainstorming session, the person drafting the diagram may need to move some of their ideas around or suggest adjustments or additions, ensuring a logical flow of activities (from top to bottom) and components (from left to right). Remember that teamwork is crucial, so whoever is creating the diagram should avoid filling in too many gaps alone. The first draft will not be complete, but it should be in good shape for the next group discussion.

The chairperson(s) should shepherd the process of reviewing and refining the draft logic model with the workgroup during their monthly meetings. Ensure that each version of the logic model is shared with group members beforehand, along with the meeting agenda. You may also include questions to help members prepare for discussions (e.g., What questions do you have about the logic model? What changes do you suggest? What is missing? Do the activities make sense to you? How do you propose we measure [an output, outcome, or impact]? What suggestions do you have to fill in [a gap]?). Each meeting should progress the development of the logic model until it is near-complete, as described earlier in this section.

Once the workgroup develops a near-complete version, you may use the Dosage Probation Logic Model Review Checklist (.doc) to ensure the logic model achieves its purpose. You may find it helpful to ask all group members, a small subset of the group, or someone not involved in developing the logic model to complete the checklist. Ensure group members share, discuss, and agree on the checklist’s results. When the group is ready, you can take the next step of sharing the logic model with the policy team.

“Finalize” Your Logic Model

Once the workgroup feels confident in the logic model they developed, the chairperson(s) should contact the policy team’s chairperson(s) to share the logic model and coordinate and plan a meeting time to present and gather the policy team’s feedback. You and the policy team chairperson(s) will want to agree on the information shared, flow, and timing of the presentation to ensure full participation and the efficient use of time. For example, the policy team may be most interested in discussing the components on which they already gave their input (i.e., contextual conditions and impacts), the measurable outcomes and impacts, or a combination thereof.  

TIP

Consider sharing and gathering feedback from other stakeholders interested in your jurisdiction’s logic model and expected impacts (e.g., county commissioners or state officials). Leadership support is crucial to successful implementation. In addition, these stakeholders can often provide valuable information or resources. For example, county or state leaders often have insights into pending leadership or legislation changes and state-level initiatives that could support or challenge implementation. They may also be willing to offer funding or personnel support to help complete necessary tasks.

In preparation for the presentation, you will also want to decide who from the workgroup is best suited or skilled to present the logic model and facilitate a discussion with the policy team to gather their input. Some workgroups agree that the chairperson(s) is best positioned. Some agree that the chairperson(s) and another group member—for example, someone exceptionally knowledgeable about the logic model or who has experience presenting to stakeholder groups—should copresent. Still, others ask that the probation chief take the lead as the probation agency’s leader and a policy team member.  

TIP

The logic model presentation to the policy team is an excellent opportunity to spotlight the workgroup’s accomplishments, promote transparent communication, and build stakeholder confidence in dosage probation and your agency. Prepare your presentation in advance, and plan how to address the questions, concerns, or challenges you anticipate hearing from stakeholders. As you prepare, the policy team chairperson(s) could be a helpful sounding board.

After the policy team’s feedback is gathered, share their comments and suggestions with the workgroup and refine the logic model together at the next meeting. Depending on the next steps agreed upon with the policy team, you may need to coordinate and plan an additional presentation or share the revised version of the logic model. When the workgroup and the policy team agree on a “final” version, you can begin the next steps of establishing subcommittees and developing action plans.

TIP

Remember, nothing is set in stone. As efforts toward implementation progress, the workgroup and policy team should continue refining the logic model and may want to regularly review the contextual conditions for changes that should be incorporated.

Plan Your Logic Model Subcommittees

Before action planning, you will want to plan your logic model’s subcommittees. The subcommittees are responsible for creating action plans based on your logic model (see “Establish Your Subcommittees and Develop Action Plans,” below) and for carrying out those plans during the following two implementation phases (see “Get Ready for Next Steps,” below).

You will want to review your logic model to decide which subcommittees are needed. Depending on your logic model’s goals or work areas, you may have subcommittees dedicated to risk/needs assessment, case planning, behavior management, in-house cognitive behavioral programs, training/continuous quality improvement, data management, etc. You should already have an established community service provider subcommittee, which should now also be responsible for the portion of the logic model relevant to building community-based dosage probation partnerships.

TIP

As you plan the subcommittees, you may find that an activity or portion of the logic model (e.g., stakeholder communications, stakeholder education, or court processes that need streamlining to implement dosage probation effectively) requires assistance from, or is best overseen by, the policy team. In this case, you should guide the policy team chairperson(s) and/or the subcommittee in their next steps.

After deciding on the subcommittees, you will want to consider each subcommittee’s membership. Subcommittee members are your probation agency’s resident experts on implementing their portion of the logic model. Each subcommittee should comprise workgroup members (and possibly management officials) who lead, take the initiative, and are knowledgeable, skilled, or otherwise have experience or interest in a particular area of work. The size of subcommittees typically varies based on the work area and the effort required to implement the action plan. Nonetheless, the composition and quantity of members will likely change over time. For example, probation leadership, other staff, or representatives of a stakeholder’s office (e.g., advocates of people harmed by crime, data analysts, or public information officers) can be invited to join as permanent members or temporary guests, depending on the subcommittee’s needs or the issue or challenge being addressed.

TIP

Subcommittees provide an excellent opportunity to involve people who are not part of the workgroup, such as other probation leadership and staff. When everyone is engaged, listened to, and respected in developing new policies and practices, they are more likely to understand and approve of them, increasing the likelihood of their commitment to using them effectively. Once your workgroup’s subcommittees are formed, consider how you will encourage them to invite others who could help them in their efforts.

When creating subcommittees, some chairpersons request volunteers during a workgroup meeting. This can be an effective tactic for investing members in the implementation process. However, ensuring each subcommittee has the appropriate leadership and diversity in knowledge, skill, and experience can be challenging. Alternatively, some prefer to orchestrate the composition of each subcommittee by working behind the scenes to “tap” or engage members (and possibly management or other leadership officials) who have specific leadership qualities, knowledge, skill, experience, or interest to serve on or volunteer for a particular subcommittee. Others combine the two approaches, such as ensuring each subcommittee includes people with leadership skills or knowledge in a topic and allowing the remaining members to volunteer. You should choose the best approach based on your probation agency’s resources and workgroup needs. In any case, each subcommittee should ultimately decide on its leadership (i.e., chairperson, meeting coordinator, and recorder) and be self-sufficient to lead its activities and progress with minimal supervision.

Establish Your Subcommittees and Develop Action Plans

Once you have planned your logic model subcommittees, it is time to formally establish membership and start action planning. Each subcommittee must decide on its operational norms (e.g., leadership, meeting frequency, duration) and create a specific action plan that aligns with its assigned goal or work area in the logic model. An action plan is a detailed expression of the logic model that guides and allows subcommittees (and others) to closely monitor progress in completing their implementation activities, outcomes, and goals.

You may prepare by reviewing the Dosage Probation Workgroup Action Planning Agenda Template (.doc). It includes the recommended meeting goals, topics, and discussion points to be covered and the time frames for each, totaling two hours. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your workgroup. For example, the workgroup may have finished its vision, mission, and values statements, in which case, you may wish to shorten the length of the meeting to allow the newly established subcommittees time to meet, or you may include an additional item on the agenda depending on the probation agency’s or workgroup’s needs.

You may also review the Introduction to Action Planning for the Dosage Probation Workgroup Presentation Template (.ppt). The presentation follows and expands on the information in the agenda and contains a Logic Model Chapter 4 (.mp4) instructional video, discussion questions, and information to guide upcoming subcommittee activities. The presentation comprises suggested talking points and approaches to discussions and activities. You must customize the slides with [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the needs of your workgroup. The modifications you make to the presentation may require changes to the agenda and vice versa.

The Dosage Probation Action Plan Template (.doc) supplements the information in the agenda and presentation. Each subcommittee should use the template to develop its action plan and track progress toward its assigned goals and outcomes. It is recommended that the subcommittees finish creating their action plans within a couple of months to ensure a steady and progressive work pace. The subcommittees should adjust or update their action plans as their work evolves over the next two implementation phases.

Get Ready for Next Steps

To ensure the timely development of action plans and completion of activities by the implementation date (as agreed upon by the policy team and workgroup), it is important for the logic model's subcommittees to continue meeting regularly. While each subcommittee should determine its meeting frequency, starting with at least one one-hour monthly meeting is recommended. The frequency of meetings will likely vary as subcommittees progress and delegate interim tasks to individual members or small groups within the committee.

The workgroup chairperson(s) and subcommittee chairpersons should also meet regularly. Holding regular meetings helps maintain consistency in monitoring the progress of subcommittees as they work toward completing their activities. This approach also ensures that the subcommittees work together efficiently to avoid possible duplication of efforts on any overlapping goals or activities and address any technical or adaptive challenges that may arise. Regular meetings are also an opportunity to determine when to bring updates and specific questions or challenges to the workgroup for consideration and input.

TIP

Now is a good time to create an electronic shared folder, if one is not already available, to house all of the workgroup’s and subcommittees’ materials (e.g., meeting agendas and notes, resources, action plans, drafts, and final documents). Consider assigning responsibility for saving and updating these materials to the coordinators of the workgroup and subcommittee meetings.

Furthermore, the people in charge of data management for implementing dosage probation (e.g., the data subcommittee, support staff, or data analysts) will want to begin collecting and evaluating data. Firstly, they will want to define in measurable terms the desired outcomes and impacts outlined in your jurisdiction’s logic model, if that step has yet to be taken. In addition, they will want to gather baseline data and set benchmarks for the percentages or figures, if not already included, to achieve the desired outcomes and impacts. Those responsible for data management should also share their logic model progress with the workgroup and policy team for input.

In addition to ongoing subcommittee efforts, the workgroup can now turn its focus to developing policies and procedures for dosage probation. It is recommended that the workgroup maintain its monthly two-hour meetings to allow ample time for subcommittee updates or discussions, in-depth policy discussions, and prompt decision-making.

Please click here to leave your feedback for this page

 

Phase 3 - Planning

Phase 3 - Planning web_admin
Dosage Probation Planning

The planning phase is the third of the dosage probation implementation model’s four phases. This phase’s steps and activities ensure the jurisdiction is ready for the fourth and final implementation and evaluation phase.

The Dosage Probation Policy Team may begin this phase after completing its kickoff activities and sharing with the Dosage Probation Workgroup initial feedback on the desired impacts and contextual conditions affecting implementation to be added to the dosage probation logic model.

The Dosage Probation Workgroup may begin this phase after completing its kickoff activities and the jurisdiction’s dosage probation logic model, and after establishing the logic model’s subcommittees. In addition, the subcommittees should have finished creating their action plans to drive the activities needed to complete their assigned portions of the logic model during this (planning) phase of implementation.

The steps in this phase include the following:

  1. Train and Coach Staff in Evidence-Based Supervision Skills

    The subcommittee (and/or others, such as the probation chief or supervisors) responsible for ensuring probation staff receive sufficient training and coaching in evidence-based supervision practices before implementation should review this section in the Dosage Probation Toolkit. It is recommended that the workgroup’s chairperson(s) also review this section to help oversee the completion of the activities needed to reach implementation successfully.

  2. Develop Dosage Probation Policies and Procedures

    In this step, the policy team and workgroup must work independently and collaboratively to put into place dosage probation policies and procedures that reflect mutual understanding, input, and agreement. The policy team’s and workgroup’s chairpersons (and others, as applicable) should review this section in the Dosage Probation Toolkit.

  3. Align Community-Based Services Model with Dosage Probation Model

    The subcommittee responsible for partnering with community-based service providers should review this section in the Dosage Probation Toolkit. It is recommended that the workgroup’s chairperson(s) also review this section to help oversee the completion of the activities needed to reach implementation successfully.

Please click here to leave your feedback for this page

 

Step 9 - Train and Coach Staff in Evidence-Based Supervision Skills

Step 9 - Train and Coach Staff in Evidence-Based Supervision Skills web_admin

The research on evidence-based supervision indicates that the knowledge, skills, and abilities of dosage probation officers—and of their supervisors and coaches—are integral to the success of the dosage probation model. A high degree of competence in each of the following areas is critical: understanding “what works” in reducing risk; building and sustaining professional alliance; administering, interpreting, and applying risk/needs assessments; employing core correctional practices; effectively using cognitive-behavioral intervention tools; implementing effective case planning and management; and following a sequenced approach to risk reduction. In addition, staff require a strong grounding in the principles and practices of the dosage probation model.

Essential Skills

Dosage probation officers demonstrate a high degree of competency in each of the following essential skills:

1.    Make clear that the goal of dosage probation is to help probationers succeed.
2.    Provide probationers with choices rather than directing their actions.
3.    Engage in nonjudgmental discussion.
4.    Focus on probationers’ behavior (rather than on their history or personality).
5.    Use conversational dialogue and tone.
6.    Listen more, talk less.
7.    Strictly adhere to assessment scoring guidelines and techniques.
8.    Share assessment results with probationers.
9.    Identify the driver (the criminogenic need most likely driving the others).
10.    Engage probationers in the case planning process.
11.    Develop SMART case plans that address probationers’ most influential criminogenic needs.
12.    Limit case plan goals to the most significant criminogenic and stabilization needs.
13.    Identify specific activities that address case plan goals and that count toward dosage.
14.    Build upon probationers’ strengths when developing case plans.
15.    Address responsivity needs in case plans.
16.    Review and update case plans frequently. 
17.    Structure appointments intentionally.
18.    Conduct appointments of at least 20 minutes.
19.    Focus the majority of appointment time on skill building associated with assessed criminogenic needs.
20.    Teach concrete skills.
21.    Demonstrate skills for probationers.
22.    Use structured tools (worksheets, journals, lesson plans) to teach skills.
23.    Have probationers practice skills; provide feedback.
24.    Provide appropriate take-home assignments.
25.    Effectively review previous take-home assignments.
26.    Increase the difficulty of skill practice over time.
27.    Identify prosocial attitudes and behaviors.
28.    Effectively respond to prosocial attitudes and behaviors through the use of affirmations and rewards.
29.    Identify harmful attitudes and behaviors.
30.    Effectively respond to harmful attitudes and behaviors through the use of sanctions and by linking harmful choices to goals.

Training

The following reflects the recommended sequence of training and skill building for dosage probation officers.

  • Evidence-Based Practices Overview
    Dosage probation officers learn about four principles that are key to recidivism reduction—risk, need, responsivity, and intervention—and about strategies for responding to prosocial and noncompliant behavior.
  • Professional Alliance
    This training introduces dosage probation officers to traits that contribute to effective professional alliance, or rapport—for example, being people-oriented, authentic, strength-based, and respectful—and to strategies, such as motivational interviewing, to increase probationers’ engagement and follow-through with skill-building and risk reduction activities.
  • Risk/Needs Assessment
    In this training, dosage probation officers explore the importance of effectively conducting risk/needs assessments; they practice interpreting and sharing assessment results with probationers; and they examine how to use the results to guide case planning and management.
  • Core Correctional Practices
    This training provides dosage probation officers with an overview of four core correctional practices that are key to recidivism reduction: developing professional alliance, effective case planning and management, engaging in skill practice to address probationers’ criminogenic needs, and appropriately using rewards and responses to noncompliance.
  • Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions Tools
    After discussing the importance of using a cognitive-behavioral approach to help probationers change their behavior, dosage probation officers are introduced to, and practice using, an array of risk reduction tools to address probationers’ criminogenic needs and help them build skills in clear, specific, and structured ways.
  • Effective Case Planning and Management
    This training builds upon the introduction to effective case planning and management included in the Core Correctional Practices training. It gives dosage probation officers the opportunity to develop a case plan that addresses a probationer’s risk, criminogenic needs, responsivity factors, strengths, and triggers; helps the probationer build skills that will contribute to their success; meets the SMART criteria; and appropriately targets dosage levels.
  • Sequential Steps of Risk Reduction
    In this training, participants are introduced to steps they can follow to help probationers reduce their risk of recidivism—from establishing expectations for success to preparing people for a successful discharge—and to cognitive-behavioral tools they can use to help them achieve each step.
  • Dosage Probation
    Training specifically focused on dosage probation is crucial for the success of the model. During Phase 1, the entire staff should be provided with an orientation to dosage probation. Following the orientation, staff should work closely with the Dosage Probation Workgroup to ensure they fully understand the model. Then, when the department is preparing for implementation and knows which officers and supervisors will be participating in dosage probation, these staff members should explore more deeply the model and the department’s policies around dosage.

Coaching and Continuous Quality Improvement
Agencies interested in improving outcomes must commit to an implementation process that ensures that staff receive adequate initial training as well as ongoing encouragement, feedback, coaching, and booster training designed to improve knowledge, skills, confidence, and competency. In fact, research suggests that the amount of time devoted to the change process is an indicator of whether or not superior results will be derived.

The primary goal of a CQI process is to improve outcomes by:

  • creating and nurturing an environment characterized by an ongoing desire to learn and improve,
  • identifying practices that are working well and those in need of attention, and
  • determining the specific enhancements that are needed to support improvements in the quality of service delivery and in outcomes.

For more information on coaching and continuous quality improvement, see the Continuous Quality Improvement and Coaching Guide.
 

Step 10 - Develop Dosage Probation Policies and Procedures

Step 10 - Develop Dosage Probation Policies and Procedures web_admin

An essential step in preparing to implement dosage probation is making evidence-based and data-informed policy decisions regarding the sentencing, supervision, and early discharge of people on probation. Your jurisdiction’s Dosage Probation Policy Team and Dosage Probation Workgroup will engage independently and collaboratively to create new and revise existing policies and procedures, including education and communication strategies, that align with evidence-based dosage probation practices.

The policy team typically begins making policy decisions after providing the workgroup with input on the dosage probation logic model during the second (preparation) phase of implementation. The workgroup usually starts policymaking during the third phase (planning) after developing the dosage probation logic model. While the policy team and workgroup initiate their own policy discussions and activities, they must also collaborate by sharing policy recommendations, decisions, and other relevant information, such as data. Mutual understanding, input, and agreement are essential to successful and sustainable implementation.

From start to finish, the policymaking process spans the second and third phases of implementation, typically continuing into the fourth (implementation and evaluation) as the jurisdiction prepares to launch dosage probation. In preparing to launch, jurisdictions often encounter unresolved or unforeseen policy issues or other concerns, which may or may not be fully addressed upon implementation. It is, therefore, crucial to prioritize the policy decisions in the second and third phases to help ensure smooth implementation from the start.

TIP

Policies are not intended to be “set in stone.” To ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of the dosage probation model, the policy team and workgroup should remain flexible and adapt their decisions as implementation progresses based on their assessments of data and other information (e.g., lessons learned, and feedback from the workgroup, policy team members, probation staff, other system stakeholders, or people on probation). Reminding the policy team and workgroup that the decisions they reach today may change after implementation is often helpful when working through particularly contentious or difficult policy decisions.

This section guides you in the dosage probation policymaking process and preparing for the next steps in the implementation process.

TO DO

  • Facilitate policymaking with the policy team 

  • Facilitate policymaking with the workgroup 

  • Get ready for the next steps

Facilitate the Policymaking Process

The Dosage Probation Policy Team and Dosage Probation Workgroup chairpersons will facilitate policy discussions and decisions with their team or group members. As a chairperson, you can anticipate the following responsibilities:

  • Plan and facilitate the policy team’s or workgroup’s meetings to address specific dosage probation policy questions and other issues relevant to your jurisdiction
  • Ensure the team or group receives up-to-date information about and understands evidence-based supervision practices to make informed policy decisions
  • Ensure the team or group reviews current sentencing, supervision, and early discharge policies and practices and related data (as available) to make informed policy decisions
  • Ensure the team or group gathers input from each other on policy discussions, recommendations, or decisions
  • Ensure the team or group stays informed about each other’s policy decisions and addresses the corresponding agency policies and procedures as appropriate
  • Delegate ad hoc subcommittees or tasks as needed to ensure the team or group makes informed policy decisions, and the work progresses at a steady pace
  • Ensure the team or group adheres to its agreed-upon decision making/voting process when making policy decisions
  • Ensure the team or group memorializes its policy decisions in a written document (as suggested below)

Developing dosage probation policies and procedures should be a collaborative effort. Consider enlisting support from the policy team’s or workgroup’s meeting coordinator and other members with knowledge or skills beneficial to the policymaking process, such as a strong command of or the ability to gather and present evidence-based practices, local probation policies and procedures, and relevant data, or to write policy.

NOTE

Helpful Policymaking Resources
The following publications and handouts can support the policy team and workgroup in developing evidence-based dosage probation policies and procedures. Feel free to search for additional resources as desired or needed.

Dosage Probation Resources 

Evidence-Based Practices Resources

Communications Resources

To ensure productive meetings, the policy team and workgroup must prioritize and prepare to discuss the Dosage Probation Policy Questions (.pdf), briefly reviewed during their kickoff meetings. In discussions throughout their policymaking meetings, the policy team and workgroup will likely identify other policy concerns, issues, or questions specific to your probation agency or jurisdiction that must be addressed. Common examples include the following: reassessing who gets placed on probation; reconsidering judicial responses to violations; making court processes more efficient; revisiting existing policies and procedures regarding probation sentencing, intake, supervision, or early discharge; or reviewing how expectations are communicated with people before or after they are sentenced.

Sharing agendas and other necessary information—such as current statutes, policies, procedures, data, or reading materials regarding evidence-based or best practices—ahead of time with members will help facilitate meaningful discussions (see below for more guidance on preparing for policy team and workgroup meetings). You may also invite others to deliver presentations on particular topics, such as risk/needs assessment, effective probation sentencing, condition setting, behavior management, or best practices regarding fines, fees, and restitution. Additionally, you may ask other stakeholders to attend meetings when necessary to lend their expertise or share their perspectives on a specific matter (e.g., data analysts, communications staff, state leadership officials, or people on probation).

You can use the Dosage Probation Policy Meeting Checklist (.doc) to help you effectively prepare, facilitate, and follow up on meetings with the policy team or workgroup.

TIP

Not every policy team or workgroup meeting will result in a policy decision. Certain topics may require further analysis and discussion through ad hoc subcommittees or multiple meetings before reaching an agreement. Remember to follow the decision making or voting process described in your policy team’s or workgroup’s approved charter.

Prepare and Facilitate Policy Team Meetings

You may start by reviewing the Dosage Probation Policy Team Meeting Agenda Template (.doc). It includes the recommended meeting goals and structure for holding productive policy discussions over 90 minutes. It may be adapted for all policymaking meetings prior to implementation. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the policy team’s or jurisdiction’s needs. For example, you may hold some meetings over a shorter or longer period or delete headings that are not relevant or as time does not allow. Once the policy team finalizes its vision, mission, and values statements, you can reallocate that time to other meeting activities. You may also add headings to address related activities, such as learning about evidence-based practices, gathering updates from the team’s ad hoc subcommittees, or reviewing and approving new or revised policy language.

In addition, you will want to familiarize yourself with the Dosage Probation Policy Team Decisions Template (.doc). It includes recommended information and guidance for memorializing the team’s policy decisions. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet your policy team's and jurisdiction's needs. For each decision the policy team makes (with input from the workgroup), it is recommended that you or a designated team member use the template to draft the corresponding policy language for review and approval by the policy team.

Prepare and Facilitate Workgroup Meetings

You may start by reviewing the Dosage Probation Workgroup Policy Meeting Agenda Template (.doc). It includes the recommended meeting goals and structure for holding productive policy discussions over two hours. It may be adapted for all policymaking meetings prior to implementation. You must customize the [bracketed] information and may make further adjustments to meet the workgroup’s or jurisdiction’s needs. For example, you may hold some meetings over a shorter or longer period or delete headings that are not relevant or as time does not allow. Regarding the latter, for instance, the workgroup may want to focus on the subcommittees’ concerns or questions during its meetings and gather general updates using an alternative strategy, such as separate meetings or email check-ins. You may also add headings to address related activities, such as learning about evidence-based practices or reviewing and approving new or revised policy language.

In addition, you will want to familiarize yourself with the following dosage probation manuals: Dosage Probation Staff Manual (.pdf), Counting Dosage Manual (.pdf), and Behavioral Indicators Assessment Manual (.pdf). The manuals are roadmaps for developing evidence-based dosage probation policies and procedures. Your dosage probation logic model should include, if it does not already, the development of a Dosage Probation Staff Manual and a Counting Dosage Manual. The Behavioral Indicators Assessment Manual is available should the workgroup want to measure behavioral change as evidence of a person’s reduced likelihood of recidivism beyond using an empirically based risk/needs assessment tool. You may share the manuals with workgroup members, subcommittees assigned to the relevant logic model activities, and other interested stakeholders. As policy decisions are made (with input from the policy team), it is recommended that you or designated members of the workgroup or subcommittees use the manuals to draft the corresponding policy language for review and approval by the workgroup.

Get Ready for Next Steps

Your jurisdiction’s implementation and evaluation of the dosage probation model is right around the corner. Congratulations!

Now is an excellent time to celebrate the policy team’s and workgroup’s accomplishments and honor the contributions of others (such as state leadership, if applicable) since the dosage probation readiness assessment. Consider bringing the policy team, workgroup, and possibly others together for a special luncheon, sending a meaningful email to everyone involved, creating a celebratory video with cameos from the policy team and workgroup members, sharing a PowerPoint presentation complete with animations and music, or releasing a media statement. Be as creative as you want.

Change can be challenging. Now is also an opportune time to check in with workgroup members and other probation staff to monitor for change fatigue. The workgroup has undertaken a marathon—or several—to align your agency’s culture and operational thinking with evidence-based dosage probation practices. Consider how management can strengthen and sustain your agency’s environment of support, celebration, and recognition to help staff feel resilient during times of change. Some strategies include dedicating time during staff meetings or offering one-on-one sessions to check in on how people are feeling and ask them what they need to perform their jobs well, clearly communicating expectations no matter how big or small, integrating mental health breaks into the workday, or planning a fun retreat day to reenergize everyone.

Additionally, the policy team and workgroup should take stock of loose ends—for example, policies that have yet to be decided, adjusted, or written; informational sessions that have yet to be conducted to ensure all probation staff and stakeholders understand and are ready to use the new dosage probation policies and procedures; or outstanding subcommittee work—and create a plan to address them before implementation or as soon as possible after that. Be sure to communicate this information to all probation leadership, staff, the policy team, and the workgroup as appropriate.

Please click here to leave your feedback for this page

 

Step 11 - Align Community-Based Services Model with Dosage Probation Model

Step 11 - Align Community-Based Services Model with Dosage Probation Model web_admin

The dosage probation model may result in significant changes in the way clients are referred to risk-reducing treatment services; the relationship between service providers and clients; and the relationship between providers and probation staff. This modified model of service delivery can result in greater alignment between probation, provider, and client; increased client motivation; and enhanced likelihood that client dosage targets will be attained.

Phase 4 - Implementation and Evaluation

Phase 4 - Implementation and Evaluation web_admin
Dosage Probation Implementation and Evaluation

Step 12 - Implement Dosage Probation Model

Step 12 - Implement Dosage Probation Model web_admin

Having followed the steps in the dosage probation model—with careful deliberation and planning among stakeholders (the Dosage Probation Policy Team), probation staff (the Dosage Probation Workgroup), and service providers—the jurisdiction will be ready for implementation.

Step 13 - Collect Data; Evaluate; Adjust

Step 13 - Collect Data; Evaluate; Adjust web_admin

All change efforts require careful analysis of the intended and unintended impacts that result from implementation. In this final step of the dosage probation implementation process, stakeholders, service providers, and probation staff ongoingly collect data, analyze results, and make mid-course corrections as needed.

Media

Media web_admin

Videos

Webinars

Resources

Resources web_admin

Please see sub-pages for additional resources.

Evidence-Based Practices (EBP)

Evidence-Based Practices (EBP) web_admin

Abracen, J., Gallow, A., Looman, J., & Goodwill, A. (2015). Individual community-based treatment of offenders with mental illness: Relationship to recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1842–1858. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25731931/

Andrews, D. A. (2007). Principles of effective correctional programs. In L. L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.), Compendium 2000 on effective correctional programming. Correctional Service Canada.

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–401. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264637995_Does_Correctional_Treatment_Work_A_Clinically_Relevant_and_Psychologically_Informed_Meta-Analysis

Baber, L. M., & Johnson, J. L. (2013). Early termination of supervision: No compromise to community safety. Federal Probation, 77(2). https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/77_2_2_0.pdf

Bechtel, K. (2016). Adherence to the risk, need, and fidelity principles: Examining the impact of dosage in correctional programming (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_olink/r/1501/10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=ucin1470044131

Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Yessine, A. K., & Gutierrez, L. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1127–1148. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854811420678?journalCode=cjbb

Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248–270. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10509670802134085

Bourgon, G., & Armstrong, B. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a "real world" prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 3–25. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=208464

Bourgon, G., & Gutierrez, L. (2012). The general responsivity principle in community supervision: The importance of probation officers using cognitive intervention techniques and its influence on recidivism. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 149–166. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233213033_The_general_responsivity_principle_in_community_supervision_The_importance_of_probation_officers_using_cognitive_intervention_techniques_and_its_influence_on_recidivism

Bourgon, G., Gutierrez, L., & Ashton, J. (2011). The evolution of community supervision practice: The transformation from case manager to change agent. Irish Probation Journal, 8, 28–48. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/76_2_6_0.pdf

Campbell, M. A., French, S., & Gendreau, P. (2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice, 36, 567–590. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242132227_The_Prediction_of_Violence_in_Adult_OffendersA_Meta-Analytic_Comparison_of_Instruments_and_Methods_of_Assessment

Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. Criminal Justice, 3, 109–175. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Assessing-Correctional-Rehabilitation-%3A-Policy-%2C-%2C-Cullen-Gendreau/d232863893171b4022e0bf69076e83a70e01a524?p2df

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203–214. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306624X03257765

Drake, E. K., Aos, S., & Miller, M. G. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims and Offenders, 4, 170–196. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1033/Wsipp_Evidence-Based-Public-Policy-Options-to-Reduce-Crime-and-Criminal-Justice-Costs-Implications-in-Washington-State_Full-Report.pdf

Gendreau, P., French, S., & Taylor, A. (2002). What works (what doesn’t) revised 2002: The principles of effective correctional treatment. Unpublished manuscript, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, Canada. https://www.co.hancock.oh.us/docs/commonpleasprovider/university-of-cincinnati-reports/presentation/gendreau-french-gionet-2004-what-works-and-what-doesnt.pdf?sfvrsn=17b026c4_2

Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective programming with offenders. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(3), 38–40.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 12(2), 10–13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237744305_The_effects_of_community_sanctions_and_incarceration_on_recidivism

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 180–187. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306624X99432005?journalCode=ijoe

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575–608.

Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30. http://zaldlab.psy.vanderbilt.edu/resources/wmg00pa.pdf

Jalbert, S. K., Rhodes, W., Kane, M., Clawson, E., Bogue, B., Flygare, C., Kling, R., & Guevara, M. (2011). A multi-site evaluation of reduced probation caseload size in an evidence-based program setting. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Kennealy, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Manchak, S. M., & Eno Louden, J. (2012). Offender-officer relationships matter: Firm, fair and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 496–505.

Kroner, D. G., & Takahashi, M. (2012). Every session counts: The differential impact on previous programmes and current programme dosage on offender recidivism. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 136–150. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-02622-010

Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564, 142–166. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000271629956400109?journalCode=anna

Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, 1–27.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Flores, A. W., Holsinger, A. M., Makarios, M. D., & Latessa, E. J. (2010). Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 368–375. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-15519-006

Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A., Robinson, C. R., & Alexander, M. (2012). Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice. doi: 10.1080/0735648X.2012.753849 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0735648X.2012.753849

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 cases and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77–93. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0011128705281747

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575–594. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00388.x

Lowenkamp, C. T., Pealer, J., Smith, P., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs? Federal Probation, 70, 3–8. https://www.uscourts.gov/federal-probation-journal/2006/12/adhering-risk-and-need-principles-does-it-matter-supervision-based

Luong, D., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). Applying risk/need assessment to probation practice and its impact on the recidivism of young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1177–1199. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0093854811421596

Makarios, M., Sperber, K. G., & Latessa, E. J. (2014). Treatment dosage and the risk principle: A refinement and extension. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53, 334–350. https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ccjr/docs/articles/Treatment%20Dosage%20and%20Risk%20Principle_A%20Refinement%20and%20Extension%20-%20JOR%20article.pdf

Paparozzi, M. A., & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85, 445–466. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/AN-INTENSIVE-SUPERVISION-PROGRAM-THAT-WORKED%3A-AND-Paparozzi-Gendreau/f0f2e13181c029b65a1543c9eb722771364160f4

Robinson, C. R., Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., VanBenschoten, S., Alexander, M., & Oleson, J. C. (2012). A random study of staff training aimed at reducing re-arrest (STARR): Using core correctional practices in probation interactions. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 167–188. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0735648X.2012.674823

Skeem, J. L., Eno Louden, J., Polaschek, D., & Camp, D. (2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19, 397–410. https://content.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F1040-3590.19.4.397

Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., Labreque, R. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2012). Improving probation officers' supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 189–199. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232994722_Improving_probation_officers'_supervision_skills_an_evaluation_of_the_EPICS_model

Sperber, K. G., Latessa, E. J., & Makarios, M. D. (2013a). Establishing a risk-dosage research agenda: Implications for policy and practice. Justice Research and Policy, 15(1), 123–142. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3818/JRP.15.1.2013.123

Sperber, K. G., Latessa, E. J., & Makarios, M. D. (2013b). Examining the interaction between level of risk and dosage of treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 338–348. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258129271_Examining_the_Interaction_between_Level_of_Risk_and_Dosage_of_Treatment

Sperber, K. G., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2017). Dosage is more than just counting program hours: The importance of role-playing in treatment outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56, 433–451. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10509674.2017.1359222?journalCode=wjor20

Taxman, F. S., Yancey, C., & Bilanin, J. E. (2006). Proactive community supervision in Maryland: Changing offender outcomes. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Bureau of Governmental Research. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241222778_Proactive_Community_Supervision_in_Maryland_Changing_Offender_Outcomes

Travers, R., Mann, R. E., & Hollin, C. R. (2014). Who benefits from cognitive skills programs?: Differential impact by risk and offense type. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1103–1129. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/crmjusbhv41&div=65&id=&page=

 

Dosage Probation Resources List

Dosage Probation Resources List web_admin

Abracen, J., Gallow, A., Looman, J., & Goodwill, A. (2015). Individual community-based treatment of offenders with mental illness: Relationship to recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1842–1858. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515570745

Andrews, D. A. (2007). Principles of effective correctional programs. In L. L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds.), Compendium 2000 on effective correctional programming. Correctional Service Canada. https://www.d.umn.edu/~jmaahs/Correctional%20Continuum/Online%20Readings/andrews_what%20works.pdf

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x

Baber, L. M., & Johnson, J. L. (2013). Early termination of supervision: No compromise to community safety. Federal Probation, 77(2). https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/77_2_2_0.pdf

Bechtel, K. (2016). Adherence to the risk, need, and fidelity principles: Examining the impact of dosage in correctional programming (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_olink/r/1501/10?p10_etd_subid=117018&clear=10

Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Yessine, A. K., & Gutierrez, L. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1127–1148.

Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T.-L., Bourgon, G., & Yessine, A. K. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248–270.

Bourgon, G., & Armstrong, B. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a "real world" prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 3–25.

Bourgon, G., & Gutierrez, L. (2012). The general responsivity principle in community supervision: The importance of probation officers using cognitive intervention techniques and its influence on recidivism. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648x.2012.674816

Bourgon, G., Gutierrez, L., & Ashton, J. (2011). The evolution of community supervision practice: The transformation from case manager to change agent. Irish Probation Journal, 8, 28–48.

Campbell, M. A., French, S., & Gendreau, P. (2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice, 36, 567–590.

Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. Criminal Justice, 3, 109–175.

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48 , 203–214.

Drake, E. K., Aos, S., & Miller, M. G. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims and Offenders, 4, 170–196.

Gendreau, P., French, S., & Taylor, A. (2002). What works (what doesn’t) revised 2002: The principles of effective correctional treatment. Unpublished manuscript, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, Canada.

Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective programming with offenders. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(3), 38–40.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 12(2), 10–13.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43 , 180–187.

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575–608.

Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30.

Jalbert, S. K., Rhodes, W., Kane, M., Clawson, E., Bogue, B., Flygare, C., Kling, R., & Guevara, M. (2011). A multi-site evaluation of reduced probation caseload size in an evidence-based program setting. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Kennealy, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Manchak, S. M., & Eno Louden, J. (2012). Offender-officer relationships matter: Firm, fair and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 496–505.

Kroner, D. G., & Takahashi, M. (2012). Every session counts: The differential impact on previous programmes and current programme dosage on offender recidivism. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 136–150.

Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564 , 142–166.

Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, 1–27.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Flores, A. W., Holsinger, A. M., Makarios, M. D., & Latessa, E. J. (2010). Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 368–375.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A., Robinson, C. R., & Alexander, M. (2012). Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice. doi: 10.1080/0735648X.2012.753849

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 cases and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77–93.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575–594.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Pealer, J., Smith, P., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs? Federal Probation, 70, 3–8.

Luong, D., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). Applying risk/need assessment to probation practice and its impact on the recidivism of young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1177–1199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811421596

Makarios, M., Sperber, K. G., & Latessa, E. J. (2014). Treatment dosage and the risk principle: A refinement and extension. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53, 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2014.922157

Paparozzi, M. A., & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85, 445–466.

Robinson, C. R., Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., VanBenschoten, S., Alexander, M., & Oleson, J. C. (2012). A random study of staff training aimed at reducing re-arrest (STARR): Using core correctional practices in probation interactions. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 167–188.

Skeem, J. L., Eno Louden, J., Polaschek, D., & Camp, D. (2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19, 397–410.

Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., Labreque, R. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2012). Improving probation officers' supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 189–199.

Sperber, K. G., Latessa, E. J., & Makarios, M. D. (2013a). Establishing a risk-dosage research agenda: Implications for policy and practice. Justice Research and Policy, 15(1), 123–142.

Sperber, K. G., Latessa, E. J., & Makarios, M. D. (2013b). Examining the interaction between level of risk and dosage of treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 338–348.

Sperber, K. G., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2017). Dosage is more than just counting program hours: The importance of role-playing in treatment outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56, 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2017.1359222

Taxman, F. S., Yancey, C., & Bilanin, J. E. (2006). Proactive community supervision in Maryland: Changing offender outcomes. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Bureau of Governmental Research.

Travers, R., Mann, R. E., & Hollin, C. R. (2014). Who benefits from cognitive skills programs?: Differential impact by risk and offense type. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1103–1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814543826

Pilot Sites

Pilot Sites web_admin

Washington County, MN

Our Mission: Providing quality services through responsible leadership, innovation and the cooperation of dedicated people

Date: July 23, 2019
Contact: Yvonne Klinnert, Public Information Manager
Phone: 651-430-6026, after hours 952-807-3723
E-mail: yvonne.klinnert@co.washington.mn.us

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The following actions were taken at the July 23, 2019, Washington County Board of Commissioners meeting at the Government Center in Stillwater, Minnesota

Washington County will be part of Gold Line Joint Powers Board

Washington County will be part of a Gold Line Joint Powers Board, along with Ramsey County and the respective regional rail authorities from each county, after the Washington County Board of Commissioners, sitting as the county’s Regional Rail Authority, agreed to form the board July 23.

The Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project, which will create a bus rapid transit route from downtown St. Paul to Woodbury along Interstate 94, is nearing the end of the project development phase of work.

As Gold Line BRT prepares to apply to the Federal Transit Administration to enter the engineering phase of work in 2020, and the construction phase of work in 2022, a new organizational structure is needed to streamline financial oversight and the management of contingency funds. The proposed Gold Line Joint Powers Board brings all local funding partners together in this role. It also limits liability claims to a single party, streamlines public access to funding-related decisions, and creates a forum for county collaboration.

The joint powers board may contract for supporting services, such as audit, insurance, financial management, and legal counsel.

It is anticipated that the Gold Line Joint Powers Board will enter into an agreement with the Metropolitan Council for the engineering phase of work near the end of 2019. Engineering for the line is expected to take one to two years, and construction will take two to three years, with completion anticipated in 2024.

Contact: Jan Lucke, Public Works Planning Division Director, 651-430-4316

County Board makes 2 appointments to citizen committees

The Washington County Board of Commissioners made appointments to two citizen advisory committees July 23.

Ann Siess will serve as a commissioner District 3 representative to the Parks and Open Space Commission during a partial term expiring Dec. 31, 2021.

The purpose of the commission is to bring citizen perspective to the operation of Washington County Parks. It reviews current operation policies, capital improvement programs, parkland preservation, park development projects, and long-range planning efforts for parkland and facilities for county parks. The commission also provides citizens’ perspectives on the administration of the Land and Water Legacy Program.

Rachel Perez will serve as a business representative to the Workforce Development Board, in a partial term expiring Dec. 31, 2021.

It is the responsibility of the Workforce Development Board to determine the most effective designation of administrative entities, grant recipients, and program operators for the Workforce Service Area. It also jointly plans for collaboration, and provides for on-site review and oversight of program performance.

Contact: Yvonne Klinnert, Public Information Manager, 651-430-6026

Washington County will work with Solid Ground to help families experiencing homelessness

Washington County will work with Solid Ground to serve 28 families experiencing homelessness, after the County Board approved an agreement with the agency July 23.

The county will provide $141,399 in Family Homelessness Prevention and Assistance program funds to the agency for the service.

The program was established by the Legislature in 1993 to assist families with children, youth/unaccompanied youth, and single adults who are experiencing barriers to housing. The program is conducted through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency with funds awarded on a biennial basis.

The money will be used to serve 28 households, or families experiencing homelessness, with support services and rent payment assistance through the Home Again program. The outcomes of the program are to ensure households will be permanently housed and not re-enter shelter or become homeless within six months of program exit.

Contact: Dana Dumbacher, Community Services Policy Analyst, 651-430-8363

Newport Transit Station will continue as state fair park-and-ride lot

Metro Transit will continue to use the Newport Transit Station parking lot as a Minnesota State Fair park-and-ride lot after the Washington County Board of Commissioners agreed to the use July 23. The license allows the use of the paved parking area and the existing vacant lot amounting to 400 parking spaces. Newport Transit Station has served as a State Fair Park-and-Ride for the past three years.

In 2017, more than 15,000 transit riders used the Newport Transit Station park-and-ride lot express service to go to the fair. In 2018, despite service being cut to only weekends and Labor Day, the Newport Transit Station had almost 6,000 state fair riders.

Contact: Jan Lucke, Public Works Planning Division Director, 651-430-4316

County will purchase land along Highway 36 to add to Government Center campus

Washington County will purchase a parcel of land on 60th Street North that is between the county Government Center and jail and Highway 36.

The County Board approved the purchase of the .34 acres of land with a house for $300,000 to include in the Government Center campus July 23. The purchase will complete the campus on the southern side and provide necessary space for any future expansion. An appraisal was completed and reviewed by the County Board previous to the purchase.

Contact: Don Theisen, Public Works Director, 651-430-4304

Sheriff’s Office receives gift, grant money

The Washington County Sheriff’s Office will receive a donation from Target Corporation and a grant from the state’s Department of Labor and Industry.

The County Board accepted both on behalf of the Sheriff’s Office July 23.

Target Corporation donated $1,500 to the Sheriff's Office to support the Back to School - Shop with a Cop event in Forest Lake put on by the Sheriff's Office.

The state’s Department of Labor and Industry, Occupational Safety and Health Consultation Unit, has awarded the Sheriff's Office a $1,000 grant to replace several life jackets and flotation devices that have reached the end of their service life. The grant does require a 100-percent match, which will be covered by revenue received from the sale of outdated dive equipment.

Contact: Sheriff Dan Starry, 651-430-7601

McGee re-appointed Washington County medical examiner

Dr. Michael B. McGee was designated the Washington County medical examiner by the County Board July 23, for a four-year term beginning Aug. 4.

In 2011, Washington County entered into an agreement with Ramsey County for medical examiner services. In that agreement, McGee was named the Washington County Medical Examiner.

Contact: Sheriff Dan Starry, 651-430-7601

County will continue reciprocity for use of household hazardous waste facilities

The Washington County Board of Commissioners agreed July 23 to continue an agreement with Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Scott counties for reciprocity for use of household hazardous waste services, through 2024.

The agreement allows residents of those counties to use the household hazardous waste program services of any of the counties, and establishes a mechanism for payment of costs incurred by a county receiving household hazardous waste from the county where the resident lives. Washington County has a separate agreement with Chisago County.

The Washington County Environmental Center, 4039 Cottage Grove Drive in Woodbury, provides residents with a free and convenient disposal option for household hazardous waste, electronics, and recyclables year round. It is open Tuesday 11 a.m. to 7 p.m., Thursday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Saturday 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.

The center also has a Free Product Room, in which residents may browse the shelves and take home previously-owned products such as paint, stain, automotive supplies, household cleaners, and other products. All items taken to the Environmental Center are inspected to determine if they are usable products.

Contact: Adam Frederick, Environmental Program Coordinator, 651-430-6702

Sheriff’s Office will receive grant for occupational resources for employees

The Washington County Sheriff’s Office will receive a $7,500 grant from the state Department of Labor and Industry, Occupational Safety and Health Consultation Unit, to fund wellness initiatives in the Sheriff’s Office.

The County Board accepted the grant July 23.

The money will provide training for peer support programs, clinician support for the peer support team, and resiliency training for the Sheriff's Office staff and their families. It also helps fund Breach Point Training for Sheriff’s Office staff.

The grant requires a 100-percent match, which will come from $2,280 of revenue received from the sale of abandoned property, and local public health grant funds already budgeted for $5,220.

Compared to the general population, law enforcement officers report much higher rates of depression, PTSD, burnout, and other anxiety-related mental health conditions; one in four law enforcement officers have thoughts of suicide at some point in their lives. In 2017, there were 140 law enforcement suicides, which was more than in-the-line of duty deaths.

Contact: Sheriff Dan Starry, 651-430-7601

County Board accepts gifts received in second quarter of 2019

The Washington County Board of Commissioners accepted cash and in-kind donations July 23 made to the county in the first quarter of 2019, totaling $7,859.43.

The Library received general donations and memorials, as well as donations to pay for Alcoholic Anonymous materials for the library, all totaling $1,395.72.

Donations to the Parks, including exhibit donations to the Historic Courthouse, totaled $856.

The Sheriff’s Office received donations for the Explorer’s Unit National Competition, and for community events, totaling $2,400.

Business people from throughout the county contributed gift cards, vouchers, and tickets for a variety of services that were given to foster care providers at the county’s annual Foster Care Appreciation event in May, totaling $3,117.71 of in-kind donations.

Contact: Stephanie Kammerud, Administrative Assistant, 651-430-6014

Washington County receives 4 National Association of Counties awards

Washington County was named an award recipient four times in three categories at the recent National Association of Counties conference in Las Vegas, Nev., July 14.

The county won awards in the areas of:

  • County Resiliency: Infrastructure, Energy and Sustainability, with “BizRecycling,” a program of Ramsey/Washington Recycling and Energy, started in 2013 to help businesses enhance or start recycling and organics/food waste collection to increase commercial waste diversion rates in the two counties. BizRecycling connects businesses with recycling experts who can help identify recycling and waste reduction opportunities. Businesses receive free onsite consultations, technical assistance, and grants to implement best practices in waste management, with the goal of reaching 40 percent of business establishments in the two counties by the end of 2020.
  • Criminal Justice and Public Safety, with “Dosage Probation Program,” which relies on an offender’s internal motivation to change behavior. The offender can shorten the time they are under probation supervision by actively participating and completing programming to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behavior. The model is far more efficient and cost-effective than the traditional model of supervision in which probationers are sentenced to years of supervision with or without behavior change conditions.
  • Criminal Justice and Public Safety, “East Metro Human Trafficking Task Force,” comprised of the Washington County Attorney’s Office, Washington County Sheriff’s Office, Woodbury Police Department, Oakdale Police Department, and Homeland Security Investigations. These agencies are collaborating to proactively investigate sex trafficking cases to prosecute sex traffickers, protect and rehabilitate victims of sex trafficking, and decrease demand for the commercial exploitation of victims of sex trafficking.
  • Children and Youth, “Read to Me: Babies Need Words Every Day,” in which Washington County Library partnered with Washington County Public Health and Environment to offer literacy-rich educational opportunities for families by providing parents of at-risk newborns with Read to Me totes during WIC (Women, Infant, and Child) clinic and public health nurse home visits. Parents left with information about the importance of reading and armed with books and encouraging tips to keep reading, singing, and talking with their child at home. Mini “pop-up libraries” at three WIC clinics around the county allowed families to read together while waiting.

Contact: Yvonne Klinnert, Public Information Manager, 651-430-6026

Napa County, CA

Wisconsin DOC

Contact Us

Contact Us web_admin
Kenneth Rose
Correctional Program Specialist Community Services Division, NIC
Ken Rose