RE: Performance Outcome Measures for Probation

["Paul Epstein" <epstein@pipeline.com>]

Back in 1995-96, I led a consulting effort for the NJ AOC to help them come
up with productivity-based staffing models for the state court system,
including Probation, with the idea of developing workload-driven staffing
models for all 22 county-based courts.  We provided them with a benchmarking
approach that encouraged pulling the less efficient counties up toward the
better performers by comparing practices and staffing patterns as well as
performance.  We encouraged them to look at the model as dynamic, so they
could plan for the effects of things like planned automation improvements to
make administration more efficient, and new laws or mandates that could make
certain kinds of cases more staff-dependent.  The managers of the four major
Court divisions (of which Probation was one) all built factors into the
models to recognize the difference between real high efficiency, and county
courts that were seriously understaffed and over-burdened, and only appeared
more efficient, but may have had problems with quality, burnout, timeliness,
etc.

As I recall, during most of the project, Probation was the least forthcoming
division with data, so we could give them the least help.  However, toward
the end of the project, they came up with an interesting approach for
allocating risk to probationers, and thus coming up with a model for
allocating staff based on perceived risk.  They called their approach
"Redefining Probation."  As I recall, they had some seriously understaffed
counties at the time and wanted to show how some counties would end up with
high caseload levels even for a portion of their higher-risk caseload.  The
choices could involve:
- Leaving staffing as it was across the state and let each county do its own
staff allocation based on case risk, with some counties having greater
overall exposure to risk than others, but each doing the best
risk-allocation of caseload that it could within its borders;
- Re-allocating Probation Officers & related staff across counties to even
out risk exposure, but causing some better-staffed counties to have to
increase their exposure as their caseloads would go up, perhaps even for
some higher-risk categories;
- Get more staffing statewide so all counties would fall under some maximum
level of risk, with respect to caseload size for cases above a certain risk
level.

I know some of the study recommendations were implemented by the three court
divisions (excluding Probation) that we got to work with more closely for
the period of the project (which went for about 18 months).  I believe that
in our final report we reported favorably about the approach risk-based
Probation wanted to take, though I don't think we made explicit
recommendations as we hadn't work with their data very much.  For the study
as a whole, most of the "bigger picture" recommendations got put on hold
because, I guess, the operation was a success but the patient
died--literally.  The Chief Justice was forced to retire some 6-9 months
before the end of his term because he was found to have advanced cancer, and
he died about a month later.  I was told the report was favorably recieved
but put on hold until a new Chief Justice and new AOC Director settled in.

I realize I did not describe "outcome" measures above, but if the NJ
Probation Division ever implemented their risk-based system, by now they
might have some interesting results concerning whether outcomes improved.

By now, many of the players have surely changed, so I don't have a current
contact.  But it should be easy enough to find out more, if you are
interested, by contacting the NJ AOC in Trenton, or the Probation Division
in the AOC.  Also, I recall that they had funded our work--done through
Rutgers University--with a grant from a national state courts organization.
I think it was the National Center for State Courts, but I'm not sure.  In
any event, I know the NJ AOC was supposed to send a version of our work to
the funding organization to be available to other state courts.  The title
of our final report was "Staffing Ratios and Productivity Review of the New
Jersey Superior Court," dated May 31, 1996.  The NJ AOC undoubtedly sent
it's version on to the national organization some months later, maybe even
in early 1997.

--Paul Epstein
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Epstein & Fass Associates (www.epsteinandfass.com)
140 Nassau St., Suite 9C, New York, NY 10038
Phone: 212-349-1719  Fax: 212-349-4054  e-mail: epstein@pipeline.com

_____
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to majordomo@raw.rutgers.edu and include the following command in the body of the message:
unsubscribe dcpm your-email-address
Or use the form at http://raw.rutgers.edu/cgi-bin/lwgate/dcpm/unsubscribe.html