THERE APPEARS TO BE A GREAT CONFLICT AND CONTROVERSY OVER JUST "WHAT IS THE MISSION OF PROBATION AND PAROLE?. THE DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS LEADERSHIP, SEVERAL YEARS AGO, DECIDED THAT THE OVERALL MISSION OF THE DEPT. WAS TO " PROTECT THE PUBLIC, THE EMPLOYEE, AND THE OFFENDER". THIS MISSION WAS FOR THE ENTIRE DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AND INCLUDED THE INSTITUTIONS (PRISON) AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS. AT FIRST GLANCE, THIS SEEMS APPROPRIATE AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR GOALS, BUT WE IN PROBATION AND PAROLE SEE THAT OUR MISSION HAS NEVER BEEN SPECIFICALLY , OR UNIQUELY, DEFINED. THIS HAS CAUSED NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH LINE STAFF AND ADMINISTRATION. PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE MISSION OF P&P CHANGES WITH THE DIRECTION OF MONEY THAT IS PROVIDED FOR "INSTITUTIONS" AND THE "BEDSPACE" ISSUE. IF MONEY IS AVAILABLE TO "LOCK" AND "KEEP" OFFENDERS UP, THEN OUR GOAL HAS BEEN TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, BUT IF MONEY IS NOT AVAILABLE OR THE "POLITICAL WINDS" SAY WE ARE SPENDING TO MUCH ON INCARCERATION OR PRIVATE PRISON SPACE, THEN OUR MISSION IS TO "WORK WITH OFFENDERS IN EVERY WAY AND TO "KEEP THEM OUT OF PRISON" BY UTILIZING "INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS". THE INABILITY TO DESCRIBE JUST "WHAT IS OUR FUNCTION" AND "HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THE RESULTS" HAS CAUSED NUMEROUS SPLITS IN PHILOSOPHY AND DIRECTION. THE IDEA OF "PUBLIC PROTECTION" IS CONSISTENT WITH LINE STAFF'S IMAGE OF THEIR JOBS, BUT THE ADMINISTRATION APPEARS TO HAVE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF THIS MISSION AS IT RELATES TO THE DOC OVERALL MISSION. THIS HAS CAUSED DIVISION AND STRESS FOR BOTH THE LINE STAFF AND ADMINISTRATION IN COMING TO A COMMON DIRECTION , OUTCOME, AND PROCESS OF PROBATION AND PAROLE.
PUBLIC OPINION, POLITICAL INFLUENCE, AND EVER-CHANGING DEPT. PHILOSOPHY HAVE ADDED TO THE STRESS THAT FRONT LINE STAFF FEEL IN CARRYING OUT THEIR DUTIES. CONTINUING ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT THE "PEACE OFFICER AUTHORITY" OF PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICERS AND NEW POLICY ON THE "SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT" HAVE ADDED TO THIS STRESS. PUBLIC OPINION AND POLITICAL PRESSURE TO "PROVE" THAT WHAT WE DO "WORKS" IS EVER INCREASING. COURTS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SEEM TO HAVE LITTLE REGARD FOR THE EXPERIENCE AND PROFESSIONALISM OF PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICERS. THIS IS PARTLY DUE TO THE DETERMINATION OF OUR AGENCY TO RESTRICT OUR PEACE OFFICER AUTHORITY AND THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WITH THOSE WHO ARE CLOSEST TO US IN THE "REAL WORLD" LIFE OF A PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICER. IT CONTINUES TO AMAZE ME THAT OUR DEPT. VIEWS OUR ASSISTANCE TO OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN TIMES OF "EMERGENCY" AS "NOT IN THE SCOPE OF OUR EMPLOYMENT".
PROBATION AND PAROLE/ COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS NEEDS A UNIQUE MISSION DUE TO OUR UNIQUE INVOLVEMENT WITH OFFENDERS IN A "UNSECURE" ENVIRONMENT AND THE DAILY NEED TO MONITOR THOSE OFFENDERS FURTHER , WE NEED TO DEVELOP A SYSTEM OF REPORTING ISSUES THAT "SHOW" THAT WE "DO" HAVE AN IMPACT ON OFFENDER BEHAVIORS. ALTHOUGH "WE" KNOW THAT "WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE" , WE HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THIS BY "HARD DATA". I DO EMBRACE THE "PERFORMANCE BASED OUTCOMES" AS THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO FACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE THAT WE HAVE A "GREAT " EFFECT ON OFFENDER'S. WE MUST NOT BE HELD TO THE OLD " REDICIDIVISM" ISSUE AS THE ONLY MARK OF OUR SUCCESS/FAILURE. IN SOME CASES, REVOCATION AND INCARCERATION ARE A SUCCESS OF "PROTECTING THE PUBLIC".......JUST WHAT ARE THE BEHAVIORS WE SHOULD BE TRACKING??? EMPLOYMENT RATE/ STABILITY OF RESIDENCE/ UA'S/ TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS?/ NEW ARRESTS FOR MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY CRIMES?/ .....................TELL ME YOUR THOUGHTS......I HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING A REPORTING OF SIGNIFICANT INDICATIONS OF REOFFENSE AND SUCCESS/FAILURE RATES.....WHAT MATTERS????? TELL ME, PLEASE!!!!!!!! |
