Field officers did not make

required contacts with offenders

Our tests showed significant deficiencies in compliance with division standards. We found field officers did not contact offenders as required for each type of contact. We also found as the level of supervision and required number of contacts increased, compliance percentage generally decreased. Overall test results show compliance rates of only 73, 45, 34, and 47 percent for positive office visits, employment checks, home visits, and treatment contacts, respectively.  (See page 8)

Case summary and violation reports submitted late or not at all

The Board of Probation and Parole policies and procedures manual requires initial case summary reports to be completed within the first 60 days of supervision. However, of 27 applicable cases, there were 15 initial case summary reports, or 56 percent, submitted 10 or more days late, with an average of 69 days late. In addition, one initial case summary report was never completed. In 35 of the 55 applicable cases reviewed, field officers submitted routine case summary reports that were 10 or more days late. In addition, field officers failed to complete 16 routine case summary reports. Division policy requires field officers to prepare routine case summary reports every six months. In 12 of the 55 applicable cases we reviewed, field officers submitted violation reports that were 10 or more days late. Field officers are required to submit initial violation reports within 10 working days from the date the violation became known. In one case we reviewed it took 75, 125, and 137 days to complete three separate violation reports. During our review of that case, we also found the field officer never completed a violation report for two violations that occurred in October 2004.  (See page 11)

New management tools could

help better monitor compliance with division policies

According to division personnel, supervisory reviews are not always performed and are not documented and maintained. In addition, when supervisory reviews are performed they do not adequately monitor field officer compliance with division policies. In March 2005, the division began testing a new quality assurance audit program that audits 10 percent of each field officer's caseload for compliance with various division policies, including the timeliness of reports and contact compliance. However, division officials do not believe it is feasible to utilize the program to monitor the performance of individual field officers due to system limitations. Instead, the division plans to use the newly developed automated road book for this purpose. The automated road book is the first component of the planned automated case management system. The division implemented this component statewide in January 2006, but had to take it off-line in February 2006 due to system failures.  (See page 13)