CAPSA Attachments

2014 Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies
Table of Contents*
Attachment 1 – BJS Authorizing Legislation ................................................................................................. 2
Attachment 2 – BJS Criminal Justice Flowchart ............................................................................................ 7
Attachment 3 – Public Agency Questionnaire .............................................................................................. 9
Attachment 4 – Private Company Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 44
Attachment 5 – Public Agency Web Screen Shots ...................................................................................... 53
Attachment 6 – Federal Register 60-day Notice ......................................................................................... 57
Attachment 7 – Federal Register 30-day Notice ......................................................................................... 60
Attachment 8 – State Informant Telephone Interview .............................................................................. 64
Attachment 9 – Pre-notification Letter to Public Agency Heads (from BJS) ............................................... 80
Attachment 10 – APPA Endorsement Letter .............................................................................................. 83
Attachment 11 – Public Agency Information Form (AIF) ............................................................................ 85
Attachment 12 – List of Survey Topics for Public Agencies ........................................................................ 88
Attachment 13 – Pre-notification Letter to Private Company Heads (from BJS) ....................................... 91
Attachment 14 – Private Company Information Form (CIF) ....................................................................... 94
Attachment 15 – AIF/CIF Reminder Letter to Agency/Company Heads ..................................................... 97
Attachment 16 – Telephone Contact Guide: AIF/CIF Non-Response Prompt ............................................ 99
Attachment 17 – Invitation Letter to Public Agency Designees, Web Mode (from BJS) .......................... 102
Attachment 18 – Survey Definitions for Public Agencies ......................................................................... 105
Attachment 19 – State-specific Listing of Public Probation Supervising Agencies (Single state example)
........................................................................................................................... 109
Attachment 20 – Telephone Contact Guide: Public Agency Web Survey Non-response Prompt ............ 111
Attachment 21 – Invitation Letter to Public Agency Designees, Telephone Mode (from BJS) ................ 114
Attachment 22 – Telephone Contact Guide: Public Agency Telephone Survey Prompt .......................... 117
Attachment 23 – Invitation Letter to Private Company Designees .......................................................... 120
Attachment 24 – Telephone Contact Guide: Private Company Paper Survey Non-response Prompt ..... 122
Attachment 25 – Final Thank You Letter .................................................................................................. 125
Attachment 26 – Data Retrieval Email, Initial Contact for Item Non-response........................................ 127
Attachment 27 – Public Agency Data Retrieval Email, Initial Contact for Missing Lists ........................... 129
Attachment 28 – Data Retrieval Email, Initial Contact for Other Issues ................................................... 131
Attachment 29 – Data Retrieval Email, Confirming Changes to Data....................................................... 133
Attachment 30 – Alternative Closeout Letter, Submission but Incomplete Data Retrieval ..................... 135
Attachment 31 – Alternative Closeout Letter, No Participation............................................................... 137
Attachment 32 – Pilot Test Report ........................................................................................................... 139

*Attachment pertains to both public agencies and private companies unless otherwise specified.

Page 1

Attachment 1 – BJS Authorizing Legislation

Page 2

DERIVATION
Title I
THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968
(Public Law 90-351)
42 U.S.C. § 3711, et seq.
AN ACT to assist State and local governments in reducing the incidence of crime, to increase the effectiveness,
fairness, and coordination of law enforcement and criminal justice systems at all levels of government, and for other
purposes.
As Amended By
THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1970
(Public Law 91-644)
THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1973
(Public Law 93-83)
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1974
(Public Law 93-415)
THE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS’ BENEFITS ACT OF 1976
(Public Law 94-430)
THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1976
(Public Law 94-503)
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1979
(Public Law 96-157)
THE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1984
(Public Law 98-473)
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1986
(Public Law 99-570-Subtitle K)
THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988
TITLE VI, SUBTITLE C - STATE AND LOCAL NARCOTICS CONTROL
AND JUSTICE ASSISTANCE IMPROVEMENTS
(Public Law 100-690)
THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1990
(Public Law 101-647)
BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT
(Public Law 103-159)
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994
(Public Law 103-322)
NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 1993, AS AMENDED
(Public Law 103-209)
and
CRIME IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 1998
(Public Law
Page105-251)
3

BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
CHAPTER 46 - SUBCHAPTER III [TITLE I PART C]
42 USC § 3731

[Sec. 301.] Statement of purpose

It is the purpose of this subchapter [part] to provide for and encourage the collection and analysis of statistical information
concerning crime, juvenile delinquency, and the operation of the criminal justice system and related aspects of the civil
justice system and to support the development of information and statistical systems at the Federal, State, and local levels to
improve the efforts of these levels of government to measure and understand the levels of crime, juvenile delinquency, and
the operation of the criminal justice system and related aspects of the civil justice system. The Bureau shall utilize to the
maximum extent feasible State governmental organizations and facilities responsible for the collection and analysis of
criminal justice data and statistics. In carrying out the provisions of this subchapter [part], the Bureau shall give primary
emphasis to the problems of State and local justice systems.
42 USC § 3732

[Sec. 302.] Bureau of Justice Statistics

(a) Establishment. There is established within the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney
General, a Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereinafter referred to in this subchapter [part] as “Bureau”).
(b) Appointment of Director; experience; authority; restrictions. The Bureau shall be headed by a Director appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director shall have had experience in statistical programs.
The Director shall have final authority for all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by the Bureau. The
Director shall report to the Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney General. The Director shall not engage in any
other employment than that
of serving as Director; nor shall the Director hold any office in, or act in any capacity for, any organization, agency, or
institution with which the Bureau makes any contract or other arrangement under this Act.
(c) Duties and functions of Bureau. The Bureau is authorized to–
(1) make grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with public agencies, institutions of higher education,
private organizations, or private individuals for purposes related
to this subchapter [part]; grants shall be made subject to continuing compliance with standards for gathering justice statistics
set forth in rules and regulations promulgated by the Director;
(2) collect and analyze information concerning criminal victimization, including crimes against the elderly, and civil
disputes;
(3) collect and analyze data that will serve as a continuous and comparable national social indication of the prevalence,
incidence, rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of crime, juvenile delinquency, civil disputes, and other statistical factors
related to crime, civil disputes, and juvenile delinquency, in support of national, State, and local justice policy and decision
making;
(4) collect and analyze statistical information, concerning the operations of the criminal justice system at the Federal,
State, and local levels;
(5) collect and analyze statistical information concerning the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution, and
attributes of crime, and juvenile delinquency, at the Federal, State, and local levels;
(6) analyze the correlates of crime, civil disputes and juvenile delinquency, by the use of statistical information, about
criminal and civil justice systems at the Federal, State, and local levels, and about the extent, distribution and attributes of
crime, and juvenile delinquency, in the Nation and
at the Federal, State, and local levels;
(7) compile, collate, analyze, publish, and disseminate uniform national statistics concerning all aspects of criminal justice
and related aspects of civil justice, crime, including crimes against the elderly, juvenile delinquency, criminal offenders,
juvenile delinquents, and civil disputes in the various States;

Page 4

(8) recommend national standards for justice statistics and for insuring the reliability and validity of
justice statistics supplied pursuant to this chapter [title];
(9) maintain liaison with the judicial branches of the Federal and State Governments in matters
relating to justice statistics, and cooperate with the judicial branch in assuring as much uniformity as
feasible in statistical systems of the executive and judicial branches;
(10) provide information to the President, the Congress, the judiciary, State and local
governments, and the general public on justice statistics;
(11) establish or assist in the establishment of a system to provide State and local governments with
access to Federal informational resources useful in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of
programs under this Act;
(12) conduct or support research relating to methods of gathering or analyzing justice statistics; (13)
provide for the development of justice information systems programs and assistance to the
States and units of local government relating to collection, analysis, or dissemination of justice
statistics;
(14) develop and maintain a data processing capability to support the collection, aggregation,
analysis and dissemination of information on the incidence of crime and the operation of the
criminal justice system;
(15) collect, analyze and disseminate comprehensive Federal justice transaction statistics (including
statistics on issues of Federal justice interest such as public fraud and high technology crime) and to
provide technical assistance to and work jointly with other Federal agencies to improve the
availability and quality of Federal justice data;
(16) provide for the collection, compilation, analysis, publication and dissemination of information and
statistics about the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution and attributes of drug offenses, drug
related offenses and drug dependent offenders and further provide for the establishment of a national
clearinghouse to maintain and update a comprehensive and timely data base on all criminal justice
aspects of the drug crisis and to disseminate such information;
(17) provide for the collection, analysis, dissemination and publication of statistics on the condition
and progress of drug control activities at the Federal, State and local levels with particular attention to
programs and intervention efforts demonstrated to be of value in the overall national anti- drug strategy
and to provide for the establishment of a national clearinghouse for the gathering of data generated by
Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies on their drug enforcement activities;
(18) provide for the development and enhancement of State and local criminal justice information
systems, and the standardization of data reporting relating to the collection, analysis or dissemination
of data and statistics about drug offenses, drug related offenses, or drug dependent offenders;
(19) provide for research and improvements in the accuracy, completeness, and inclusiveness of
criminal history record information, information systems, arrest warrant, and stolen vehicle record
information and information systems and support research concerning the accuracy, completeness, and
inclusiveness of other criminal justice record information;
(20) maintain liaison with State and local governments and governments of other nations
concerning justice statistics;
(21) cooperate in and participate with national and international organizations in the development of
uniform justice statistics;

Page 5

(22) ensure conformance with security and privacy requirement of section 3789g of this title and
identify, analyze, and participate in the development and implementation of privacy, security and
information policies which impact on Federal and State criminal justice operations and related
statistical activities; and
(23) exercise the powers and functions set out in subchapter VIII [part H] of this chapter [title].
(d) Justice statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination. To insure that all justice statistical collection,
analysis, and dissemination is carried out in a coordinated manner, the Director is authorized to–
(1) utilize, with their consent, the services, equipment, records, personnel, information, and facilities of
other Federal, State, local, and private agencies and instrumentalities with or without reimbursement
therefore, and to enter into agreements with such agencies and instrumentalities for purposes of data
collection and analysis;
(2) confer and cooperate with State, municipal, and other local agencies;
(3) request such information, data, and reports from any Federal agency as may be required to
carry out the purposes of this chapter [title];
(4) seek the cooperation of the judicial branch of the Federal Government in gathering data from
criminal justice records; and
(5) encourage replication, coordination and sharing among justice agencies regarding information
systems, information policy, and data.
(e) Furnishing of information, data, or reports by Federal agencies. Federal agencies requested to furnish
information, data, or reports pursuant to subsection (d)(3) of this section shall provide such information to
the Bureau as is required to carry out the purposes of this section.
(f) Consultation with representatives of State and local government and judiciary. In recommending
standards for gathering justice statistics under this section, the Director shall consult with representatives of
State and local government, including, where appropriate, representatives of the judiciary.
42 USC § 3733

[Sec. 303.] Authority for 100 per centum grants

A grant authorized under this subchapter [part] may be up to 100 per centum of the total cost of each project
for which such grant is made. The Bureau shall require, whenever feasible as a condition of approval of a
grant under this subchapter [part], that the recipient contribute money, facilities, or services to carry out the
purposes for which the grant is sought.
42 USC § 3735

[Sec. 304.] Use of data

Data collected by the Bureau shall be used only for statistical or research purposes, and shall be gathered in
a manner that precludes their use for law enforcement or any purpose relating to a particular individual
other than statistical or research purposes.

Page 6

Attachment 2 – BJS Criminal Justice Flowchart

Page 7

Page 8

Attachment 3 – Public Agency Questionnaire

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

52.

On June 30, 2014, did the adult probation population supervised by your agency include
probationers who had as their most serious offense something other than a felony or
misdemeanor?
1
2

Yes
No

ROUTING #7.
IF 7 = YES, ASK QUESTION 53.
ELSE, SKIP TO ROUTING #8.
53.

On June 30, 2014, what was the total number of adults on non-reporting probation that
were supervised by your agency? If your agency did not supervise any adults on nonreporting probation on June 30, 2014, mark (X) “None.”
►DEFINITION: Non-reporting probation is where the adult probationer is never
required, during any period of the probation term, to report to a court or correctional
authority on a regular basis either in person, by telephone or mail, or through
electronic supervision.
__________ Adults on non-reporting probation
None

IF 53 > 0, CONTINUE.
ELSE, SKIP TO ROUTING #8.
53a.

Is this an exact count or an estimate?
1
2

Exact count
Estimate

ROUTING #8.
IF 37 = YES (USED CRF), ASK QUESTION 54.
OTHERWISE, SKIP TO QUESTION 55.
54.

On June 30, 2014, how many adult probationers for which your agency was legally
responsible were held in a correctional residential facility? (Note: This type of probationer
should have been excluded from any counts that you provided elsewhere in this
questionnaire.) If your agency did not have any adult probationers held in a correctional
residential facility on June 30, 2014, mark (X) “None.”
__________ Probationers held in a correctional residential facility
None

IF 54 > 0, CONTINUE.
ELSE, SKIP TO QUESTION 55.
54a.

Is this an exact count or an estimate?
1
2

Exact count
Estimate

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Attachment 4 – Private Company Questionnaire

Page 44

Page 45

Page 46

Page 47

Page 48

Page 49

Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

Attachment 5 – Public Agency Web Screen Shots

Page 53

Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Attachment 6 – Federal Register 60-day Notice

Page 57

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices
Decree with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio
in the lawsuit entitled United States v.
3M Company, et al., Civil Action No.
3:14-cv-00032–WHR.
The United States filed this lawsuit
under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA). The United
States’ complaint requests recovery of
costs that the United States incurred
responding to releases of hazardous
substances at the Lammers Barrel
Superfund Site (the ‘‘Site’’) in
BeaverCreek, Ohio. The complaint also
seeks injunctive relief, specifically,
performance of the remedial action for
Operable Unit 1 at the Site selected by
the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’). Under the
terms of the Consent Decree, the
Defendants have agreed to (1) perform
the remedial action selected by EPA for
Operable Unit 1, at an estimate cost of
$3.4 million; (2) implement institutional
controls; (3) reimburse the United States
$1,496,689.04 for past response costs;
(4) reimburse the United States for
future response costs.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
proposed Consent Decree. Comments
should be addressed to the Assistant
Attorney General, Environment and
Natural Resources Division, and should
refer to United States v. 3M Company et
al., D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–07706. All
comments must be submitted no later
than thirty (30) days after the
publication date of this notice.
Comments may be submitted either by
email or by mail:
To submit
comments:
By e-mail ..
By mail .....

Send them to:
pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General
U.S. DOJ—ENRD
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C. 20044–7611.

During the public comment period,
the proposed Consent Decree may be
examined and downloaded at this
Justice Department Web site: http://
www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_
Decrees.html. We will provide a paper
copy of the proposed Consent Decree
upon written request and payment of
reproduction costs. Please mail your
request and payment to:
Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—
ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
Please enclose a check or money order
for $89.75 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) payable to the United
States Treasury. For a paper copy

without the signature pages and
Appendices, the cost is $24.25.
Maureen Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2014–02831 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
[OMB #1121–NEW]

Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed collection;
Comment Requested; New Collection:
Census of Adult Probation Supervising
Agencies, 2014
ACTION: 60-Day notice.

The Department of Justice (DOJ),
Office of Justice Programs, will be
submitting the following information
collection to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The
proposed information collection is
published to obtain comments from the
public and affected agencies. Comments
are encouraged and will be accepted for
‘‘sixty days’’ until April 11, 2014. This
process is conducted in accordance with
5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially
regarding the estimated public burden
and associated response time, or need a
copy of the proposed information
collection instrument with instructions
or additional information, please
contact Lauren Glaze, Statistician,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 7th St.,
NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email
Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov; phone (202)
305–9628).
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
concerning the proposed collection of
information are encouraged. Your
comments should address one or more
of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who

Page 58

7701

are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of this information collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
New Collection. While the Bureau of
Justice Statistics conducted a census of
probation and parole agencies in 1991,
the 2014 Census of Adult Probation
Supervising Agencies is now a
standalone collection. This collection’s
scope is narrower and only includes
adult probation agencies. The scope of
the 1991 census was broader and
included both adult probation and
parole agencies.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 2014
Census of Adult Probation Supervising
Agencies.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the
Department of Justice sponsoring the
collection:
(a) Form number: CAPSA–AIF is the
Agency Information Form (AIF) for
public agencies, CAPSA–CIF is the
Company Information Form (CIF) for
private probation companies, CAPSA–
1A is the questionnaire for public
probation agencies, and CAPSA–1B is
the questionnaire for private probation
companies. Corrections Statistics
Program, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
to respond, as well as a brief abstract:
Primary: State or local government.
Other: Federal government or private
companies. The primary goals of the
work under this clearance are to: 1)
enhance and validate a national roster of
probation agencies that supervise adults
on probation for a felony (or those that
supervise felons and misdemeanants)
and private companies that directly
supervise adult probationers; and 2)
collect information from those agencies
to report national and state-level
statistics that provide a clear
understanding of how adult probation
in the United States is currently
organized, the supervision policies and
practices agencies have established to
administer adult probation, the various
types of functions adult probation
agencies perform, and the different
types of individuals supervised by adult
probation agencies. The Bureau of
Justice Statistics will use this
information in published reports and for
the U.S. Congress, Executive Office of
the President, practitioners, researchers,
students, the media, and others

7702

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices

interested in community corrections
statistics.
All agencies and companies that are
believed to supervise adult probationers
are on a preliminary roster that BJS and
Westat, the data collection agent for the
CAPSA, developed by reviewing and
compiling data and information from
various available resources. The
CAPSA–AIF or CAPSA–CIF will be
mailed to the head of each agency/
company on the preliminary roster and
the head of the agency/company will be
asked to confirm the contact
information for the agency/company and
designate a respondent(s) to complete the
CAPSA questionnaire. Agency/company
heads will be asked to fax, email, or mail
the AIF or CIF to Westat. Designated
respondents from public probation
agencies will receive the CAPSA–1A
questionnaire and will be asked to report
via the Internet through a web survey
with telephone reporting as a secondary
mode. Designated respondents from
private probation companies will receive
the CAPSA–1B questionnaire and will
be asked to return the paper
questionnaire by fax, email, or mail.
Telephone will also serve as a secondary
mode of data collection for private
probation companies.
The CAPSA–1A will collect
information from public probation
agencies about their branch and level of
government, the various functions they
perform, the policies and practices they
have in place to administer adult
probation related to both adult
probationers and the community
corrections officers that supervise them,
the extent to which agencies have
supervision authority, the various
populations they serve, the size of their
adult probation population, and funding
sources for adult probation. In an effort
to validate the roster of probation
agencies and companies, respondents
will also be asked to review a list of
public probation agencies in their state
to identify any that may be missing from
the list. They will also be asked to
report any private probation companies
that supervise adult probationers in
their state.
The CAPSA–1B will collect
information from private probation
companies about the various functions
they perform, the number of states for
which they supervise adult probationers,
the branches and levels of government
from which they receive adult
probationers to supervise, the extent to
which any governmental entity conducts
oversight of their supervision activities,
the various populations they serve, the
size of their adult probation population,
and the practices and

methods they use to administer adult
probation.
Both the CAPSA–1A and CAPSA–1B
questionnaires will include questions to
confirm that the agencies/companies
supervise adult probationers and are
therefore correctly included on the
roster and fall within the scope of the
CAPSA.
In addition, because the organization
of adult probation varies drastically not
only by state but within particular
states, as part of the work under this
clearance to enhance and validate the
roster of adult probation agencies and
companies, one informant in each state,
the District of Columbia, and the
Federal system will be asked to
complete a telephone interview. These
contacts are necessary to assist in: (1)
identifying any agencies that may be
missing or should be removed from the
roster (e.g., agencies that are no longer
in operation); (2) updating information
contained in the resources that have
been used to develop the preliminary
roster since some of the source material
was only available from publications
that were published 5 to 10 years ago;
and (3) resolving questions about how
probation is organized in the
jurisdiction that stem from differences
in the way probation in particular
jurisdictions has been described in some
of the materials used to develop the
preliminary roster.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
needed for an average respondent to
respond:
(a) CAPSA–AIF form: Approximately
2000 respondents, each taking an
average 5 minutes to respond.
(b) CAPSA–CIF form: Approximately
200 respondents, each taking an average
of 5 minutes to respond.
(c) CAPSA–1A form: Approximately
2,000 respondents, each taking an
average of 65 minutes to respond.
(d) CAPSA–1B form: Approximately
200 respondents, each taking an average
of 31 minutes to respond.
(e) 52 telephone calls to informants in
each jurisdiction, each taking an average
of 30 minutes to respond.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: 2,480 annual burden hours.
If additional information is required
contact: Jerri Murray, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Avenue, 145 N Street NE., Room 3W–
1407B, Washington, DC 20530..
Dated: February 5, 2014.

Page 59

Jerri Murray,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2014–02767 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Benefits
Timeliness and Quality Review System
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor

(DOL) is submitting the Employment
and Training Administration (ETA)
sponsored information collection
request (ICR) titled, ‘‘Benefits
Timeliness and Quality Review
System,’’ to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval for continued use, without
change, in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
March 12, 2014.
ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with
applicable supporting documentation;
including a description of the likely
respondents, proposed frequency of
response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained free of charge from the
RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.
reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_
nbr=201307–1205–002 (this link will
only become active on the day following
publication of this notice) or by
contacting Michel Smyth by telephone
at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064,
(these are not toll-free numbers) or
sending an email to DOL_PRA_
PUBLIC@dol.gov.
Submit comments about this request
by mail or courier to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–ETA,
Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–
395–6881 (this is not a toll-free
number); or by email: OIRA_
submission@omb.eop.gov. Commenters
are encouraged, but not required, to
send a courtesy copy of any comments
by mail or courier to the U.S.
Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of
the Chief Information Officer, Attn:
Departmental Information Compliance
Management Program, Room N1301,
200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; or by email:
DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov.

Attachment 7 – Federal Register 30-day Notice

Page 60

Page 61

Page 62

Page 63

Attachment 8 – State Informant Telephone Interview

Page 64

CAPSA Frame-Building Questions by State
Guide for Semi-structured Phone Interviews
Introduction:
Hello, my name is_____. I work for Westat, a research firm in Rockville, MD. Westat is working on a
project with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the American Probation and Parole Association to
develop a comprehensive roster of public and private agencies in the United States that supervise
adult probationers. <> said that you would be
a great source of information about <>, so I would like to ask you a few questions about
how probation is organized and administered in your state. This information is critical to enhancing
and validating the roster of adult probation agencies. These questions will take about 30 minutes of
your time. Is this a convenient time for you? (If not) Can we schedule an appointment for a good
time?
General Questions
1. According to the background work we have done using various sources, we think we know
that… (Note: Include what we think is done at the state level, what we think is done at lower
levels; how we think felony and misdemeanor probation are handled and whether we think adult
and juvenile are handled by the same entities. Ask them to confirm or clarify where we may
have it wrong. Be sure they understand that we are looking at both felony and misdemeanor
supervision.)
2. At what level are policies and procedures made? (Note: Probe about this to determine whether,
in a county-organized or judicial circuit/district organized system, that level has any discretion at
all over policy and procedure, even if that means developing policy and procedure that conforms
to a general set of state guidelines or standards. Probe here because many places will say that
policy is made at the state level because they have state standards. Probe to determine whether
the chief probation officer, the judge, or whoever is in charge of probation at the lower levels has
any discretion about how to do things – e.g., whether and how often or via what means to
conduct drug tests; frequency of risk and needs assessment, tools used for risk assessment,
whether and what special programs to offer, etc.)
3. If not already ascertained: To your knowledge, does your state have any independent municipal
courts or mayor’s courts that supervise adult probationers who have to report on a regular basis
(e.g., in person, by phone, or kiosk)? If so, do the agencies set at least some of their own
policies and procedures? If so, how many agencies? Where? (Note: We are not interested in
small courts that have a type of “probation” that does not involve the probationer having to
report to a probation officer on a regular basis. No departments that have only folks who
violated local ordinances, traffic, etc. – unless it’s a serious incident that rises to the level of
misdemeanor or felony. Also, we do not want to include municipal departments that fall under
the supervision of a county agency and do not independently set their own policies or procedures
at least to some extent.)
4. If yes: Do you have or know where I can find contact information for someone at each
agency/department?
Page 65

5. Do you have or know where I can find the most recent listings of probation departments in your
state? For example, an annual report or directory or other document that might include all the
departments.
6. If not indicated in the state-specific section: In your state, are both adult and juvenile
probationers supervised by the same entities?
7. If yes: Do you know whether the juvenile data and adult data are housed in the same location
(e.g., a state-wide database or a judicial circuit database)?
8. Can you provide contact information for the person who maintains or knows the most about
your state’s juvenile probation data?
SEE INDIVIDUAL STATE QUESTIONS AND INSERT WHERE APPROPRIATE.
Closing: Thank you very much for your time. Can you please send me any annual reports, directories,
policy manuals, etc. that might further describe how adult probation works in your state?
If yes: Please address the information to my supervisor.
Monica Basena
CAPSA Data Manager
WESTAT
RW 2511
1600 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850
Again, thank you for your time.

Page 66

State Questions
ALABAMA
1. What we think we know is that adults on felony probation in AL are supervised by the AL Board
of Pardons and Paroles and adults on misdemeanor probation in AL are supervised by either the
AL Board of Pardons and Parolees or local community correction programs. Is this correct?
2. The AL Board of Pardons and Paroles administers adult probation through three regions. Do the
three regions have the discretion to define their policies, procedures and/or programming or is
all that dictated by the state?
3. Do the local programs have the discretion to define their policies, procedures and or
programming or is all of that determined at the state level?
4. Which local community corrections programs administer probation supervision independently
of the state? Follow-up: Which large cities (municipalities) have independent probation
departments (e.g., Birmingham, Huntsville, Mobile, and Montgomery)?
5. Do the judiciary/ courts have any involvement in the administration of adult probation
supervision in AL? (If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the
data and a key data person in the office?
ALASKA
1. What we think we know is that AK’s DOC Division of Probation and Parole supervises adult
probationers on both felony and misdemeanor probation. Is this correct?
2. Are there any jurisdictions in the state that do not fall under the DOC? Is anything run through
the judiciary?
ARIZONA
1. What we think we know is that county probation departments in AZ supervise adults on both
felony and misdemeanor probation and the county probation departments are linked to 15
judicial districts under the Superior Court. Is this correct?
2. Do the judicial districts have the discretion to define their own policies and procedures?
3. We also note that there are independent municipal probation agencies – e.g., Tucson City Court
Probation Department. Are there other independent municipal probation agencies or mayor’s
courts in AZ? If so, where?
4. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.).
5. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?

Page 67

ARKANSAS
1. Please describe how AR administers adult probation supervision. For example, what is the role
of the Board of Corrections Department of Community Corrections? Circuit courts? District
courts? Is there discretion at the judicial district level? What is the lowest level where there
may be policy discretion?
2. Are both felony and misdemeanor probationers supervised by the same agencies?
CALIFORNIA
1. What we think we know is that both adult and juvenile probation supervision are administered
by individual counties under the Judicial Council of CA, Administrative Office of the Courts. Is
this correct?
2. Can you explain more about how CA administers probation supervision? For example, are both
felony and misdemeanor probationers supervised by county probation departments?
3. We also note that there is an independent municipal probation agency in San Francisco. Are
there other independent municipal probation agencies or mayor’s courts in CA? If so, where?
COLORADO
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision in CO is administered at the state
level by the Office of the State Court Administrator, Division of Probation Services, but that
there are some independent municipalities. Is that correct?
2. For those jurisdictions that fall under the authority of the state, are both felony and
misdemeanor probation handled through the same department?
3. Can you explain more about how CO administers probation supervision? For example, what is
the role of judicial districts? Counties? Municipalities?
4. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)? If yes, do the municipal
agencies send their data there too? (If yes) Can you provide contact information for the office
that maintains the data and a key data person in the office?
CONNECTICUT
1. What we think we know is that adult and juvenile probation is administered by the CT Judicial
Branch through judicial districts that include clusters of counties. Is this correct? Are there any
independent municipal probation departments?
2. Do the judicial districts supervise both felony and misdemeanor probation?

Page 68

DELAWARE
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision is administered at the state level
under the DE DOC – Division of Probation and Parole through regional offices. Are both felony
and misdemeanor probationers supervised at the state level? Are there any independent
municipal agencies?
2. Do the regional offices have any discretion to define their policies, procedures and or
programming?
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision in DC is administered at the federal
level by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA). Is this correct? Are both
felony and misdemeanor handled through CSOSA?
2. Can you explain more about the administration of adult probation supervision in DC?
FLORIDA
1. What we think we know is that adults on felony probation are supervised by the FL Department
of Corrections Office of Community Corrections and adults on misdemeanor probation are
supervised by state or county offices, often operated under contract. Is this correct?
2. Do the four regional offices have discretion to establish or implement their own policies and
procedures or do they administer the state policies and programs? We have noted a very long
list of Community Corrections Offices, for example (see directory). Are these offices under the
20 judicial circuits or are they independent entities with discretion to define their policies and
procedures? Is there judicial supervision of the probation departments that are operated by
contractors?
3. Of the 67 counties in FL, which (or how many) counties have independent probation agencies
(refer to definition) that supervise adults on misdemeanor probation?
4. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.) and includes the judicial circuit
data on misdemeanants?
5. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
GEORGIA
1. What we think we know is that adult felony probation supervision is administered at the state
level by the DOC and adult misdemeanor probation is administered at the county level. Is that
correct?
2. We have also found that GA has 49 judicial circuits each with at least one probation office.
What is the relationship between the judicial circuits and counties?
Page 69

3. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)?
4. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
HAWAII
1. What we think we know is that adult and juvenile probation supervision is administered by the
Administrative Office of the State Courts via three judicial circuits. Is this correct?
2. For adult probation, the circuit and district courts administer both felony and misdemeanor
supervision, but district courts administer misdemeanor supervision. Is this correct?
3. Are these independent probation offices with the discretion to define their own policies and
procedures?
IDAHO
1. What we think we know is that adult felony probation supervision is administered by the state
DOC and misdemeanor probation supervision is administered at the county level but counties
can choose whether to offer this service. Is that correct?
2. Can you explain more about how ID administers adult probation supervision, particularly
misdemeanor supervision? What branch of government does probation fall under in the
counties?
3. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)?
4. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
ILLINOIS
1. What we think we know is that for adult and juvenile probation supervision there are 22 circuits
and county level probation departments for all 102 counties in IL. Is that correct? Can you
explain more about probation supervision in IL? For example, what is the role of the
Administrate Office of the State Courts?
2. Do the same probation departments supervise both felony and misdemeanor probation?

Page 70

INDIANA
1. What we think we know is that both adult felony and misdemeanor probation supervision is
administered at the county level under the IN Judicial Conference. Is that correct?
2. Do the county-level probation departments/courts have independent authority to set policies
programs?
IOWA
1. What we think we know is that both adult felony and misdemeanor probation supervision are
administered by the IA DOC via eight judicial districts, Is that correct?
2. Are there Community Corrections Act (CCA) jurisdictions that operate separately from the judicial
districts?
KANSAS
1. What we think we know is that adult and juvenile probation supervision in KA is administered by
31 judicial districts. Is that true for both felony and misdemeanor probation supervision?
2. Are there Community Corrections Act (CCA) jurisdictions that operate separately from the judicial
districts?
3. Does the probation department in each of these 31 districts have any discretion to establish its
own policies and procedures and programs?
4. We also note that there are at least seven municipal probation departments (i.e., Atchison,
Haysville, Kansas City, Overland Park, Topeka, Ulysses, and Wichita). Are there any additional
independent municipal probation departments? Where?
KENTUCKY
1. What we think we know is that adult felony probation supervision is administered at the state
level by the Community Services Division of Probation and Parole within the KY Department of
Corrections. Is that correct?
2. Can you explain how KY administers misdemeanor probation supervision? Is the judiciary
involved? Municipal depts.?
3. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious offense,
number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and counts by
probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)?
4. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
LOUISIANA
1. What we think we know is that adult felony probation supervision is administered by the Division
of Probation and Parole under the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Is that correct?
Page 71

2. Can you explain the organization of misdemeanor probation in the state of LA? For example, what
is the role of district courts? What agencies administer adult misdemeanor probation
supervision? City? Parish?
MAINE
1. What we think we know is that adult and juvenile probation supervision is administered by the
Division of Community Corrections under the DOC in ME. Is that correct?
2. Does this include both felony and misdemeanor adult probation supervision administered by the
DOC?
3. If no: What agencies administer adult and juvenile misdemeanor probation supervision?
4. Is there any judiciary involvement in adult probation? Independent municipals?
MARYLAND
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision is administered by the Division of
Parole and Probation, an agency of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. Is
that correct?
2. Are both felony and misdemeanor probation supervision for adults administered by this state
agency?
3. If no: What agencies administer adult misdemeanor probation supervision? If judiciary is
involved: What judiciary levels and courts have the authority?
MASSACHUSETTS
1. What we think we know is that adult and juvenile probation supervision is administered by the
Office of the Commissioner of Probation, MA Trial Court. Is that correct?
2. Does the judiciary oversee both adult felony and misdemeanor supervision? (If judiciary: Tell
me more about the involvement of circuit and district-level courts
3. Is Boston independent or part of a judicial circuit?
MICHIGAN
1. What we think we know is that adult felony probation supervision is administered by the DOC,
Field Operations Administration. Is that correct?
2. Can you explain how MI administers adult misdemeanor probation supervision? For example,
what is the role of counties? Districts? Municipalities?
3. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)?
4. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
MINNESOTA
Page 72

1. What we think we know is that both adult felony and juvenile probation supervision is
administered by the DOC. Is that correct? We also note that 17 Community Corrections Act
(CCA) agencies administer misdemeanor probation supervision for adults and juveniles in MN,
and there are 27 county probation departments that administer misdemeanor probation
supervision in non-CCA counties. Is that correct?
2. Can you explain more about how MN administers adult and juvenile probation? For example,
do the same county probation departments administer misdemeanor probation for both adults
and juveniles?
MISSISSIPPI
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision is administered by the MS DOC,
Community Corrections Division. Is that correct?
2. Are both felony and misdemeanor probationers supervised by state DOC offices or are
misdemeanor probationers supervised by other entities?
MISSOURI
1. What we think we know is that the DOC of MO administers adult felony probation supervision,
and MO circuit and associate circuit judges contract with private agencies to provide supervision
for A,B, and C misdemeanor probationers. Is that correct?
2. Can you explain more about how MO administers adult probation supervision, especially within
judicial circuits?
3. Does MO have any independent municipal probation agencies? For example, how is adult
probation supervision administered in St. Louis City? Is St. Louis considered a judicial circuit?
4. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)?
5. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
MONTANA
1. What we think we know is that adult felony probation supervision is administered by the
Department of Corrections in MO. Is that correct? What about misdemeanor supervision? Are
there independent municipal probation departments?
2. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)?
3. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
Page 73

NEBRASKA
1. What we think we know is that adult and juvenile probation supervision is administered by the
NE Probation System, which is under the judicial branch. Is that correct?
2. At what level courts are felony and misdemeanant supervision located?
NEVADA
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision is administered by the Department
of Public Safety, Division of Parole and Probation. Is this correct?
2. We also note that the Department of Public Safety supervises only felony and gross
misdemeanor probationers; adult probationers with lesser misdemeanors are placed on
informal probation with no supervision. Is that correct?
3. Is all decision making about policy and procedure invested at the state level or are there
regional, district, or county-level agencies that have any discretionary authority over how to
administer adult probation services.
4. Is it true that municipal courts in NV only administer informal probation that does not involve
direct supervision?
NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision is administered by the NH
Department of Corrections, Division of Field Services. Is this correct?
2. Are both felony and misdemeanor probationers supervised by the DOC?
3. Is all decision making about policy and procedure invested at the state level or are there
regional, district, or county-level agencies that have any discretionary authority over how to
administer adult probation services.
NEW JERSEY
1. What we think we know is that adult and juvenile probation supervision is administered by the
Administrative Office of the Courts. Is that correct?
2. At what level of courts is adult probation supervision handled? Felony? Misdemeanor? Is there a
circuit or district court system and where does the authority lie?
NEW MEXICO
1. What we think we know is that the Probation and Parole Division of the NM Corrections
Department supervises adults on probation. Is this correct?
2. Are both felony and misdemeanor probationers supervised by the DOC?
3. Is all decision making about policy and procedure invested at the state level or are there
regional, district, or county-level agencies that have any discretionary authority over how to
administer adult probation services.
4. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
Page 74

offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)?
5. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
NEW YORK
1. What we think we know is that adult and juvenile probation supervision is administered at the
county level in 62 counties and that New York City has its own independent probation authority.
Is that correct?
NORTH CAROLINA
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision is administered by the NC
Department of Corrections. Is that correct? Does the DOC supervise both felony and
misdemeanor probation throughout the state?
2. Is all decision making about policy and procedure invested at the state level or are there
regional, district, or county-level agencies that have any discretionary authority over how to
administer adult probation services.
NORTH DAKOTA
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision is administered by the ND
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Is that correct? Does the DOC supervise both
felony and misdemeanor probation throughout the state?
2. Is all decision making about policy and procedure invested at the state level or are there
regional, district, or county-level agencies that have any discretionary authority over how to
administer adult probation services?
3. Can you explain more about the organization of adult probation in ND? For example, are both
felony and misdemeanor probationers supervised by the DOC and Rehabilitation?
OHIO – NO PLANNED CONTACT WITH OH DUE TO KNOWLEDGE OF STATE STUDY HELD BY CONSULTANT.
OKLAHOMA
1. What we think we know is that the Ok DOC administers adult probation supervision. Is that
correct? Does the DOC supervise both felony and misdemeanor probation throughout the state
or is it correct that misdemeanor offenders are subject to county jail time or fines rather than
supervised probation?
2. Is all decision making about policy and procedure invested at the state level or are there
regional, district, or county-level agencies that have any discretionary authority over how to
administer adult probation services?
3. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
Page 75

offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)?
4. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
OREGON
1. What we think we know is that the Department of Corrections, Division of Community
Corrections administers adult probation supervision in partnership with local, county-operated
community corrections agencies. Is that correct?
2. Can you explain more about the organization of adult probation in OR? Are both felony and
misdemeanor probationers supervised at the same level?
PENNSYLVANIA
1. What we think we know is that the PA Board of Probation and Parole provides grant support to
counties to administer adult probation supervision. Is this correct?
2. Can you explain more about the organization of adult probation in PA? Are the county probation
agencies completely independent in how they implement adult probation supervision? Are
both felony and misdemeanor probationers supervised by county executive-branch agencies
with no involvement of the judiciary?
3. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)?
4. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
RHODE ISLAND
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision is administered by the DOC,
Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services. Is that correct?
2. Are both felony and misdemeanor probationers supervised by the DOC?
3. Is all decision making about policy and procedure invested at the state level or are there
regional, district, or county-level agencies that have any discretionary authority over how to
administer adult probation services?
4. Is the judiciary involved in probation supervision in RI?
SOUTH DAKOTA
1. What we think we know is that the Court Services Department of the Unified Judicial System
administers both adult and juvenile probation supervision. Is this correct?
2. Are felony and misdemeanor supervision conducted at the same level? For example, do circuit
courts handle felony offenders and district courts or county courts supervise misdemeanants?
Page 76

3. Does each circuit court have an independent probation department with discretion to define its
policies and procedures?
TENNESSEE
1. What we think we know is that adult felony probation supervision in TN is administered by the
Board of Probation and Parole, Community Corrections Division, Field Services Division. Adult
misdemeanor probation supervision is administered by individual counties. Is this correct?
2. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)?
3. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
TEXAS
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision is administered by 122 independent
county probation departments. Is that correct?
2. Can you explain more about how TX administers adult probation supervision? For example, are
both felony and misdemeanor probationers supervised by the same agencies?
3. Does each agency have discretion to define policies and procedures?
UTAH
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision is administered by the Department
of Corrections. Is that correct?
2. Can you explain the organization of adult probation supervision in the state of UT? For example,
are both felony and misdemeanor probationers supervised by the same agencies?
3. Is all decision making about policy and procedure invested at the state level or are there
regional, district, or county-level agencies that have any discretionary authority over how to
administer adult probation services? What role does each county have in administering adult
probation supervision?
4. Can you describe “court probation”?
VERMONT
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision is administered by the Department
of Corrections in VT. Is that correct?
2. Are both felony and misdemeanor probationers supervised by the DOC?
3. Is all decision making about policy and procedure invested at the state level or are there
regional, district, or county-level agencies that have any discretionary authority over how to
administer adult probation services?

Page 77

VIRGINIA
1. According to our records, the VA Division of Community Corrections supervises adult felony
probationers and misdemeanor probationers with sentences of more than one year. Lesser
misdemeanors are handled by county or city probation agencies. Is that correct?
2. Is this structure the same for all counties and municipalities including Alexandria County, Fairfax
County, Arlington County, and Falls Church City?
WASHINGTON
1. What we think we know is that adult felony probation supervision is administered by the DOC.
Is that correct?
2. We also note that misdemeanor probation supervision is administered by district court
probation departments under the general oversight of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Is that correct?
3. Can you explain the role that municipal agencies (e.g., Spokane) have in probation supervision?
4. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)?
5. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
WEST VIRGINIA
1. What we think we know is that both adult and juvenile probation supervision is administered by
the Supreme Court of Appeals Administrative Office. Is that correct?
2. We also note that probation officers are viewed as working for the local circuit court judges, and
there is discretion at the circuit court level (31 circuit courts covering 50 counties) in terms of
policies, procedures, and programs. Is that correct?
3. Are both felony and misdemeanor probationers supervised in this way?
4. If no: Is there a systematic use of different level courts for misdemeanors and felons?
5. Is there a state-wide data base that contains the type of information requested in the Annual
Probation Survey? – total population count, count by race and sex, count by most serious
offense, number of entries and exits during the year by type (e.g., completions, revocations) and
counts by probation status (e.g., active, inactive, absconder, etc.)?
6. If yes: Can you provide contact information for the office that maintains the data and a key data
person in the office?
WISCONSIN
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision is administered by the Department
of Corrections, Division of Community Corrections in WI. Is that correct?
2. Is this a CCA state?
Page 78

3. Can you explain the organization of adult probation in WI? For example, are both felony and
misdemeanor probationers supervised by the DOC?
WYOMING
1. What we think we know is that adult probation supervision in WY is administered by the DOC. Is
that correct?
2. Can you explain the organization of adult probation in WY? For example, are both felony and
misdemeanor probationers supervised by the DOC?
3. Is all decision making about policy and procedure invested at the state level or are there
regional, district, or county-level agencies that have any discretionary authority over how to
administer adult probation services?

Page 79

Attachment 9 – Pre-notification Letter to Public Agency Heads (from BJS)

Page 80

<>
<>, <>
<>
<>
<>
Dear <>,
The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is preparing to launch the Census of
Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA). The 2014 CAPSA national study is a special project to
identify all public and private adult probation supervising agencies in the United States and gather
information about their operations. Westat, a nationally known and highly regarded survey research firm,
will be the data collection agent for this survey. The American Probation and Parole Association is also
contributing to this important study.
The last time BJS conducted a probation census of this scope was in 1991 but as you are aware, since
then the nature of adult probation has changed considerably. CAPSA will provide federal, state and local
stakeholders with current information on the various functions of adult probation supervising agencies
and their policies and practices of supervision to assist in their policy development and criminal justice
planning. The CAPSA data and standard definitions are critical to providing a clear, comprehensive
description of the organization of adult probation in the nation and the varying structures and nature of
probation both across and within states. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as
amended (42 USC 3732), authorizes the collection of these data.
In a few weeks, we will send your agency a request to participate in CAPSA. When you receive the
request, you will be able to complete the survey online. Participation is voluntary; however, including
information from your agency is critical to ensure the census is complete, accurate, and useful to probation
supervising agencies nationwide. We request that you submit your completed survey by <>.
At this time, we would like you to please do the following:





Review the enclosed Agency Information Form and confirm the accuracy or update the
information.
Identify, on the form, someone to respond to the CAPSA survey. The designated respondent should
be able to answer questions about your agency’s structure, operational responsibilities,
characteristics of probation supervision, and types of population supervised.
Indicate on the form if the designated respondent would be able to access the survey via the Internet.
Fax the completed form to the Westat CAPSA Agency Support Team at 301-279-4508 or email it
to bjscapsa@westat.com by <>. In a few weeks, we will send the designated
respondent information on how to complete the survey.

We understand that you have competing demands and we greatly appreciate your assistance with this
important collection. We look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions about the 2014
CAPSA or about this request, please contact Westat’s CAPSA Agency Support Team at 1-888-3298124 or by email at bjscapsa@westat.com. You can find more information about CAPSA on the BJS

Page 81

website at http://www.bjs.gov/content/capsa.cfm. Also, please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS
CAPSA Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202) 305-9628 with any questions.
Sincerely,

William Sabol, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lauren Glaze
Statistician and CAPSA Project Manager
Corrections Statistics Program, BJS

Enclosures

Page 82

Attachment 10 – APPA Endorsement Letter

Page 83

<>
Greetings! We are contacting you today to encourage your participation in the Census
of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA), a national survey of public agencies
and private companies that supervise adults on probation conducted by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS). Westat, a social science research firm, and the American
Probation and Parole Association (APPA) are collaborating with BJS to conduct the
census.
CAPSA is a special project that will provide a clear understanding of the organization of
adult probation in the U.S., current adult probation supervision policies and practices,
functions performed by supervising agencies, and the types of individuals who are
supervised. The goal of CAPSA is to identify all public agencies and private companies in
the country that supervise adults on probation. A core component of the project is a
nationwide survey. You will find more information about the survey and the specific
request that is being made in the accompanying letter from Daniela Golinelli, Chief of
BJS’ Corrections Program, and Lauren Glaze, the BJS CAPSA Project Manager.
APPA is keenly interested in the success of CAPSA. BJS will use this vitally important
data to provide valuable information to states and localities to assist in their policy
development and criminal justice planning. In addition, the statistical publications
produced from the study data will serve as a benchmark. The standardized
questionnaire and definitions will permit states and localities to rely on the CAPSA data
to assess their probation agencies relative to probation agencies nationwide as well as
among those with similar characteristics. With adult probation supervision being such
an amorphous field, the CAPSA will provide clarity that is critical to future success.
Accordingly, APPA strongly encourages you to participate in CAPSA.
If you have any questions regarding CAPSA or how to submit your data, please do not
hesitate to contact the CAPSA Help Desk at 1-888-329-8124 or bjscapsa@westat.com.
You can also find more information about CAPSA on the BJS website at
http://www.bjs.gov/content/capsa.cfm.
Gratefully,

Carl A. Wicklund
Executive Director

Page 84

Attachment 11 – Public Agency Information Form (AIF)

Page 85

Page 86

Page 87

Attachment 12 – List of Survey Topics for Public Agencies

Page 88

Questionnaire Topics
Almost all the questions in the CAPSA questionnaire ask for a Yes or No answer, or provide a list of response
options from which to select answers. Exceptions include 1 question on the number of probation officers in your
agency that supervise adult probationers and 7 questions about numbers of offenders supervised (by type). In
addition, 3 questions ask for the names and county locations of other public and private adult probation supervising
agencies/facilities in your state.
The following is a list of the major topics addressed in the CAPSA questionnaire:


Branch (e.g., Executive, Judicial) and level (e.g., state, local) of government in which your agency is
located



Functions of probation performed by your agency (e.g., administrative, reporting, PSI’s, programs and
services, supervisory)



Populations supervised by your agency (e.g., reporting/non-reporting probationers, adults awaiting trial,
adults on parole, juveniles)



Authority and operational responsibility for budgetary, staffing, and policy/practices related to adult
probation supervision



Sources of funding for adult probation supervision, including Federal, state, and local government and
fees/fines collected from probationers



Methods of supervision (e.g., face-to-face, telephone, mail, email, text)



Methods of assessing probationers’ risks/needs



Specialized caseloads and services for sex offenders and probationers with mental illness, provided by your
agency or through a third party



Your agency’s role in setting terms or conditions of supervision (e.g., granting early positive discharge or
extending the period of supervision)



Number of officers supervising adult probationers



Number of persons supervised by your agency, and from these:
o Total number of individuals supervised
o Total number of adult probationers
o Number of adult probationers supervised for a felony
o Number of adult probationers supervised for a misdemeanor
o Number of non-reporting adult probationers
o Number of adult probationers supervised by a private company
o Number of adult probationers held at a correctional residential facility

Page 89



Your agency’s use of correctional residential facilities (community-based facilities operated for
correctional purposes) to confine or provide services to any adult probationers, including the name of any
facilities used by your agency and the counties in which the facilities are located



Your agency’s use of private companies to supervise adult probationers, including the name of any
companies used by your agency and the counties in which the companies operate in your state



The name and county location of other agencies that supervise adult probationers in your state, not listed on
the enclosed Supervising Agency Roster

Page 90

Attachment 13 – Pre-notification Letter to Private Company Heads (from BJS)

Page 91

<>
<>, <>
<>
<>
<>
Dear <>,
The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is preparing to launch the Census of
Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA). The 2014 CAPSA national study is a special project to
identify all public and private adult probation supervising agencies in the United States and gather
information about their characteristics. Westat, a nationally known and highly regarded survey research
firm, will be the data collection agent for this survey. The American Probation and Parole Association is
also contributing to this important study.
The last time BJS conducted a probation census of this scope was in 1991 but as you are aware, since
then the nature of adult probation has changed considerably. CAPSA will provide federal, state and local
stakeholders with current information on the various functions of adult probation supervising agencies
and their policies and practices of supervision to assist in their policy development and criminal justice
planning. The CAPSA data and standard definitions are critical to providing a clear, comprehensive
description of the organization of adult probation in the nation and the varying structures and nature of
probation both across and within states. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as
amended (42 USC 3732), authorizes the collection of these data.
In a few weeks, we will send your company a survey packet that includes a questionnaire and pre-paid
return envelope. Participation is voluntary; however, including information from your agency is critical
to ensure the census is complete, accurate, and useful to probation supervising agencies nationwide. We
request that you submit your completed survey by <>.
At this time, we would like you to please do the following:




Review the enclosed Company Information Form and confirm the accuracy or update the
information.
Identify, on the form, someone to respond to the CAPSA survey. The designated respondent should
be able to answer questions about your company’s responsibilities for adult probation supervision.
Fax the completed form to the Westat CAPSA Agency Support Team at 301-279-4508 or email it
to bjscapsa@westat.com by <>. In a few weeks, we will send the designated
respondent information on how to complete the survey.

We understand that you have competing demands and we greatly appreciate your assistance with this
important collection. We look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions about the 2014
CAPSA or about this request, please contact Westat’s CAPSA Agency Support Team at 1-888-3298124 or by email at bjscapsa@westat.com. You can find more information about CAPSA on the BJS

Page 92

website at http://www.bjs.gov/content/capsa.cfm. Also, please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS
CAPSA Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202) 305-9628 with any questions.
Sincerely,

William Sabol, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lauren Glaze
Statistician and CAPSA Project Manager
Corrections Statistics Program, BJS

Enclosures

Page 93

Attachment 14 – Private Company Information Form (CIF)

Page 94

Page 95

Page 96

Attachment 15 – AIF/CIF Reminder Letter to Agency/Company Heads

Page 97

<>
<>, <>
<>
<>
<>
Dear <>,
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is preparing to launch the Census of Adult Probation Supervising
Agencies (CAPSA). The 2014 CAPSA national study is a special project to identify all public and private
adult probation supervising agencies in the United States and gather information about their characteristics.
CAPSA will provide federal, state and local stakeholders with current information on the various functions
of adult probation supervising agencies and their policies and practices of supervision<>. Westat, a nationally known
and highly regarded survey research firm, will be acting as the data collection agent for this survey. The
American Probation and Parole Association is also contributing to this important study.
We recently sent you a packet announcing the study and <> Information Form
asking you to identify the most appropriate individual to complete the survey. The form was due on
<>. If you have already submitted your form, we thank you for your participation.
If you have not submitted your <> Information Form, please do so as soon as possible.
An additional form is included here for your convenience. Please fax the completed form to the Westat
CAPSA Agency Support Team at 301-279-4508 or email it to bjscapsa@westat.com. This survey is the
only comprehensive source for these data and your participation is vital to its success.
We understand that you have competing demands and we greatly appreciate your assistance with this
important collection. We look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions about the 2014
CAPSA or about this request, please contact Westat’s CAPSA Agency Support Team at 1-888-329-8124
or by email at bjscapsa@westat.com. You can find more information about CAPSA on the BJS website at
http://www.bjs.gov/content/capsa.cfm. Also, please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS CAPSA Project
Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202) 305-9628 with any questions.

Sincerely,

William Sabol, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lauren Glaze
Statistician and CAPSA Project Manager
Corrections Statistics Program, BJS

Enclosures

Page 98

Attachment 16 – Telephone Contact Guide: AIF/CIF Non-Response Prompt

Page 99

Q1.

Hello, my name is <>. I’m calling on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. May I
please speak to <>?
YES ....................................................... 1
NOT AVAILABLE .............................. 2
NO LONGER HEAD ........................... 3
ANSWERING MACHINE ................... 4
REFUSED ............................................. 5

Q2.

May I please speak to the new <> head?
YES ....................................................... 1
NOT AVAILABLE .............................. 2
ANSWERING MACHINE ................... 3
REFUSED ............................................. 4

Q3.

GO TO Q4
GO TO Q6
GO TO Q6
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

We haven’t received the name and contact information for that individual yet. I can collect the
information from you now if you like. It will just take a few minutes. Would that be all right?
YES, WILL PROVIDE DURING
CALL ............................................. 1
NO, WILL MAIL, FAX, EMAIL ......... 2
REFUSED ............................................. 3

Q5.

GO TO Q3
GO TO Q5
GO TO AM_MESSAGE
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

[IF NEEDED: Hello, my name is <>. I’m calling on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Justice.] We recently sent you a packet about the Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies
(CAPSA), asking you to identify the most appropriate individual to complete the survey. Did you
receive the packet?
YES ....................................................... 1
NO......................................................... 2
DON’T KNOW..................................... 3
REFUSED ............................................. 4

Q4.

GO TO Q3
GO TO Q5
GO TO Q2
GO TO AM_MESSAGE
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

COMPLETE AIF/CIF
END CALL
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

What day and time would be best for me to call back so that I can speak to
<>?
DATE: ____________
TIME: ____________
END CALL

Page 100

Q6.

I would like to send another copy of the materials to you. Can you please confirm the spelling of
your name and your address so that I can be sure it gets to you?
NAME: ___________________________________________________
ADDRESS:
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Q7.

If I could take just minute of your time, I can tell you about this study and perhaps you could
provide the name and contact information now.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics, together with Westat and the American Probation and Parole
Association, is conducting the Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies, also known as
CAPSA. CAPSA is designed to identify adult probation supervising agencies in the United States
and obtain information about their organizational structures, functions and populations
supervised. This is the first census of this type since 1991.
The packet that I mentioned included a letter requesting your <>
participation in the study. Participation will involve responding to the CAPSA questionnaire in
the coming weeks. This takes about <<65/30>> minutes and you can complete this yourself or
designate someone else in your <> to do so. The designated respondent
should be able to answer questions about your <>.
Would you like to designate someone now?
YES, WILL PROVIDE DURING
CALL ............................................. 1
NO, WILL MAIL, FAX, EMAIL ......... 2
REFUSED ............................................. 3

COMPLETE AIF/CIF
END CALL
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

ANSWERING MACHINE MESSAGE: Hello, this is <>. I’m calling from <>
on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies.
We recently sent <> a packet about the Census of Adult Probation
Supervising Agencies (CAPSA), asking you to identify the most appropriate individual to complete the
survey. We haven’t received the information yet and the due date was <>. I’m
calling to see if you will be able to provide the information and if there is anything we can do to assist you.
Please contact us at your earliest convenience. Our toll free number is 888-329-8124.

Page 101

Attachment 17 – Invitation Letter to Public Agency Designees, Web Mode (from BJS)

Page 102

<>
<>, <>
<>
<>
<>
Dear <>,
The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has launched the Census of Adult
Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA). Westat, BJS’s data collection agent for CAPSA, and the
American Probation and Parole Association are also contributing to this important study. In response to a
request that we made to <>, you have been designated as the agency
respondent for the census.
The 2014 CAPSA national study is a special project to identify all public and private adult probation
supervising agencies in the United States and gather information about their characteristics. CAPSA will
provide federal, state and local stakeholders with current information on the various functions of adult
probation supervising agencies and their policies and practices of supervision to assist in their policy
development and criminal justice planning. The CAPSA data and standard definitions are critical to
providing a clear, comprehensive description of the organization of adult probation in the nation and the
varying structures and nature of probation both across and within states. Participation is voluntary; however,
including information from your agency is critical to ensure the census is complete, accurate, and useful to
probation supervising agencies nationwide. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as
amended (42 USC 3732), authorizes the collection of these data.
The survey website is open now and you can sign in, review the survey questions, and enter responses
directly on the web. The website is secure and allows you to save and close the survey at any time and reopen it later to continue or edit your entries. Please complete the survey by the due date, <>. To access your agency’s survey:
 Go to: https://www.bjscapsa.org/
 Enter your agency’s PIN: <>
Reviewing the enclosed materials should help in answering the survey questions:
 List of topics addressed in the questionnaire. This list provides an overview of the questions
that you will be asked.
 Study definitions. Since CAPSA is a national study and agencies often use different
terminology, we have developed a set of standard definitions for the purpose of this census.
 List of adult probation supervising agencies in your state. One of the survey questions asks
you to identify agencies that are responsible for supervising adult probationers in your
jurisdiction that are not listed on the enclosed list of agencies.
We understand that you have competing demands and may need to complete several steps for preparing
your agency’s data. If this will impact submitting your survey data by the due date, and if we can assist
you, please contact Westat’s CAPSA Agency Support Team at 1-888-329-8124 or by email at
bjscapsa@westat.com.
Thank you in advance for your assistance with this important collection. We greatly appreciate your time
and help to ensure the success of the 2014 CAPSA national study. If you have any questions about the
census or this request, please contact Westat’s CAPSA Agency Support Team. You can find more
information about CAPSA on the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov/content/capsa.cfm. Also, please feel
Page 103

free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS CAPSA Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202) 3059628 with any questions.
Sincerely,

William Sabol, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lauren Glaze
Statistician and CAPSA Project Manager
Corrections Statistics Program, BJS

Enclosures

Page 104

Attachment 18 – Survey Definitions for Public Agencies

Page 105

CAPSA STUDY DEFINITIONS
Definitions are standardized for this national census and may not always match your agency’s definitions
and practices. Because CAPSA is a national data collection, we ask all agencies to use these standardized
definitions.
Key Definitions

Probation
A disposition or sentence for either a felony or misdemeanor that (1) is imposed by a criminal court
and (2) places the adjudicated person under the control, supervision and care of a correctional
agency. The probation conditions form a contract with the court by which the person must abide in
order to remain in the community, generally in lieu of incarceration. Often, probation entails
monitoring or surveillance by a correctional agency, but in some instances, probation may not involve
any reporting requirements.
Adult probationers
Persons who are subject to the authority of an adult criminal court or correctional agency. Persons
under the age of 18 who were prosecuted as adults in a criminal court are considered adults for the
purpose of this census.
Your agency
In this survey, you will be asked questions about NAME, ADDRESS. The survey will use “NAME”
and the term “your agency” interchangeably.
Because CAPSA is a national data collection, we ask all agencies to use the same approach to
determine the scope of their agency (for example, whether to consider field or satellite probation
offices) when completing the survey. The first questions focus on the role NAME has in establishing
probation policies or defining probation procedures for adult probation supervision. Your answers
to these first questions will be used to define your agency for the purpose of this census.
Please consider only adult probation, unless instructed otherwise in specific questions, even if your
agency supervises other correctional populations.

Page 106

Other Definitions

Administrative functions
Personnel management, or similar clerical or management activities, record storage and
maintenance, or budget preparation.

Authority
The ability to make decisions regarding policies and procedures governing adult probation. For the
purpose of this census, statutes are not considered to be policies or procedures.

Correctional residential facilities
Community-based facilities operated exclusively for correctional populations. Residents may be
provided programs and services, and may be allowed extensive contact with the community, such
as for employment, work, or attending school, but all residents are obligated to occupy the premises
at night. Examples include, but are not limited to, halfway houses, restitution centers, detention
centers, and prerelease or work release centers.

Electronic monitoring
Supervision conducted using electronic devices or systems to monitor or track probationers’
locations, activities, or behaviors. Examples can include, but are not limited to radio frequency
monitoring, Global Position System (GPS) monitoring, and alcohol monitoring.

Electronic supervision
Supervision conducted using automated or electronic means, such as interactive voice recognition
(IVR) or kiosks for routine reporting. It does not include electronic monitoring, email, or text reporting.

Face-to-face supervision
Supervision conducted through in-person visits such as office or field visits.

Fees
Money paid by probationers to cover the cost of operations which include but are not limited to,
supervision fees, program fees, drug testing fees, pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report fees, and
risk or needs assessment fees.

Field or satellite probation office
A probation office that is operated by a larger agency/department. It may actually manage/supervise
adult probationers, but it does not establish any policies or define any procedures for adult probation
for itself.

Fines
Monetary penalties paid by probationers. Fines include but are not limited to, day fines, violation
fines, and restitution.

Intensive supervision probation (ISP)
A more rigorous form of supervision than standard probation. It often emphasizes extensive contact,
stringent conditions (e.g., drug testing, curfews, employment, or program engagement), and close
monitoring or surveillance.

Non-reporting probation
Supervision where the adult probationer is never required, during any period of the probation term,
to report to a court or correctional authority on a regular basis either through face-to-face visits, mail,
telephone, interactive voice recognition (IVR), or kiosks.

Page 107

Operational responsibility
The responsibility for implementing decisions related to the established policies and defined
procedures of adult probation.

Pre-sentencing investigations
Activities to inform case processing decisions (associated with but not limited to sentencing
decisions); activities include collecting and reporting information related to adult probationers’
criminal histories, housing, employment, and family circumstances.

Reporting activities
Data collection or reporting, for example the preparation of monthly or annual reports.

Staffing
The hiring, terminating, re-assigning, or promoting of staff.

Supervision officers
Full- and part-time staff who spend any amount of time supervising adult probationers, regardless of
their position or the amount of time they spend conducting activities in addition to adult probation
supervision. Some agencies may refer to these staff as officers, agents, or caseworkers.

Supervisory functions
Staff (e.g., officers, agents, or caseworkers) supervise adult probationers either through face-to-face
visits, mail, telephone, interactive voice recognition (IVR), or kiosks for routine reporting.

Page 108

Attachment 19 – State-specific Listing of Public Probation Supervising Agencies (Single state example)

Page 109

Initial Listing of Adult Probation Agencies
Colorado

County

Agency Name

Adams

Judicial District 17 (Adams & Broomfield Counties)

Adams

Westminster Municipal Court

Alamosa

Judicial District 12 (Saguache, Mineral, Rio Grande, Alamosa, Costilla, Conejos Counties)

Arapahoe

Aurora Municipal Court

Arapahoe

Judicial District 18 (Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln Counties)

Boulder

Judicial District 20 (Boulder County)

Boulder

Longmont Municipal Court Probation

Denver

Denver County Court Probation Division

Denver

Division of Probation Services State Court Administrator's Office

Denver

Judicial District 2A (Denver County)

Denver

Judicial District 2J (Denver County)

Eagle

Judicial District 5 (Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek, and Lake Counties)

El Paso

CO Springs Municipal Court Probation Office

Fremont

Judicial District 11 (Park, Fremont, Chaffe, and Custer Counties)

Garfield

Judicial District 9 (Rio Blanco, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties)

Jefferson

Judicial District 1 (Jefferson & Gilpin Counties)

Jefferson

Lakewood Municipal Court Probation

Jefferson

Wheat Ridge Probation Department

La Plata

Judicial District 6 (La Plata, San Juan, and Archuleta Counties)

Larimer

Judicial District 8 (Larimer & Jackson Counties)

Las Animas

Judicial District 3 (Huerfang & Las Animas Counties)

Mesa

Judicial District 21 (Mesa County)

Montezuma

Judicial District 22 (Dolores & Montezuma)

Montrose

Judicial District 7 (Delta, Gunnison, Montrose, Ouray, San Miguel, and Hinsdale Counties)

Morgan

Fort Morgan Municipal Court Probation

Morgan
Otero

Judicial District 13 (Logan, Sedgwick, Phillips, Morgan, Washington, and Kit Carson
Counties)
Judicial District 16 (Crowley, Bent, and Otero Counties)

Prowers

Judicial District 15 (Cheyenne, Kiowa, Prowers, and Baca Counties)

Pueblo

Judicial District 10 (Pueblo County)

Routt

Judicial District 14 (Moffat, Routt, and Grand Counties)

Weld

Judicial District 19 (Weld County)

Page 110

Attachment 20 – Telephone Contact Guide: Public Agency Web Survey Non-response Prompt

Page 111

Q1.

Hello, my name is <>. I’m calling on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. May I
please speak to <>?
YES ....................................................... 1
NOT AVAILABLE .............................. 2
NO LONGER AT AGENCY................ 3
ANSWERING MACHINE ................... 4
REFUSED ............................................. 5

Q2.

<> had instructed us to contact <>. May I
please speak to <>?
YES ....................................................... 1
NOT AVAILABLE .............................. 2
ANSWERING MACHINE ................... 3
REFUSED ............................................. 4

Q3.

GO TO Q4
GO TO Q7
GO TO Q7
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

We haven’t received your survey yet and the due date was <>. I’m calling to see if
you will be able to complete the survey for your probation agency by <>.
YES ....................................................... 1
NEEDS MORE TIME .......................... 2
REFUSED ............................................. 3

Q5.

IDENTIFY NEW RESPONDENT
GO TO Q6
GO TO AM_MESSAGE 2
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

[IF NEEDED: Hello, my name is <>. I’m calling on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Justice.] <> has designated you to be the respondent for the Census
of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies. We recently sent you a packet about the census. Did you
receive the packet?
YES ....................................................... 1
NO......................................................... 2
DON’T KNOW..................................... 3
REFUSED ............................................. 4

Q4.

GO TO Q3
GO TO Q6
GO TO Q2
GO TO AM_MESSAGE 1
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

END CALL
GO TO Q5
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

Thank you for letting me know. Our data collection period is scheduled to end soon. When will
you be able to complete the survey?
DATE: ____________
END CALL

Q6.

What day and time would be best for me to call back so that I can speak to
<>. I’m calling from Westat on behalf
of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies.
<> has designated you to be the respondent for the census. Recently, we sent
materials about the census to you. We haven’t received your survey yet and the due date was <>. I’m calling to see if you will be able to complete the survey and if there is anything we can do
to assist you. Please contact us at your earliest convenience. Our toll free number is 888-329-8124.
ANSWERING MACHINE MESSAGE 2: Hello, this is <>. I’m calling from Westat on behalf
of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies. Recently,
you designated <> as the respondent for your agency. I have been informed that
<> is no longer at your agency and I would like to get the name and contact
information for someone else who can respond to the census. Please contact us at your earliest convenience.
Our toll free number is 888-329-8124.

Page 113

Attachment 21 – Invitation Letter to Public Agency Designees, Telephone Mode (from BJS)

Page 114

<>
<>, <>
<>
<>
<>
Dear <>,
The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has launched the Census of Adult
Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA). Westat, BJS’s data collection agent for CAPSA, and the
American Probation and Parole Association are also contributing to this important study. In response to a
request that we made to <>, you have been designated as the agency
respondent for the census.
The 2014 CAPSA national study is a special project to identify all public and private adult probation
supervising agencies in the United States and gather information about their characteristics. CAPSA will
provide federal, state and local stakeholders with current information on the various functions of adult
probation supervising agencies and their policies and practices of supervision to assist in their policy
development and criminal justice planning. The CAPSA data and standard definitions are critical to
providing a clear, comprehensive description of the organization of adult probation in the nation and the
varying structures and nature of probation both across and within states. Participation is voluntary; however,
including information from your agency is critical to ensure the census is complete, accurate, and useful to
probation supervising agencies nationwide. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as
amended (42 USC 3732), authorizes the collection of these data.
An interviewer from Westat will contact you by telephone in the next week or so to complete the survey
questionnaire. You can complete the interview at that time or contact us by telephone (888-329-8124) or
email (bjscaps@westat.com) to schedule a call for a more specific time that would be convenient to you.
Please complete the survey by the due date, <>. Reviewing the enclosed materials
should help in answering the survey questions:




List of topics addressed in the questionnaire. This list provides an overview of the questions
that you will be asked.
Study definitions. Since CAPSA is a national study and agencies often use different
terminology, we have developed a set of standard definitions for the purpose of this census.
List of adult probation supervising agencies in your state. One of the survey questions asks
you to identify agencies that are responsible for supervising adult probationers that are not listed
on the enclosed list of agencies.

We understand that you have competing demands and may need to complete several steps to prepare your
agency’s data. Please let Westat know if this will impact submitting your survey data by the due date,
and if we can assist you. If you are unable to submit your survey by telephone, please contact Westat’s
CAPSA Agency Support Team at 1-888-329-8124 or by email at bjscapsa@westat.com.
Thank you in advance for your assistance with this important collection. We greatly appreciate your time
and help to ensure the success of the 2014 CAPSA national study. If you have any questions about the
census or this request, please contact Westat’s CAPSA Agency Support Team. You can find more
information about CAPSA on the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov/content/capsa.cfm. Also, please feel
Page 115

free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS CAPSA Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202) 3059628 with any questions.
Sincerely,

William Sabol, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lauren Glaze
Statistician and CAPSA Project Manager
Corrections Statistics Program, BJS

Enclosures

Page 116

Attachment 22 – Telephone Contact Guide: Public Agency Telephone Survey Prompt

Page 117

Q1.

Hello, my name is <>. I’m calling on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. May I
please speak to <>?
YES ....................................................... 1
NOT AVAILABLE .............................. 2
NO LONGER AT AGENCY................ 3
ANSWERING MACHINE ................... 4
REFUSED ............................................. 5

Q2.

<> had instructed us to contact <>. May I
please speak to <>?
YES ....................................................... 1
NOT AVAILABLE .............................. 2
ANSWERING MACHINE ................... 3
REFUSED ............................................. 4

Q3.

GO TO Q4
GO TO Q7
GO TO Q7
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

On average, we expect the interview to take about 65 minutes to complete. I’m calling to conduct
the survey interview if this is a convenient time.
YES ....................................................... 1
NOT CONVENIENT............................ 2
REFUSED ............................................. 3

Q5.

IDENTIFY NEW RESPONDENT
GO TO Q6
GO TO AM_MESSAGE 2
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

[IF NEEDED: Hello, my name is <>. I’m calling on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Justice.] <> has designated you to be the respondent for the Census
of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies. We recently sent you a packet about the census. Did you
receive the packet?
YES ....................................................... 1
NO......................................................... 2
DON’T KNOW..................................... 3
REFUSED ............................................. 4

Q4.

GO TO Q3
GO TO Q6
GO TO Q2
GO TO AM_MESSAGE 1
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

CONTINUE TO INTERVIEW
GO TO Q5
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

That’s fine. When will you be able to do the interview?
DATE: ____________
TIME: ____________
END CALL

Q6.

What day and time would be best for me to call back so that I can speak to <<
RESPONDENTAGENCY HEAD NAME>>?
DATE: ____________
TIME: ____________
END CALL

Page 118

Q7.

I would like to send another copy of the materials to you. Can you please confirm the spelling of
your name and your address so that I can be sure it gets to you?
NAME: ___________________________________________________
ADDRESS:
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

ANSWERING MACHINE MESSAGE 1: Hello, this is <>. I’m calling from Westat on behalf
of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies.
<> has designated you to be the respondent for the census. Recently, we sent
materials about the census to you. I would like to conduct the interview with you as soon as possible. [IF
PAST DUE: The due date was <>.] We will call again in a few days. If you prefer, please
contact us to schedule a time that would be most convenient for you. Our toll free number is 888-329-8124.
ANSWERING MACHINE MESSAGE 2: Hello, this is <>. I’m calling from Westat on behalf
of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies. Recently,
you designated <> as the respondent for your agency. I have been informed that
<> is no longer at your agency and I would like to get the name and contact
information for someone else who can respond to the census. Please contact us at your earliest convenience.
Our toll free number is 888-329-8124.

Page 119

Attachment 23 – Invitation Letter to Private Company Designees

Page 120

<>
<>, <>
<>
<>
<>
Dear <>,
The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has launched the Census of Adult
Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA). Westat, BJS’s data collection agent for CAPSA, and the
American Probation and Parole Association are also contributing to this important study. In response to a
request that we made to <>, you have been designated as the agency
respondent for the census.
The 2014 CAPSA national study is a special project to identify all public and private adult probation
supervising agencies in the United States and gather information about their characteristics. CAPSA will
provide federal, state and local stakeholders with current information on the various functions of adult
probation supervising agencies and their policies and practices of supervision. The CAPSA data and
standard definitions are critical to providing a clear, comprehensive description of the organization of adult
probation in the nation and the varying structures and nature of probation both across and within states.
Participation is voluntary; however, including information from your agency is critical to ensure the census
is complete, accurate, and useful to probation supervising agencies nationwide. The Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (42 USC 3732), authorizes the collection of these data.
The survey questionnaire is enclosed, along with a pre-addressed postage paid envelope. Please
complete and return the survey by the due date, <>.
We understand that you have competing demands and may need to complete several steps for preparing
your company’s data. Please let Westat know if this will impact submitting your survey data by the due
date, and if we can assist you. If you are unable to submit your survey by mail, please contact Westat’s
CAPSA Agency Support Team at 1-888-329-8124 or by email at bjscapsa@westat.com.
Thank you in advance for your assistance with this important collection. We greatly appreciate your time
and help to ensure the success of the 2014 CAPSA national study. If you have any questions about the
census or this request, please contact Westat’s CAPSA Agency Support Team. You can find more
information about CAPSA on the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov/content/capsa.cfm. Also, please feel
free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS CAPSA Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202) 3059628 with any questions.
Sincerely,

William Sabol, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lauren Glaze
Statistician and CAPSA Project Manager
Corrections Statistics Program, BJS

Enclosures

Page 121

Attachment 24 – Telephone Contact Guide: Private Company Paper Survey Non-response Prompt

Page 122

Q1.

Hello, my name is <>. I’m calling on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. May I
please speak to <>?
YES ....................................................... 1
NOT AVAILABLE .............................. 2
NO LONGER AT COMPANY ............ 3
ANSWERING MACHINE ................... 4
REFUSED ............................................. 5

Q2.

<> had instructed us to contact <>. May
I please speak to <>?
YES ....................................................... 1
NOT AVAILABLE .............................. 2
ANSWERING MACHINE ................... 3
REFUSED ............................................. 4

Q3.

GO TO Q4
GO TO Q7
GO TO Q7
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

We have not yet received your questionnaire. The due date was <>. I can conduct
the interview now if it is convenient. Otherwise, you can complete the questionnaire and return it
to us by mail.
DO PHONE INTERVIEW ................... 1
WILL RETURN BY MAIL .................. 2
REFUSED ............................................. 3

Q5.

IDENTIFY NEW RESPONDENT
GO TO Q6
GO TO AM_MESSAGE 2
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

[IF NEEDED: Hello, my name is <>. I’m calling on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Justice.] <> has designated you to be the respondent for the Census
of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies. We recently sent you a packet about the census. Did you
receive the packet?
YES ....................................................... 1
NO......................................................... 2
DON’T KNOW..................................... 3
REFUSED ............................................. 4

Q4.

GO TO Q3
GO TO Q6
GO TO Q2
GO TO AM_MESSAGE 1
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

CONTINUE TO INTERVIEW
GO TO Q5
END CALL, CODE FOR CONVERSION

When do you think we should expect to receive your questionnaire?
DATE: ____________
END CALL

Page 123

Q6.

What day and time would be best for me to call back so that I can speak to
<>?
DATE: ____________
TIME: ____________
END CALL

Q7.

I would like to send another copy of the materials to you. Can you please confirm the spelling of
your name and your address so that I can be sure it gets to you?
NAME: ___________________________________________________
ADDRESS:
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

ANSWERING MACHINE MESSAGE 1: Hello, this is <>. I’m calling from
<>> on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the Census of Adult Probation
Supervising Agencies. <> has designated you to be the respondent for the
census. Recently, we sent materials about the census to you. I would to find out when you might be able
to complete the survey. The due date was <>. We will call again in a few days. If you
prefer, please contact us to schedule a time that would be most convenient for you. Our toll free number is
888-329-8124.
ANSWERING MACHINE MESSAGE 2: Hello, this is <>. I’m calling from
<> on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the Census of Adult Probation
Supervising Agencies. Recently, you designated <> as the respondent for your
company. I have been informed that <> is no longer at your company and I
would like to get the name and contact information for someone else who can respond to the census. Please
contact us at your earliest convenience. Our toll free number is 888-329-8124.

Page 124

Attachment 25 – Final Thank You Letter

Page 125

<>
<>, <>
<>
<>
<>
Dear <>,
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), Westat, and the American Probation and Parole
Association, we would like to thank you for your participation in the Census of Adult Probation
Supervising Agencies (CAPSA), 2014. We truly appreciate your support and your
<> efforts in completing the survey. Your participation and the data you provided
will be used to produce statistics about the organization and administration of adult probation across the
nation. The first BJS report from CAPSA is scheduled to be released in <> 2015. At that time,
you will be able to access the CAPSA report with the findings on the BJS website at:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/capsa.cfm.
Thank you for your support of BJS’ Corrections Statistics Program. We look forward to working with you
in the future. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS
CAPSA Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202) 305-9628.
Sincerely,

William Sabol, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lauren Glaze
Statistician and CAPSA Project Manager
Corrections Statistics Program, BJS

Page 126

Attachment 26 – Data Retrieval Email, Initial Contact for Item Non-response

Page 127

Subject: BJS 2014 Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA)
Dear <>,
I am contacting you today on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) regarding your
<> 2014 Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA) survey that
was submitted on <>. Specifically, the survey item(s) below were left blank and
I would like to collect that information in order to consider the survey complete. In case it is helpful, I
have attached a full list survey questions for reference.
<<2. In which branch of government is NAME located?
1
Executive branch
2
Judicial branch
3
Private
4
Other (Please describe)

17. Does your agency collect fees from any adult probationers either directly or through a collection
agent?
► Fees are paid by probationers to cover the cost of operations and include, but are not limited
to, supervision fees, program fees, drug testing fees, pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report fees,
and risk or needs assessment fees.
1
2
3
4

No fees are collected
Collected directly by agency
Collected through a collection agent
Collected both directly and through a collection agent>>

Understanding that you are busy, please reply to this email and let me know when would be a good time
for me to call you to collect your response(s). If you prefer, please do not hesitate to call me, toll-free, at
888-329-8124. Thank you for your support of BJS’ statistical programs. I look forward to hearing from
you.

Thank you,
<>

Westat CAPSA Agency Support Team
Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA)
Email: bjscapsa@westat.com
Phone: 1-888-329-8124
Fax: 301-279-4508

Page 128

Attachment 27 – Public Agency Data Retrieval Email, Initial Contact for Missing Lists

Page 129

Subject: BJS 2014 Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA)
Dear <>,
I am contacting you today on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) regarding your agency’s
2014 Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA) survey that was submitted on
<>. Specifically, when filling in the survey, you indicated that you would send a
list of <>
operating in <>. We have not received this information and would like it in order to consider
your survey complete. Please email or fax the <> to bjscapsa@westat.com or 301-279-4508 at
your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your support of BJS’ statistical programs. If you have any questions or if I can provide any
additional information, please do not hesitate to reply to this email or call me, toll-free, at 888-329-8124. I
look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,
<>

Westat CAPSA Agency Support Team
Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA)
Email: bjscapsa@westat.com
Phone: 1-888-329-8124
Fax: 301-279-4508

Page 130

Attachment 28 – Data Retrieval Email, Initial Contact for Other Issues

Page 131

Subject: BJS 2014 Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA)
Dear <>,
I am contacting you today on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) regarding your
<> 2014 Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA) survey that
was submitted on <>. I have a few questions regarding the data therein.
Specifically, <>. I have attached a full list survey
questions for reference.
[IF NEEDED: Additionally, when filling in the survey, you indicated that you would send a list of
<> operating in
<>. We have not received this information and would like it in order to consider your survey
complete. Please email or fax the <> to bjscapsa@westat.com or 301-279-4508 at your earliest
convenience.]
Understanding that you are busy, please reply to this email and let me know when would be a good time
for me to call you to discuss your <> survey. If you prefer, please do not hesitate
to call me, toll-free, at 888-329-8124. Thank you for your support of BJS’ statistical programs. I look
forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,
<>

Westat CAPSA Agency Support Team
Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA)
Email: bjscapsa@westat.com
Phone: 1-888-329-8124
Fax: 301-279-4508

Page 132

Attachment 29 – Data Retrieval Email, Confirming Changes to Data

Page 133

Subject: BJS 2014 Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA)
Dear <>,
Thank you for speaking with me about the 2014 Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies
(CAPSA). Per our discussion, our CAPSA Agency Support Team has made the following changes to your
survey responses.



<>.
<>.

This email is for informational purposes only and does not require a response. If you disagree with these
changes, or if we can provide any additional information, please contact me at 1-888-329-8124 or by
email at bjscapsa@westat.com.

Thank you,
<>

Westat CAPSA Agency Support Team
Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA)
Email: bjscapsa@westat.com
Phone: 1-888-329-8124
Fax: 301-279-4508

Page 134

Attachment 30 – Alternative Closeout Letter, Submission but Incomplete Data Retrieval

Page 135

<>
<>, <>
<>
<>
<>
Dear <>,
Thank you for participating in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) 2014 Census of Adult Probation
Supervising Agencies (CAPSA). Westat received your agency’s submission; however, some of the
information is unclear or missing. Westat has been trying to reach <> to clarify those
items and BJS is now closing out the CAPSA collection. Please contact Westat’s CAPSA Agency
Support Team at 1-888-329-8124 or by email at bjscapsa@westat.com to complete your
<> submission. Without clarification, BJS will estimate these data elements for
your <>.
We hope to speak with you soon. Thank you for your support of BJS’ Corrections Statistics Program.
Please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS CAPSA Project Manager, at Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or
(202) 305-9628 with any questions.

Sincerely,

William Sabol, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lauren Glaze
Statistician and CAPSA Project Manager
Corrections Statistics Program, BJS

Page 136

Attachment 31 – Alternative Closeout Letter, No Participation

Page 137

<>
<>, <>
<>
<>
<>
Dear <>,
We are writing to inform you that the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is closing out the collection of the
2014 Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA). We recently sent you a letter requesting
your agency’s participation in the Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA). A reply
form and completed survey were due on <>. To date, we have not received your
<> information. If at any time you are able to provide the data requested in the
survey, please let us know and we will update our data file.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Lauren Glaze, BJS CAPSA Project Manager, at
Lauren.Glaze@usdoj.gov or (202) 305-9628.

Sincerely,

William Sabol, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lauren Glaze
Statistician and CAPSA Project Manager
Corrections Statistics Program, BJS

Page 138

Attachment 32 – Pilot Test Report

Page 139

Census of Adult Probation Supervising
Agencies
Pilot Test Report

Authors
Tim Smith
Monica Basena
Heather Tubman-Carbone

February 27, 2014

Prepared for: Lauren Glaze
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Prepared by:
Westat
1600 Research Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20850-3129
(301) 251-1500

Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Pilot Test Sample ..................................................................................................... 2
Data Collection Methodology ............................................................................... 3
3.1
Survey instruments ................................................................................... 3
3.2
Correspondence and data collection ..................................................... 4
Findings Related to Survey Responses ................................................................. 6
4.1
Public agency survey responses ............................................................. 7
4.1.1
Organizational structure ......................................................... 7
4.1.2
Authority and Operational Responsibility ........................... 9
4.1.3
Methods of supervision ........................................................ 12
4.1.4
Supervised populations and officer counts ....................... 15
4.1.5
Identification of additional agencies................................... 19
4.2
Private company survey responses ...................................................... 19
4.2.1
Clients and contract requirements ...................................... 19
4.2.2
Methods of supervision ........................................................ 21
4.2.3
Supervised populations ........................................................ 21
Follow-up for data quality among public agency respondents ....................... 22
Recommendations ................................................................................................. 23
6.1
Proposed changes to the public agency questionnaire ..................... 23
6.2
Proposed changes to the private company questionnaire ................ 27

List of Tables

Table 1. Initial sample of agencies and companies, by type ........................................... 2
Table 2. Branch and level of government reported by respondents, by type .............. 7
Table 3. Function of probation performed, by agency type ........................................... 9
Table 4. Agency authority and responsibility for domains, by agency type ............... 11
Table 5. Funding sources for adult probation, by agency type .................................... 12
Table 6. Supervision methods employed, by agency type ............................................. 12
Table 7. Use of risk/needs assessment methods, by agency type ................................ 13
Table 8. Specialized services for sex offenders and mentally ill probationers,
by provider and agency type .............................................................................................. 14
Table 9. Agency role in setting terms and conditions of supervision, by
agency type15
Table 10. Populations supervised, by agency type ......................................................... 16
Table 11. Average supervised population, by population type and agency type ....... 16
Table 12. Supervised population data discrepancies, by agency................................... 17
Table 13. Adult probationer population reported on CAPSA pilot test and
2012 ASPP, by agency ........................................................................................................ 18
Table 14. Private company clients, by level and branch of government .................... 20
Table 15. Supervision methods employed; private companies..................................... 21
Table 16. Use of risk/needs assessment method; private companies ......................... 21
Table 17. Populations supervised; private companies ................................................... 21
Table 18. Follow-up for data quality; public agencies ................................................... 22
Table 19. Follow-up required, by reason; public agencies ............................................ 23

List of Figures

Figure 1- Flow chart of data collection activities ............................................................. 4
APPENDIX A
Public Agencies and Private Companies Invited to Participate in
CAPSA Pilot Test ................................................................................A-1
APPENDIX B
Public Agency Information Form (AIF) ........................................................... B-1
Private Company Information Form (CIF) ...................................................... B-1
Public Agency Questionnaire ............................................................................. B-3
Private Company Questionnaire ...................................................................... B-26
APPENDIX C
Public Agency Materials
Head Cover Letter (Public Agency).................................................. C-1
Respondent Cover Letter (Public Agency) ...................................... C-2
Questionnaire Topics .......................................................................... C-4
Study Definitions ................................................................................. C-5
Thank-you/Reminder Postcard (Public Agency) ........................... C-6
Final Thank-you Letter (Public Agency) .......................................... C-7
Final Close-out Letter (Public Agency) ............................................ C-8
Private Company Materials
Head Cover Letter (Private Company) ............................................ C-9
Respondent Cover Letter (Private Company) ............................... C-11
Thank-you/Reminder Postcard (Private Company) .................... C-13
Final Thank-you Letter (Private Company)................................... C-14
Final Close-out Letter (Private Company) ..................................... C-15
APPENDIX D
Anecdotal Comments ......................................................................................... D-1

Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies
Pilot Test Report
1. Introduction
In preparation for the nationwide Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA),
Westat conducted a pilot test of a sample of public and private probation agencies to identify ways
to evaluate the survey questionnaire and data collection procedures. The American Probation and
Parole Association (APPA) assisted with the collection of information from the private companies.
A total of 60 public agencies and 12 private companies were invited to participate in the pilot test.1,2
The pilot test was designed to allow BJS and Westat to achieve the following goals and objectives:






Test the functionality of data collection instruments: the online survey used to collect
information from public agencies and the paper questionnaire used to collect information
from private agencies, including survey response protocols for identifying agencies that are
missing from the preliminary CAPSA roster.
Determine the capacity of respondents to answer each question, identify sections of the
questionnaires that are unclear, and examine the questions where problems of item
nonresponse or inconsistent information might occur.
Provide a forum for reviewing and evaluating questionnaire content and clarity with
respondents through the follow-up interviews for data retrieval or to resolve inconsistencies.
Determine the respondent burden associated with the survey process, including time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering the data needed, and
completing and reviewing responses.

Contact with agencies and companies began on June 25, 2013, after the Office of Management and
Budget approved the pilot test through a generic clearance, with a mailing to agency and company
heads. Public agencies were randomly assigned to either the web or telephone response mode; this
was done to ensure that the questionnaire could be adequately tested using both modes. After 4
weeks, all nonrespondent public agencies were assigned for telephone follow-up efforts. Private
companies were asked to respond to a mail questionnaire; they too were assigned to telephone
nonresponse follow-up after 4 weeks. All data collection efforts, including contacts to resolve item
nonresponse and data inconsistencies, ended on September 17, 2013.
This report summarizes the findings from the pilot test. In Section 2, we describe the sample of
agencies and companies that were invited to participate in the pilot test. Section 3 presents the
methodology used to contact agencies and companies and to collect the survey data from each
group. Analysis focused on the goals and objectives highlighted above, and in Section 4 we present
the findings related to the survey data (e.g., comparison of expected agency profiles and reported
characteristics, consistency of responses to questions on authority and responsibility, etc.). We
1

An initial sample of 48 public agencies was selected. After 2 weeks of follow-up effort, 12 of the agencies were replaced due to lack of response or
inability to participate. Efforts to recruit and collect data from the 36 original and 12 replacement agencies lasted throughout remainder the data
collection period.

2

Unless otherwise noted, in this report all references to an “agency” or “agencies” include both public agencies and private companies.

1

discuss findings related to the survey process in Section 5, for example we describe the level of item
nonresponse and the need for data retrieval. Finally, in Section 6, we present recommendations for
changes to the survey questionnaires and procedures. There are also several appendixes. The first
includes a listing of the 60 public agencies and 12 private companies that were asked at some point
to participate in the pilot test (Appendix A); the 60 public agencies include 12 from the initial sample
that were replaced due to nonresponse. Other appendixes contain the questionnaires (Appendix B),
copies of all correspondence materials sent to agency and company staff (Appendix C), and
comments and other anecdotal information collected during the data collection effort (Appendix D).

2. Pilot Test Sample
Westat selected a purposive initial sample of public probation supervising agencies and private
companies known to supervise adult probationers. (See Appendix A for a listing of all agencies and
companies asked to participate in the pilot test.) Public agencies were chosen to represent the four
branches and levels of government: executive-state, executive-local, judicial-state, and judicial-local.
Other characteristics that were considered included the agency’s status as a subsidiary agency or as
supervising only juvenile probationers.3 The 12 private companies were selected based on whether
they were believed to provide services across several states or several counties. Table 1 shows the
distribution of agencies and companies in the initial selection.
Table 1. Initial sample of agencies
and companies, by type
Public
Executive
State
Local
Judicial
State
Local
Ineligible
Juvenile
Subsidiary
Private
Total

48
18
13
5
25
11
14
5
2
3
12
60

Approximately 2 weeks after the initial contact attempt with public agency heads, 12 agencies were
replaced due to nonresponse or inability to respond. The 2 week period was imposed so that the
agencies selected as replacements would have sufficient time to respond within the data collection
period. The replacements were selected to match the initial sample cases on the key characteristics
(e.g., level and branch).

3

To classify public agencies for selection, we used information from available sources such the Annual Survey of Probation and Parole (ASPP) data
from the 2012 survey year, commercial databases and directories, state and local government websites and summary reports from the National
Institute of Corrections, the Vera Institute, the BJS’s State Court Organization report, and other information available.

2

3

3. Data Collection Methodology
3.1

Survey instruments

Three data collection instruments were used in the pilot test. Agency heads and company heads
were asked to complete a paper form to update their contact information and designate staff who
would respond to the survey. We fielded a web survey for public agencies and a mail survey for
private companies to collect the CAPSA data (see Appendix B).
The Agency Information Form (AIF) and Company Information Form (CIF) included the contact
information on file for the agency and company, for example agency/company head name and
agency/company address. Space was provided on the form to update the file information and to
provide the name and contact information for the designated respondent. In addition, public
agencies were asked to indicate whether or not the respondent would be able to respond to the
survey online.4
The public agency questionnaire was estimated to take 50 minutes to complete, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, and gathering the data needed, and
entering and reviewing the survey responses. Survey content focused on the organizational structure
of the agency (e.g., branch and level of government) and probation functions performed by the
agency, authority and operational responsibilities, functions of supervision performed by the agency,
and supervision officer practices. Agencies were asked to provide counts of probation officers and
probationers. Additional questions asked respondents to identify other public agencies in their state,
private companies with which their agencies worked, and correctional residential facilities in their
state with responsibility for supervising probationers. The survey provided key definitions and a
glossary prior to the first question and repeated the definitions throughout the survey.
The private company questionnaire was shorter than the public agency questionnaire, and was
estimated to take about 30 minutes to complete. Like the public agency questionnaire, this
questionnaire asked about the probation functions performed by the company, the number and
types of probationers under their supervision, and methods used by the company to supervise the
probationers. However, the private company questionnaire did not include questions used to assess
independence (i.e., authority and operational responsibility), the ability to impose conditions of
probation or grant early positive discharge or extend a period of supervision, policies related to
supervision officers, or funding sources. Unlike the public agency questionnaire, the companies
were asked to report the number of states in which the company supervised adult probationers, the
types of government agencies (i.e., level and branch) with which they had contracts, and the types of
government oversight. The survey provided definitions with each question as needed.
None of the instruments were converted for telephone administration. Rather, for the nonresponse
follow-up efforts, interviewers were trained to administer the instruments in their original form.

4

Westat’s experience with the ASPP suggested that nearly 15 percent of agencies would not be able to respond online due to lack of access to the
Internet or firewalls that would prevent completion of the web survey.

4

3.2

Correspondence and data collection

As described above, we recruited agencies and companies in waves. The first wave took place at the
start of data collection, on June 25, as we contacted an initial group of 48 agencies and 12 private
companies. If agencies and companies were unresponsive or declined to participate, then they were
replaced on a flow basis. Figure 1 shows the flow of the data collection activities. In this section,
we provide greater detail on the activities shown in the figure. Copies of the materials included in
survey packets are provided in Appendix C.
Mailing 1 to
public Agency
Heads with AIF
and list of topics

Agencies and
companies return
AIF/CIF; public
agencies indicate
web availability

Mailing 2 to Data
Provider.
Public: topic list,
agency list,
definitions, and
phone or web
instructions.
Private: Paper
survey

Agencies complete
phone/web survey;
companies complete
paper survey

Agencies and
companies do not
complete survey
or refuse

Mailing 1 to
private Agency
Heads with CIF

Agencies and
companies do
not return AIF/
CIF or refuse

AIF/CIF nonresponse f/u
calls

Agencies and
companies do
not return AIF/
CIF or refuse

Review
submissions and
conduct data
retrieval

Mailing 3 to
remind/thank
Data Provider

Mailing 4 to
thank agencies
and companies

Agencies and
companies do
not complete
survey or refuse

Identify
replacement
agencies if time
allows

Survey nonresponse f/u
calls

Agencies and
companies do
not complete
survey or refuse

Figure 1- Flow chart of data collection activities

Agency support. Throughout the data collection period, beginning with the first mailing, an Agency
Support Team (AST) was available to participants by telephone and email. The AST fielded general
and specific questions and concerns. For example, the AST verified agency contact information,
answered questions about who within an agency should complete the survey, handled return
telephone calls from agencies that were contacted for nonresponse follow-up, and clarified
confusion about survey definitions. The AST also contacted respondents to clarify survey responses
or obtain answers to questions that were initially left unanswered.
Mailing 1 – Initial recruitment letter. Forty-eight public agencies and 12 private companies were elected
for the pilot test. On June 25, we mailed a packet to their agency and company heads. The packets
contained a cover letter which described CAPSA in general, the purpose of the pilot test, and details
about what would be requested of participating agencies. The packets also included either an AIF or
CIF; heads were asked to complete and return the AIF or CIF via fax or email. The packet sent to
public agency heads also contained a list of survey topics intended to assist in the selection of an
appropriate respondent. The private company survey was much simpler and therefore, there was no
need to include a list of survey topics.
Five of the state-level agencies (MD, IA, MA, MI, and PA) contacted by BJS regarding potential
participation of lower-level agencies under their jurisdiction in CAPSA asked to be informed about
5

which agencies were selected. In each case, we were seeking the participation of the state-level
agencies as well as that of at least one lower-level agency. In these states, Westat mailed a packet to
each of the state-level agency heads to inform them of the selections and to offer them the
opportunity to coordinate the participation of agencies within their purview. The packets also
included two enclosures for each agency of interest (i.e., the state-level and lower-level agencies): the
agency-specific recruitment letter and attendant AIF. The state-level agencies were asked to
complete and return the AIF on behalf of each agency, forward the materials to each agency, or
handle the materials for their state-level agency and advise Westat to contact the lower-level agency
directly. Two states (MD and MI) instructed Westat to contact the lower-level agency directly while
the other three coordinated the return of forms for agencies in their state (IA, MA, and PA).
AIF/CIF follow-up and return. All agencies and companies were asked to return the AIFs and CIFs by
early July. Those that did not return the form or indicate that they would not participate were
contacted by telephone to follow-up on the request. Specifically, Westat data collectors called the
agency and company heads to confirm that they had received the materials and to ascertain whether
they would participate. Heads that agreed to participate were asked to provide the AIF or CIF
information during the call. APPA handled the majority of follow-up calls to private company
heads. If an agency or company head had not received the initial recruitment letter and enclosures,
then the materials were resent via email or mail, depending on the individual’s preference.
A total of 60 public agencies were contacted for the pilot test: 48 agencies were initially selected and
12 were contacted as replacements. Among these 60 agencies, 46 completed an AIF and all of them
indicated that their staff could complete the survey online. Among the 14 agencies that did not
agree to participate at the AIF stage, 9 were nonresponsive and 5 refused to participate. We sent
email messages to the heads of the 9 nonresponsive agencies, informing them that due to time
constraints, we were no longer seeking their participation.
Reasons for refusal included a sense that the survey did “not apply” to the agency or company (e.g.,
the agency works only with juveniles), staff were too busy, and the study would not benefit the
agency or company.5
Mailing 2 – Invitation to data provider (designated respondent). By completing the AIF or CIF, agency and
company heads designated a survey respondent.6 Westat mailed a survey invitation packet to the
designated survey respondents as they were identified.
The public agency survey packets contained the following materials: cover letter, survey topic list,
state-specific list of known probation agencies, survey definitions page, and instructions to complete
the survey via web or telephone (depending on the mode assignment). The cover letter indicated a
survey due date approximately 3 weeks after the date the letter was sent. Web respondents were
directed to the survey website and provided with a PIN to log into the survey. Telephone
respondents were advised that they would be contacted by a data collector who would schedule an
appointment to conduct the survey.
The private company packet contained a cover letter and the survey questionnaire. The cover letter
5

One agency, the Idaho Supreme Court, stated that the study would not benefit them.

6

In some cases, the agency or company head designated him/herself as the survey respondent.

6

instructed designated respondents to complete the survey and return it via mail, scanned email
attachment, or fax by a due date approximately 3 weeks later.
Mailing 3 – Thank-you/Reminder. Approximately 2 to 3 weeks after sending each designated
respondent the survey invitation, we sent a reminder/thank you letter. This letter served a dual
purpose of thanking those who had already completed their surveys and reminding those who had
not of the upcoming due date. Following this mailing, we telephoned the remaining
nonrespondents. During the call, agencies assigned to the web survey were reminded to complete
the survey and agencies assigned to the telephone survey were asked to either schedule an
appointment or to complete it during the call. As the data collection period drew to a close, we
asked all nonrespondents to complete the survey by telephone, regardless of whether they were
initially assigned to the web or telephone mode. For the CIF nonresponse follow-up effort, APPA
contacted the private companies that had not returned their surveys.
Survey response and data quality follow-up. Active follow-up with all agencies and companies ended on
August 15, 5 weeks after the first survey invitation packets were sent to designated respondents.
Four public agencies refused at this stage of the pilot test. Reasons for refusal included a sense that
the survey did “not apply” to the agency or company (e.g., the agency does not provide probation
services) and staff were too busy.
We received completed surveys from 37 public agencies and 7 private companies. Among the 46
public agencies that completed an AIF, 3 designated respondents refused to participate and 6 were
nonresponsive during the data collection period. Respondents were asked to report the amount of
time required to compile their data and report it on the survey. The average reported response time
to the public agency survey was 65 minutes. Twenty-one public agencies completed the web survey
and 16 completed it by telephone. Their average reported response times were 64 and 68 minutes,
respectively. Among the 6 private company respondents (who completed the self-administered
paper-and-pencil questionnaire), the average reported response time was 31 minutes.7
Completed surveys were reviewed to identify any issues (e.g., item nonresponse, internal
inconsistencies) that would require follow-up. Of the 37 public agency surveys that we received, 30
had at least one issue and of the 7 private company survey, 1 required follow-up.
Mailing 4 – Final thank-you letter. On September 17, a final thank-you letter was sent to the heads of
the agencies and companies that participated, thanking them for their involvement in the CAPSA
pilot test.

4. Findings Related to Survey Responses
An important goal of the pilot test was to evaluate the quality of responses to the survey questions
and identify improvements to survey content or question wording if needed. While it was
impossible to measure the true validity or reliability of the survey data, quality can be assessed by
comparing the survey data to data from external sources and by examining levels of internal
consistency among responses provided by each respondent.

7

The burden estimates printed on the questionnaires were 50 minutes for public agencies and 30 minutes for private companies.

7

In this section, we discuss findings related to the core elements of the surveys:





Organizational structure and functions performed by agencies
Authority and operational responsibility
Methods of supervision
Supervision officers and populations supervised

Results from public agencies and private companies are discussed separately.8

4.1

Public agency survey responses

4.1.1

Organizational structure

All 37 public agencies that completed the survey responded to the survey questions asking about
their branch and level of government. Nearly all of the agencies provided responses that defined
their agencies without the need for post-submission data editing. Two respondents classified their
agencies branch as “other.” We were able to recode these responses to “judicial” without follow-up
based on the agency name (i.e., Tucson City Court and 5th Judicial District Department). Table 2
presents the final classification of the agencies by branch and level of government.
Table 2. Branch and level of
government reported by respondents,
by type
Executive
State
Local
Judicial
State
Local
Total

21
17
4
16
5
11
37

We compared the branch and level of government as reported by the respondents with the
information maintained in the preliminary roster of agencies. Only 1 respondent – 20th Judicial
District Probation Department (Colorado) – provided a response that was unexpected. This
respondent classified the agency as a judicial/state agency, whereas we expected it to be classified as
a judicial/local agency. The respondent explained that agency staff are employed by the state and
assigned to districts that cover one or more counties. Based on their status as state employees, he
classified the agency as a state agency.

8

Findings related to recommendations for changes to the survey instruments appear in bold font in this section. A more detailed discussion of the
recommendations appears in Section 5.

8

Responses about subsidiary status were questionable for
some agencies. Thirty agencies answered “No” to the
question and 7 answered “Yes.” One of those that answered
“Yes” – Iowa Department of Corrections – had initially
answered “No,” but changed their answer during follow-up
contact with Westat. Among the 7 self-identified subsidiary
agencies, 5 matched our expectations based on external
sources. However, New Mexico Corrections Department
and 20th Judicial District Probation Department (Colorado)
both self-identified as subsidiary agencies. Follow-up with
these agencies to inquire about their responses was not
successful.
Agencies were asked to identify the various functions of adult
probation that they perform (question 6) by answering “Yes”
or “No” with regard to four functions: administrative,
reporting, supervisory, and other.9 During follow-up and
data processing, we reviewed the “Other” responses provided
by 13 respondents. Examples of these responses included:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)

Agency Type Used for Analysis

To examine the survey data in
relation to the type of agency
reporting, we created an analysis
variable, AGENCYTYPE, based on the
reported branch (question B2) and
level (question B3) of government
reported by the respondent. There
are 4 categories: executive/state,
executive/local, judicial/state, and
judicial local. The variable reflects
post-submission edits to 2 agencies
and maintains the unexpected
description of 1 agency, as described
in this report.

Programming, sex offender treatment
Grant administration
Presentence investigation
Substance abuse, evaluations and treatment
Serve federal offenders under work release
Offender program dev., grant dev., ISC, IID program
Drug court, training staff
Provide court services
Offenders entering an “under advisement” pleas
TDCJ is the oversight entity for 122 prob. Departments
Investigations, collection of fee/fines
Interstate compact, emergency preparedness

Some of these responses were recoded using existing response categories. For example, responses
b, f, and j were recoded under “administrative functions, such as record storage and maintenance,
budget preparation…”

9

Seven agencies appropriately skipped this question based on routing specifications for self-identified subsidiary agencies within the survey instrument.
These seven agencies are excluded from the analysis of question 6 presented in this discussion.

9

Table 3 presents the distribution of responses once all recoding was completed. All but three of the
agencies that were eligible for this question reported performing the administrative functions. The
Division of State Court (Indiana) answered “No;” but this was likely an error in reporting. The
others were the Idaho Supreme Court and Texas Juvenile Justice Department. Tucson City Court,
Idaho Supreme Court, and Texas Juvenile Justice Department were the only agencies to answer
“No” to the item on the reporting function.
Table 3. Function of probation performed, by agency type
Executive/ Executive/
state
local
Number of agencies
14
3
Function
Administrative a
b

Reporting

Supervisoryc
Other

Judicial/
state
4

Judicial/
local
9

13

3

2

9

13

3

3

8

9
8

3
1

0
0

8
4

a

Such as record storage and maintenance, budget preparation,
personnel management or similar clerical or management activities.
b

Such as data collection and reporting activities, for example the
preparation of monthly or annual reports.
c

Where staff supervise adult probationers either through face-toface visits, mail, telephone, or electronic means.

Of the 30 agencies responding to question 6, 10 indicated that they did not perform supervision:










4.1.2

Probation Division of the Administrative Office of Illinois
Division of State Court (Indiana)
Office of the Commissioner of Probation (Massachusetts)
Michigan Department of Corrections
Division of Criminal Justice Services (New York)
Oregon Department of Corrections
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Benton County District Court Probation (Washington)
Idaho Supreme Court
Texas Juvenile Justice Department
Authority and Operational Responsibility

The analysis presented in this section focuses on the data needed to define agencies as independent
– having the ability to make decisions about budgeting, staffing, and adult probation policies, and
the operational responsibility for implementing those decisions. Six questions were asked to
determine the extent of an agency’s authority and operational responsibility (questions 9 through
14); item c in each question identified agencies that possessed such authority or responsibility. The
10

other items in each question allowed respondents to indicate that the authority or responsibility lies
with the legislature, a higher-level agency, a lower-level agency (if appropriate to the question topic),
or some “other” entity.
Consideration should be given to providing more instruction (e.g., examples) to the
response options used in the authority and responsibility questions. Before we analyzed the
data provided by respondents, we first reviewed the “Other” responses to each of the questions.
Respondents reported the following types of “Other” entities:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

County board of commissioners/county board of supervisors/local board (5 agencies)
County court administration (5 agencies)
Department of corrections (4 agencies)
County probation (3 agencies)
Mayor and metro council (1 agency)

For our analysis, we recoded responses a) and b) above as “higher level” for items that asked about
authority to make decisions. Once these items were recoded, 8 agencies remained that had selected
“Other” to one or more of the domains.
Analysis then turned to the distribution of affirmative responses across the 6 items to determine if
they differentiated the extent of independence across domains and agencies. Based on routing
specifications within the survey instrument, 28 responding agencies should have responded to this
set of questions. All agencies reported having authority over or responsibility for at least one of the
domains. Initially, two of these agencies did not respond to one or more of the items – Arkansas
Department of Community Corrections (by telephone) and Office of the Commissioner of
Probation (Massachusetts) (by fax). However, these agencies did provide responses during followup.
Among all agency types, the authority to set budgets was relatively uncommon, ranging from just 2
out of 13 executive/state agencies reporting the authority to 5 out of 9 judicial/local agencies.
Similar proportions were reported for authority to set staffing. Conversely, having authority to set
policies was nearly universal among all agency types. Overall, whereas authority to set budgets and
staffing appeared to be rarely assigned to the agencies, they typically retained operational
responsibility for these domains, as well as implementing policies.

11

Table 4. Agency authority and responsibility for domains, by agency type

Number of agencies
Domain
Budget
Authority to set

Executive/ Executive/
state
local
13
3

Judicial/
state
3

Judicial/
local
9

2

0

1

5

12

3

1

9

3

0

2

6

Operational responsibility

13

3

2

9

Policies
Authority to set
Operational responsibility

11
9

3
3

3
2

9
9

Operational responsibility
Staffing
Authority to set

To assess the quality of the data collected with these questions, we compared the level that had
authority to make decisions to the level that had operational responsibility for the different domains.
The expectation is that the level with authority to make decisions will be the same as or higher than
the level with responsibility to implement those decisions. The results support this hypothesis.
Across all comparisons, there was only one instance where a lower level was reported as having
authority compared to a higher level with operational responsibility: Georgia Department of
Corrections reported that a higher level agency had authority to establish policies and the legislature
had operational responsibility for implementing the policies. When asked to specify the higher level
agency, the respondent entered “Board of Corr. (appointed by Gov.) and our agency.”
Respondents were also asked to report sources of funding used to support adult probation (question
15); 10 sources were listed in the question. To assess the quality of the data from this question, we
compared the level of government of the agency to the level of government associated with the
funding source.
Before analysis, we examined the instances of “Other” responses. Only 3 respondents identified
another source of funding; these sources included:
a) Asset forfeiture
b) Assessment of fines and court costs collected (item was recoded into “court costs”)
c) Metropolitan government (combined city/county) (item was recoded into “county sources”
and in “city and municipal sources”)
Based on routing specifications within the survey instrument, 28 responding agencies should have
been asked this set of questions. Three agencies failed to respond to one or more items: Office of
the Commissioner of Probation (Massachusetts) responded to only 1 of the 10 items, Ramsey
County Community Corrections (Minnesota) and General Sessions Court Probation Department
(Tennessee) both failed to answer 1 item. Arkansas Department of Community Corrections did not
respond to any items initially; responses were obtained through follow-up.

12

Table 5. Funding sources for adult probation, by agency type

Number of agencies
Funding source
Federal grant
Federal sources other than federal grant
State grant
State sources other than state grant
County sources
City or municipal sources
Court costs paid by adult probationers
Fines paid by adult probationers
Fees paid by adult probationers
Other sources

Executive/ Executive/
state
local
13
3
7
3
2
10
1
0
2
2
7
2

Judicial/
state
3

Judicial/
local
9

1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0

3
0
5
5
4
2
5
3
6
1

2
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
0

The survey data from this question are consistent with the notion that funding would typically come
from a source at the same or higher level as the agency. Only one executive/state agency
(Minnesota Department of Corrections) and one judicial/state agency (Probation Division of the
Administrative Office of Illinois) reported receiving funding from county sources.
4.1.3

Methods of supervision

It was possible to assess the quality of question 6c (supervision of adult probationers “either through
face-to-face visits, mail, phone, or electronic means”), question 18 (use of mail, telephone, text, and
email), and question 19 (use of face-to-face) by examining the internal consistency of the
respondents’ answers. All agencies that reported “Yes” to question 6c should have answered
affirmatively to one or more of the items in question 18 and question 19. The survey data indicate
that the questions performed as expected.
Table 6. Supervision methods employed, by agency type
Executive/ Executive/
state
local
Number of agencies reporting
supervisory functions
Method
Mail
Telephone
Text
Email
Face-to-face

Judicial/
state

Judicial/
local

9

3

0

8

8
7
1
3
9

3
3
1
2
3

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

8
8
3
5
8

The responses to these questions also demonstrated “face validity.” That is, the frequencies seem
realistic given that agencies likely rely on a combination of traditional methods of supervision and
experimentation with emerging technologies. As shown in table 6, 20 agencies reported performing
supervisory functions in question 6; no judicial/state agencies reported performing these functions.
Supervision by face-to-face contact was reported by all 20 agencies; 16 agencies reported that agency
13

staff conducted the contacts and 4 agencies reported that both agency staff and third party
contractors performed the contacts (data not shown in table). Supervision by mail and telephone
were also nearly universal. Supervision by text and email were less common, especially among
executive/state agencies.
The survey responses to question 23, asking about the use of various types of risk and needs
assessments, do not lend themselves to any type of internal consistency checks. Nevertheless, we
did examine the reported frequencies with which respondents affirmed the use of each type of
assessment; we also examined the frequency with which respondents reported the use of an “Other”
type of assessment.
Table 7 shows the distribution of reported use of assessment methods by agency type. Fifteen of
the agencies that reported performing supervisory functions of adult probation indicated use of
standardized risk or needs assessment (such as the LSI-R or COMPAS) to determine level, type, or
conditions of supervision (table 7). Six agencies reported the use of agency-developed assessments,
and 7 agencies indicated the use of staff judgment.
Table 7. Use of risk/needs assessment methods, by agency type
Executive/ Executive/
state
local
Number of agencies reporting
supervisory functions
Method
Standardized assessment
Agency-developed assessment
Staff judgment
Other

Judicial/
state

Judicial/
local

9

3

0

8

7
2
3
4

2
0
1
1

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

6
4
3
0

Consideration should be given to ways of reducing the frequency of “Other” responses.
Five of the 20 agencies that supervised adult probationers reported that their agencies used some
other type of assessment tool. These respondents specified the following tools:
a)
b)
c)
d)

ORAS (2 agencies)
Other assessments for varying populations
Texas Christian University assessments
Sentencing judge/court order/statute

We were unable to recode these responses into the existing response categories.
Questions 24 and 25 asked about the provision of specialized services to sex offenders and mentally
ill probationers. Respondents were asked to report if such services were provided, and if they were,
to indicate whether the services were provided by the agency, by a third party, or by both the agency
and a third party. Response patterns indicate that there is variation in service provision by agency
type. In addition, some agencies that reported providing specialized services provided them to both
populations while others provided them to only one population.

14

Table 8 shows that respondents from each agency type endorsed nearly all of the provider types for
each service. For example, one or more executive/state agency reported that services to sex
offenders were not provided (2), provided by the agency (5), provided by a third party (1), or
provided by both the agency and a third party (1).
Table 8. Specialized services for sex offenders and mentally ill probationers, by provider and
agency type
Executive/ Executive/
state
local
Number of agencies reporting supervisory functions
9
3
Services for sex offenders
Not provided
2
1
Provided by agency
5
0
Provided by third party
1
1
Provided by both agency and third party
1
1
Services for probationers with mental health issues
Not provided
2
1
Provided by agency
5
0
Provided by third party
2
0
Provided by both agency and third party
0
2

Judicial/
state
0

Judicial/
local
8

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2
2
1
3

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2
2
1
3

In addition, we noted that most but not all agencies gave the same response to both questions on
service provision. For example, if the agency reported that a third party provided services to sex
offenders, that agency was likely to report that a third party provided services to mentally ill
probationers as well. There were three exceptions to this pattern:




Louisiana Department of Corrections, Probation and Parole reported that no specialized
services were provided to sex offenders, but that a third party provided services to mentally
ill probationers.
Minnesota Department of Corrections reported that both the agency and a third party
provided services to sex offenders, but that no specialized services were offered to mentally
ill probationers.
Ramsey County Community Corrections (Minnesota) reported that a third party provided
services to sex offenders and that both the agency and a third party provided services to
mentally ill probationers.

Five questions were asked to gather information on agencies’ roles in setting terms and conditions
of supervision (questions 26, 27, 28a, 28b, and 29). Generally, the 3 executive/local agency
respondents reported a very limited role in setting terms and conditions. Among this group, the
only agency reporting any role was Seminole County Probation (Florida); that respondent indicated
that the agency could impose a period of incarceration without appearing before a judge or court.

15

Table 9. Agency role in setting terms and conditions of supervision, by agency type
Executive/ Executive/
state
local
Number of agencies providing supervisory functions
9
3
Imposition of standard conditions
2
0
Imposition of special conditions
4
0
Grant of early positive discharge
2
0
Extension of period of supervision
Only if terms not yet satisfied
1
0
In other situations
1
0
Imposition of a period of incarceration
5
1

Judicial/
state
0
n/a
n/a
n/a

Judicial/
local
8
7
6
1

n/a
n/a
n/a

0
0
2

Other findings of note include:






4.1.4

Two agencies reported the ability to impose standard conditions without having the ability to
impose special conditions (Allegheny County Adult Probation Services [Pennsylvania]; South
Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon). On the other hand, 3 agencies
reported the ability to impose special conditions without having the ability to impose
standard conditions (Georgia Department of Corrections; Louisiana Department of
Corrections, Probation and Parole; New Hampshire Department of Corrections, Division of
Field Services).
Ability to impose special conditions was reported more often than ability to impose standard
conditions by executive/state agencies (2 out of 9 versus 4 out of 9, respectively). The
abilities were more consistent among judicial local agencies, where 7 of the 8 agencies can
impose standard conditions and 6 can impose special conditions.
Among all 20 respondents to this series of questions, only 3 agencies reported the ability to
grant early positive discharge and only 1 reported the ability to extend a period of
supervision (1). Eight of the 20 agencies reported having the ability to impose a period of
incarceration without appearing before a judge or court.

Supervised populations and officer counts

Respondents were asked to report the types of populations they supervised on June 30, 2013, as well
as the number of probationers under supervision and the number supervision officers working in
the agency as of that date.
Consideration should be given to adding to the definitions or examples of populations
provided in the questionnaire categories. Eleven of the 20 agencies that supervised probationers
reported “Other” populations, including:
a)
b)
c)
d)

Pretrial diversion court/diversion (3 agencies)
Adults on probation for summary offense
Boot campers from ADC, supervision of drug courts
Home confinement, restitution only/Home incarceration/Inmates on administrative
home confinement (3 agencies)
16

e) Parole, work release, prison status
f) Offenders with straight sentences, no probation
g) Lifetime "monitoring" of GPS for some sex offenders
The items in a, e, g, were recoded because they aligned with one of the specified response categories
for the survey item. We were unable to recode the other six responses without additional
information. The data presented in Table 10 show the distribution of populations supervised by
agency type, after the “Other” population data were recoded.
Table 10. Populations supervised, by agency type

Number of agencies providing supervisory functions
Adults on pretrial status awaiting trial
Adults whose criminal proceedings have been suspended
Adults on probation for a misdemeanor
Adults on probation for a felony
Adults on parole or other post-custody release
Juveniles
Other populations

Executive/ Executive/
state
local
9
3
3
2
4
2
6
3
9
3
8
2
2
3
4
1

Judicial/
state
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

Judicial/
local
8
6
6
8
6
2
0
1

Consideration must be given to methods of preventing and resolving inconsistencies in the
data on probationer counts. Table 11 is provided as context for the discussion of the probationer
population data; it shows the average numbers of probationers reported in the survey by probationer
type and agency type.
Table 11. Average supervised population, by population type and agency type
Executive/ Executive/
state
local
Number of agencies providing
supervisory functions
Average total supervised population
Average adult probation population
Average misdemeanant population
Average felon population

9
46,900
36,900
5,600
33,100

3
12,300
8,900
3,000
6,000

Judicial/
state

Judicial/
local

0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

8
24,100
24,000
9,100
19,800

Summary data provided by the respondents (by agency type) conform to expectations that the total
supervised population will be equal to or greater than the population of adult probationers, and that
the total adult probation population will be equal to or greater than the sum of the misdemeanant
and felon populations. However, the summary data disguise discrepancies in the data reported at
the agency level.
Five of the 20 agencies that supervised adult probationers provided inconsistent population counts
(Table 12). Two of these agencies, Montgomery County Adult Probation (Ohio) and South Carolina
Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon, reported total populations that were less than the
number of adult probationers supervised (differences of 1,005 and 12,872, respectively). Three
other agencies reported total adult probation counts unequal to the sum of the adult misdemeanant
17

and adult felon populations. These included Allegheny County Adult Probation Services
(Pennsylvania), Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, and Harris County Supervision and
Corrections Department (Texas). The differences were 1,401, 111, and -450, respectively.
Table 12. Supervised population data discrepancies, by agencya

Montgomery County Adult Probation
Allegheny County Adult Probation Services
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon
Harris County Supervision and Corrections Department

Total
supervised
population
3,110
25,415
37,971
34,657
46,521

Adult
Adult
probationers misdemeanant
supervised
population
4,115
154
25,415
15,520
8,114
5,229
47,529
13,042
44,550
22,000

Adult felon
population
3,961
8,494
2,774
34,487
23,000

a

Shading denotes inconsistent population data.

Data on population counts, comparing those reported in the pilot test to those reported in the
ASPP, required further examination. Significant differences were found among the 11 agencies that
reported data in both collections (table 13). Differences in excess of 10 percent or more in the
reported number of adult probationers were present in 7 of the 11 agency reports.








The largest discrepancy in terms of total adult probationer population was from Minnesota
Department of Corrections; the difference between the populations reported in ASPP and in
CAPSA was nearly 91,000 (527%). During follow-up, the respondent explained that the
differences were due to the fact that on the ASPP, the DOC reports for the state and all
counties. On CAPSA, the DOC reported only for the state-supervised probationers, not
those supervised by the counties.
The respondent from the New Hampshire Department of Corrections, Division of Field
Services suggested that the differences between the ASPP and CAPSA data were related to
the fact that the CAPSA data were estimates. The IT staff person was unavailable during the
CAPSA collection period so actual counts could not be obtained or reported. (Since the
national study will have a much longer collection period than the pilot test, this problem
should be alleviated.)
South Carolina data showed lower counts on ASPP than on CAPSA. During follow-up, the
respondent explained that the differences were likely due to the fact that non-reporting
probationers are not reported in ASPP, but they were included in CAPSA. He noted that
CAPSA counts reflect all probationers under supervision, including those on split-sentence,
pending charges, long-term medical treatment, and not guilty by reason of insanity.
The respondent from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole said that the
differences in their data were the result of the inclusion of interstate compact cases in the
CAPSA data; these cases are excluded in their ASPP reports.

In addition to supervised population counts, pilot test respondents also reported the number of
probation supervising officers working in the agency on June 30, 2013. The average number of
officers reported by all agencies was 269 and ranged from 4 (Tucson City Court, Arizona) to 998
(Georgia Department of Corrections). The averages by agency type were: executive/state agencies –
386; executive/local agencies – 107; and judicial/local agencies – 199.

18

Table 13. Adult probationer population reported on CAPSA pilot test and 2012 ASPP, by agency
CAPSA pilot test

Agency

All adult
probationers Misdemeanants

2012 ASPP
All adult
probationers Misdemeanants

Felons

Difference (CAPSA - ASPP)

Felons

All adult probationers
Number

Percent

Arkansas Department of Community Corrections

31,335

-

31,335

30,122

-

30,122

1,213

4

State of Delaware - Probation and Parole

13,623

9,580

4,043

15,641

9,726

4,037

(2,018)

(15)

1,558

1,555

3

1,328

1,328

-

230

Seminole County Probation
Georgia Department of Corrections

Misdemeanants
Number
-

Felons

Percent

Number

Percent

n/a

1,213

4

(146)

(2)

6

0

15

227

15

3

n/a

158,255

-

158,255

202,043

1,635

200,408

(43,788)

(28)

(1,635)

n/a

(42,153)

(21)

Louisiana Department of Corrections,
Probation and Parole

42,946

-

42,946

41,298

1,153

40,145

1,648

4

(1,153)

n/a

2,801

7

Minnesota Department of Corrections

17,255

5,156

12,099

108,157

66,569

41,588

(90,902)

(527)

(61,413)

(1,191)

(29,489)

(71)

Montana Department of Corrections

8,565

30

8,535

9,284

-

9,284

(719)

(8)

30

100

(749)

(8)

New Hampshire Department of Corrections,
Division of Field Services

4,096

750

3,346

4,088

1,646

2,420

8

0

(896)

(119)

926

38

Montgomery County Adult Probation

4,115

154

3,961

3,174

220

2,954

941

23

(66)

(43)

1,007

34

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

8,114

5,229

2,774

5,922

3,855

1,967

2,192

27

1,374

26

807

41

47,529

13,042

34,487

34,945

11,373

23,475

12,584

26

1,669

13

11,012

47

South Carolina Department of Probation,
Parole and Pardon

19

4.1.5

Identification of additional agencies

Agencies were asked three questions that were designed to validate the CAPSA roster. The
questions focused on correctional residential facilities (CRFs) housing adult probationers (question
33), private companies responsible for adult probation supervision (question 50), and other adult
probation supervising agencies operating in the respondent’s state (question 52). If a respondent
was aware of any of these types of entities, they were asked to provide information about the entity
in the questionnaire, or by email or fax.
Correctional residential facilities. Twenty-six agencies reported using or having knowledge of CRFs on
the questionnaire. By the end of all follow-up attempts, approximately 135 CRFs had been
identified by 17 respondents. Most of the data on CRFs were provided directly through the survey;
8 respondents submitted the information in that mode. In addition, 6 agencies provided the
information via email, 1 by telephone, and 1 by fax. Follow-up with the final respondent to obtain a
list of CRFs was unsuccessful. The CRF name and the county in which it is located were provided
for all but 3 of the CRFs.
Private companies. Thirteen agencies reported using or having knowledge of private probation
supervising companies on the questionnaire. By the end of all follow-up attempts, 3 companies had
been identified by 4 respondents; none of these companies was already on the CAPSA roster. All of
the information on private companies was provided directly through the survey. The company
name and the county in which it is located were provided for all 3 companies.
Public agencies. Seven agencies reported knowledge of public probation supervising agencies that were
not included on the listing sent with the survey materials. By the end of all follow-up attempts,
approximately 63 agencies had been identified by 5 respondents; 57 of these agencies were already
on the CAPSA roster. One of the agencies, in Minnesota, was a single agency with jurisdiction over
probation in 3 counties. The other 5 agencies named by respondents were “generic,” meaning that
they represented a type of entity rather than a specific one (e.g., “drug court”). Most of the
information on the agencies was provided directly through the survey; 3 respondents submitted the
information in that mode. In addition, 1 agency provided the information via email and 1 agency
provided the information during data retrieval.

4.2

Private company survey responses

Twelve private companies were invited to participate in the pilot test; 7 companies responded to the
request. As described in Section 3, the questionnaire for this population was different from that
used with the public agencies. In this section, we discuss findings drawn from our examination of
the private company survey data.
4.2.1

Clients and contract requirements

Respondents were asked to report the number of states in which their company supervised adult
probationers. Five companies reported working in 1 state. The other 2 companies reported
working in 5 states and 9 states.
20

Consideration should be given to asking only about state and local branch clients. In
describing their clients in terms of branch and level of government, no company reported working
under contract to any type of federal agency or court. One company reported having no contracts.
During follow-up with the respondent, we were told that the company does not have contracts with
the agencies or courts, but rather they work under a purchase order to provide services to
probationers. Among the other 6 companies, half reported having contracts with both state and
local agencies/courts; 1 had contracts with only local clients and 1 had contracts with only state
clients. Half of the companies reported that their clients came from more than one branch of
government, 1 company reported that their only client was from the executive branch, and 2
companies indicated that their clients were all from the judicial branch.
Table 14. Private company clients,
by level and branch of government
Number of
Client type
companies
Level
Local only
2
State only
1
Both
3
Branch
Executive only
1
Judicial only
2
Other only
0
Executive and judicial
1
Executive and other
1
Judicial and other
1
All
0

The questionnaire asked about 4 requirements that might be included in the companies’ contracts
with their clients (question 5). None of the requirements were endorsed by all 7 companies.
However,



5 companies reported that their contracts required the inclusion of a description of
policies/procedures in the contract, approval of modifications of policies/procedures, and
submission of reports on performance; and
4 companies were required to perform audits of performance.

Even though each requirement was imposed on the majority of companies, there was variation in
the specific requirements experienced by the companies. For example, 2 companies were only
required to comply with 1 requirement, 1 company had to comply with 2 requirements, 1 had to
comply with 3 requirements, and 3 companies had to comply with 4 requirements.

21

4.2.2

Methods of supervision

Private companies, like public agencies, were asked to report on the methods they used to supervise
adult probationers. The response patterns from the companies were also very similar to those
provided by the agencies. Supervision by face-to-face and telephone contact were reported by all 7
companies and 6 companies reported using mail for supervision.
Table 15. Supervision methods employed;
private companies
Number of companies
Method
Mail
Telephone
Text
Email
Face-to-face

7
6
7
3
4
7

Private company respondents reported the use of 4 types of risk/needs assessments, including the
use of assessments that were developed by the company (table 16). Unlike the public agency
respondents, none of the companies reported using some type of tool other than those listed in the
survey response categories.
Table 16. Use of risk/needs assessment method;
private companies
Standardized assessment
Company-developed assessment
Client-developed assessment
Staff judgment
Other

4.2.3

4
3
3
5
0

Supervised populations

Respondents were asked to report the types of populations they supervised on June 30, 2013
(question 10). The categories used in this question were the same as those used on the public
agency questionnaire, with the exception of the items asking about supervision of felons and
misdemeanants; questions on felons and misdemeanants were asked separately in the questionnaire.
Table 17 shows that the companies reported supervision of all types of populations.
Table 17. Populations supervised; private companies
Number of companies
Adults on pretrial status awaiting trial
Adults whose criminal proceedings have been suspended
Adults on probation for a misdemeanor
Adults on probation for a felony
Adults on parole or other post-custody release
Juveniles
Other populations

22

7
6
7
4
6
3
0
4

On the item that asks about supervision of “Other” types of populations, 4 companies responded
affirmatively. The descriptions of these populations included:
a) State probation violators
b) Deferred sentences
c) Respondents of civil injunctions for protections against domestic violence for
completion of any court ordered programs or interventions
d) Electronic monitoring (this response is inappropriate for this item—it is a method of
supervision)
We noted that this question did not ask if the company supervised felons or misdemeanants.
However, the companies were asked to report the number of each type of adult probationer under
their supervision on June 30, 2013. Four companies reported supervising felons.10 Responses to
that question ranged from 0 to 4,000: 2 companies reported 0 felons, 3 companies reported between
1 and 10, and 1 company reported supervising 4,000 felons. The companies reported far greater
numbers when asked about misdemeanants. One agency reported supervising only 18, 2 companies
reported between 250 and 300, 1 company reported 1,550 and 1 reported 9,000. Another company
reported supervising 18,907 adult misdemeanant probationers.

5. Follow-up for data quality among public agency respondents
After data collection, data review and data retrieval was a necessary step to maximize data quality.
Westat staff developed a protocol that was used to review the data for inconsistencies and missing
information. Agencies were then contacted by email or by telephone to resolve the quality issues.
Table 18 presents the scope of this effort in terms of the number of public agencies requiring
follow-up and the reasons for the follow-up. Table 19 shows the most common discrepancies that
necessitated follow-up.
Table 18. Follow-up for data quality; public agencies

Surveys submitted
No follow-up needed

Number of
agencies
37
7

Follow-up neededa
30
Item nonresponse
7
Obtain promised list
9
Inquire re: inability to provide list
13
Internal inconsistency
16
a
Details below will not sum to total since some
agencies required follow-up for more than one
reason.

10

These responses point to the importance of including private companies on the CAPSA roster.

23

Table 19. Follow-up required, by reason; public agencies
Question number
(C9) Who has the authority to set the budget for
your agency?
(C10) Once your agency's budget has been set, who
is responsible for operations spending by your
agency?
(C11) Who has authority to set the numbers of FTE
and PTE positions at your agency?
(C12) Once the numbers of FTE and PTE positions
are set, who is responsible for staffing at your
agency?
(C13) Who has the authority to establish the
policies or procedures for the supervision of adult
probationers at your agency?
(C14) Who is responsible for implementing the
policies or procedures for the supervision of adult
probationers at your agency?
(C15) From July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, did your
agency use funding from any of the following
sources for adult probation?
(C16) Does your agency collect fines from any adult
probationers either directly or through a collection
agent?
(D32a) Who operates correctional residential
facilities in your state?

Issue

Number of
agencies

Item nonresponse

2

Item nonresponse

2

Item nonresponse

2

All items answered "No"

2

Item nonresponse

2

All items answered "No" or all items
left blank but one marked "No"
All items answered "No" and response
was inconsistent with those from
question 16 and question 17
Response was inconsistent with that
from question 15

All items answered "No"
Responses to question 43 and
(F42) On June 30, 2013, what was the total number question 44 did not sum to the
of adult probationers supervised by your agency? response to question 42

4

4

1
2

3

6. Recommendations
The pilot test helped to identify the need for changes to the survey instrumentation and data
collection procedures. In this section, we delineate the goals associated with potential changes to
the questionnaire. Based on feedback from BJS regarding these recommendations, Westat will
document specific content and wording changes to the instrumentation for review and approval by
the BJS Project Manager. Changes to the data collection procedures identified through the pilot test
have resulted in plans for additional automation to streamline processes internal to Westat. These
changes are not described in this report.

6.1

Proposed changes to the public agency questionnaire

B4. Is NAME a subsidiary probation office that is operated by a central office?
At least 2 agencies who reported to be subsidiary agencies did so by mistake. Agencies that
responded “Yes” to this question skipped all the supervisory questions. Yet if the agency errs in its
response to B4, those questions would be applicable. Follow-up contacts can resolve the error with
24

regard to B4, but asking respondents to then go through the rest of the questions may be
unsuccessful.
Recommendation:
 Remove routing based on B4 (appearing after question 5) and direct all respondents to
question 6 (functions of probation).
B6. Does NAME perform any of the following functions of adult probation?
In the “Other” functions response category, 2 agencies listed “grant administration.”
Recommendation:
 Based on the answers in the “Other” category, consider adding a function about
“Programs/services” that are provided directly or through a third party, referral, etc.
C9-C14 – Authority and operational responsibility
The requests for textual entries generated responses. But their value was minimal and the resources
needed to edit/code the text for the national study may not be cost-effective. In addition, the
“specify” screen associated with the higher level, lower level, and “Other” on the web survey use the
same text field for response entry. If a respondent answers “Yes” to more than one of the response
categories, it can be difficult during analysis to discern what data belongs to which item.
Recommendations:
 Retain the “specify” text box for only the “Other” response option and remove the “please
name/describe” for “Higher level agency” and “Lower level agency.”
 Provide examples of higher and lower level agencies (e.g., board, administrator) or change
“Higher level agency” to “Higher <>.”
 On the web survey, investigate programming options to provide separate text fields.
C15. From July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, did your agency use funding from any of the
following sources for adult probation?
Two agencies were confused by this question. Both agencies responded “No” to all sources. They
do not perform supervisory functions but they do perform administrative and reporting functions.
They interpreted the question as asking about funding received to provide “adult probation services”
or “supervision service.”
Recommendation:
 Revise the wording of this question to clarify if the focus is on funding for any function
related to adult probation, or just the supervisory function. If the focus is only on funding
for the supervisory function, we should consider adding a routing (i.e., skip pattern) for
agencies that respond “No” to question 6c.

25

C18. Does your agency use the following methods [mail, phone, text, email] to conduct
supervision of any adult probationers, either directly or through a third party?
This question was misinterpreted by one respondent who in turn gave an incorrect response. The
respondent did not consider mail, phone, text, or email to be “methods” of supervision, but rather
forms of communication.
Recommendation:
 Consider revising the question to clarify that communication does not necessarily qualify as
supervision.
C19. Does your agency conduct face-to-face supervision of any adult probationers, either
directly or through a third party?
Although this issue was not raised by respondents, we believe that the survey data would be more
informative if we could distinguish between the use of face-to-face meetings only at the initial visit
and its use after that visit as well.
Recommendation:
 Make this a two-part question to determine whether face-to-face supervision happens at (1)
initial visit and (2) after initial visit.
D23. Which of the following are used by your agency to determine level, type, or conditions
of supervision for any adult probationers?
Twenty percent of respondents recorded an “Other” assessment tool. The resources needed to
edit/code the text for the national study may not be cost-effective.
Recommendation:
 Provide additional examples of the assessment tools based on those provided by pilot test
respondents.
D26. Can your agency impose standard or special conditions of probation for any type of
adult probationer…?
For 1 respondent, this question was double-barreled and could not be answered accurately. The
definition in the question for “impose” includes both adding and removing conditions. The
respondent told us that state (Minnesota) law allows agents to add or change supervision sanctions;
however, an agent cannot remove a court-imposed condition without the approval/signature of the
court.
Recommendation:
 Revise wording of the question or response options.
D27. Can your agency grant an early positive discharge to any type of adult probationer
prior to the scheduled expiration of their sentence without appearing before a judge or
court?
26

D28a. Can your agency extend any type of adult probationer’s period of supervision beyond
the court imposed sentence without appearing before a judge or court?
D28b. Can your agency only extend an adult probationer’s period of supervision if the
probationer has not yet satisfied the terms…without appearing before a judge or court?
D29. Can your agency impose a period of incarceration on any type of adult probationer
without appearing before a judge or court?
One respondent noted that the word “appear” implies the need for a physical appearance, but this is
not always true. We also noted the low frequency of endorsement for D27 and D28a.
Recommendations:
 Based on respondents comments, consider rewording these questions that use the word
“appear” as in “appear before the judge,”
 Delete D27 and D28a if there is a need to reduce burden.
E38. On June 30, 2013, how many full- and part-time supervision officers worked in your
agency?
Although this issue was not raised by respondents, we believe that some respondents from agencies
that supervise populations in addition to adult probation may be unsure about which officers to
include in their response.
Recommendation:
 Edit to clarify, “full- and part-time officers supervise adult probationers in your agency?”
F40. On June 30, 2013, what type(s) of populations did your agency supervise?
The responses in the “other populations” fill in text suggest additional response options may be
needed for this item.
Recommendation:
 Consider adding “pre-trial” and “post-trial diversion” as response options
F41, F42, F43, F44 – Population counts
The counts provided by 11 agencies in the pilot test and the ASPP were significantly different.
Through follow-up efforts, it was discovered that some differences are due to central reporters
providing combined counts for multiple agencies on ASPP and only counts for their agency on
CAPSA, which is correct. Other differences were due to differences in the instructions on who to
count between ASPP and CAPSA. In addition, there are some instances where the numbers within
CAPSA do not sum properly. Through follow-up efforts, it was discovered that some agencies
supervise adult probationers other than felons and/or misdemeanants but the questions were not
designed to collect counts of those probationers.
Recommendations:
 We need to conduct a thorough review of the names, addresses, and contact information on
the frame to ensure that the survey invitations go to the appropriate person/agency.
27






6.2

We should add another category/question to collect counts of adult probationers who had
as their most serious offense something other than a felony or misdemeanor.
We should try to add edit checks and prompts within the CAPSA instrument to protect
against reporting errors. These checks could either be embedded in the questionnaire or
become part of the standard edit checks done prior to data retrieval.
Add a clarification to the question (and general definition) that misdemeanors include
“gross” misdemeanors.
Similar to the ASPP, add instructions to the question about populations to exclude from the
counts.

Proposed changes to the private company questionnaire

1. Does your company perform any of the following functions of adult probation?
One company that reported supervising adults only on non-reporting probation answered “No” to
the item on supervisory functions.


Ensure consistency with definitions and instructions provided in the public agency
questionnaire.

4. On June 30, 2013, with which type(s) of government agency/court did your company have
a contract to supervise adult probationers?
One company reported that they had no contract with any agency/court (i.e., answered “No” to all
items a-i). Data retrieval revealed that they have no contracts with any type of agency/courts and
that defendants get to pick which company they receive services from.


Add a question to capture those companies that are defined as eligible service providers.

18. Does your company provide specialized services or programs for sex offenders on adult
probation?
19. Does your company provide specialized services or programs for mentally ill offenders
on adult probation?


Add a third response option reflecting that the agency does not supervise sex offenders—
“Company does not supervise sex offenders.” and “Company does not supervise mentally ill
offenders.”

28

APPENDIX A
 Public Agencies and Private Companies Invited to
Participate in CAPSA Pilot Test

Public Agencies and Private Companies Invited to Participate in CAPSA Pilot Test

State

Branch of
government

Level of
government

Final disposition

Arkansas Department of Community Correctionsa

AR

Executive

State

Completed survey

Miller County - Texarkana District Court Probation

AR

Tucson City Court

AZ

Coconino County Probation Department

AZ

Maricopa County Adult Probation

AZ

Alameda County Probation Department

CA

Orange County Probation Department

CA

Executive

Local

Completed survey

20 Judicial District Probation Department

CO

Judicial

State

Completed survey

Adult Probation & Bail Services

CT

Survey nonresponse

CT

AIF nonresponse

Agency/Company name

Public agencies

th

Asonia-Milford Judicial District
State of Delaware - Probation & Parole

a

DE

Refused AIF
Judicial

Local

Completed survey
AIF nonresponse

Judicial

Local

Completed survey
Survey nonresponse

Executive

State

Completed survey

Collier County Probation Department

FL

Seminole County Probationa

FL

Executive

Local

Completed survey

Georgia Department of Corrections

GA

Executive

State

Completed survey

Adult Client Services Branch

HI

5th Judicial District Department of Corrections

AIF nonresponse

AIF nonresponse

IA

Judicial

Local

Completed survey

IA

Executive

State

Completed survey

Idaho Supreme Court

ID

Judicial

State

Completed survey

Probation Division of Administration. Division of Indiana

IL

Judicial

State

Completed survey

Peoria County Adult Probation

IL

AIF nonresponse

Bartholomew County Probation

IN

AIF nonresponse

State Court of Administration. Division of Indiana

IN

Iowa Department of Corrections

a

A-1

Judicial

State

Completed survey

18th Judicial District

KS

Kansas Judicial Center, Office of Judicial Administration
LA Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole

Judicial

Local

KS
a

Completed survey
Refused survey

LA

Executive

State

Completed survey

Barnestable District court

MA

Judicial

Local

Completed survey

Office of the Commissioner of Probation, MA

MA

Judicial

State

Completed survey

th

15 District Court--Washtenaw County Courthouse

MI

Michigan Department of Corrections, Field Operations Administration

MI

Executive

State

Completed survey

MN

Executive

State

Completed survey

Ramsey County Community Corrections

MN

Executive

Local

Completed survey

District 27 Probation & Parole

MO

Executive

State

Completed survey

Minnesota Department of Corrections

a

Missouri Department of Corrections
Montana Department of Corrections

AIF nonresponse

MO
a

MT

Administrative Office of the Courts/Probation
New Hampshire Department of Correction - Field Services Division

Refused AIF
Executive

State

NE
a

NH

Completed survey
Survey nonresponse

Executive

State

Completed survey

Bergen County Probation

NJ

Survey nonresponse

Camden County Probation

NJ

AIF nonresponse

Sussex County Probation

NJ

Refused AIF

Probation & Parole Division Corrections Department

NM

Nevada Department of Public Safety, Division of Adult Probation & Parole

NV

Division of Criminal Justice Services

NY

Office of Court Administration

NY

Tompkins County Department of Probation and Community

NY

Ashland County Probation Department

OH

Montgomery County Adult Probationa
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Bureau of Research
and Evaluation

OH
OH

Survey nonresponse

Baker County Community Corrections

OR

Refused survey

Oregon Department of Corrections

OR

Executive

State

Completed survey

Allegheny County Adult Probation Services

PA

Judicial

Local

Completed survey

Lancaster County Adult Probation and Parole Services

PA
A-2

Executive

State

Completed survey
Refused AIF

Executive

State

Completed survey
AIF nonresponse

Executive

Local

Completed survey
Survey nonresponse

Judicial

Local

Completed survey

Refused survey

Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolea

PA

Executive

State

Completed survey

South Carolina Dept. of Probation, Parole & Pardona

SC

Executive

State

Completed survey

General Sessions Court Probation Department

TN

Judicial

Local

Completed survey

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

TX

Executive

State

Completed survey

Dallas County Community Supervision & Corrections Department

TX

Judicial

Local

Completed survey

Harris County Supervision and Corrections Department

TX

Judicial

Local

Completed survey

Benton District Court Probation

WA

Judicial

Local

Completed survey

Texas Juvenile Justice Department

TX

Executive

State

Completed survey

Vilas County Juvenile Intake

WI

Refused AIF

Professional Probation Services

GA

Completed survey

Rocky Mountain Offender Management Systems

CO

Completed survey

Advocate Program, Inc.

FL

Completed survey

Oklahoma Court Services, Inc.

OK

Completed survey

Private Probation

MO

Completed survey

Providence Community Corrections

GA

Nonresponse

Providence Community Corrections

WA

Nonresponse

Alternative Programs & Probation Systems, Inc.

MO

Non-contact, company no longer exists

Judicial Supervision Services

UT

Completed survey

Dishion Enterprises

ID

Nonresponse

Judicial Correction Services, Inc.

FL

Refused CIF

Private companies

Providence Community Corrections
AL
Completed survey
a
Agency is in comparison group --provided data in the 2012 Annual Survey of Probation and Parole (ASPP) and the CAPSA Pilot Test.
b Branch and Level of government, as reported in CAPSA Pilot Test.

A-3

APPENDIX B





Public Agency Information Form (AIF)
Private Company Information Form (CIF)
Public Agency Questionnaire
Private Company Questionnaire

Public Agency Information Form (AIF)

B-1

B-2

Private Company Information Form (CIF)

B-3

B-4

Public Agency Questionnaire
FORM CAPSA-2013

OMB No. 1121-0339

Approval expires 01/31/2016

Census of Adult Probation
Supervising Agencies (CAPSA)
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics
and acting as data collection agent,
Westat

B-5

PURPOSE OF CENSUS
The Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA) is designed to identify and
enumerate adult probation supervising agencies in the United States and obtain information about
their organizational structures, authority, functions and populations supervised. Most questions
asked in the census focus on the agency’s practices; only a few questions ask for numerical
information, specifically aggregate counts of probationers and supervision officers.
INSTRUCTIONS
This census focuses on adult probation. However, there are some questions that reference other
populations your agency may supervise. As you answer each question, please consider only adult
probation, unless instructed otherwise.


Probation is defined as a disposition or sentence for either a felony or misdemeanor that (1) is imposed
by a criminal court and (2) places the adjudicated person under the control, supervision and care of a
correctional agency. The probation conditions form a contract with the court by which the person must
abide in order to remain in the community, generally in lieu of incarceration. Often, probation entails
monitoring or surveillance by a correctional agency, but in some instances, probation may not involve
any reporting requirements.



Adult probationers are defined as persons who are subject to the authority of an adult criminal court
or correctional agency. Persons under the age of 18 who were prosecuted as adults in a criminal court
are considered adults for the purpose of this census.

Please read all definitions and questions carefully. These definitions were developed for the purpose of this
census; as such, definitions and question wording are standardized for this national census and may not
match your agency’s definitions and practices. Because CAPSA is a national data collection, we ask all
agencies to use these standardized definitions.
As part of this special pilot test, we hope to determine the how much time is associated with
responding to the census. At the end of the questionnaire, you will be asked to report how much time
you (or your staff) spent, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering the data needed, and completing and reviewing your responses. Please monitor the time spent
as you prepare and provide your responses.
Please complete this questionnaire online by August 15, 2013. If you have questions, please
contact the CAPSA Agency Support Team at 1-888-329-8124 or by email at bjscapsa@westat.com.
If you prefer to provide the information by telephone or email, please contact the CAPSA Agency
Support Team at 1-888-329-8124 or by email at bjscapsa@westat.com.
BURDEN STATEMENT
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to
average 50 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20531; and to the Office of Management and Budget, OMB No. 1121-0064, Washington,
DC 20503.

OMB No. 1121-0339

Approval expires 01/31/2016
B-6

GLOSSARY
The terms below are defined in the questionnaire the first time they appear, and are indicated with a ►.
Definitions and question wording are standardized for this national census and may not match your
agency’s definitions and practices. Because CAPSA is a national data collection, we ask all agencies to
use these standardized definitions. There is a comment field at the end of the survey; please describe any
instances where you were unable to apply the census definition when answering a question. The comment
field can also be used to provide any other general or specific comments about this questionnaire.

Key Definitions
Probation
A disposition or sentence for either a felony or misdemeanor that (1) is imposed by a criminal court
and (2) places the adjudicated person under the control, supervision and care of a correctional
agency. The probation conditions form a contract with the court by which the person must abide in
order to remain in the community, generally in lieu of incarceration. Often, probation entails
monitoring or surveillance by a correctional agency, but in some instances, probation may not involve
any reporting requirements
Adult probationers
Persons who are subject to the authority of an adult criminal court or correctional agency. Persons
under the age of 18 who were prosecuted as adults in a criminal court are considered adults for the
purpose of this census.

Other Definitions
Administrative functions of probation
Record storage and maintenance, budget preparation, personnel management or similar clerical
or management activities.
Authority
The ability to make decisions about adult probation.
Correctional residential facilities
Community-based facilities operated for correctional purposes. Residents may be allowed
extensive contact with the community, such as for employment, work, or attending school, but are
obligated to occupy the premises at night. Examples include, but are not limited to, halfway
houses, restitution centers, detention centers, and prerelease or work release centers.
Electronic monitoring
Supervision conducted through electronic devices or systems to monitor or track probationers’
locations, activities, or behaviors. Examples can include, but are not limited to, radio frequency
monitoring, Global Position System (GPS) monitoring, and alcohol monitoring.
Electronic supervision
Supervision conducted through automated or electronic means, such as interactive voice
recognition (IVR) or reporting kiosks for routine reporting. It does not include telephone, email, or
text reporting.
Face-to-face supervision
Supervision conducted through in-person visits such as office or field visits.

B-7

Fees
Money paid by probationers to cover the cost of operations which include, but are not limited to,
supervision fees, program fees, drug testing fees, pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report fees,
and risk or needs assessment fees.
Fines
Monetary penalties paid by probationers. Fines include but are not limited to day fines, violation
fines, and restitution.
Intensive supervision probation (ISP)
A more rigorous form of supervision than standard probation. It often emphasizes extensive
contact, stringent conditions (e.g., drug testing, curfews, employment, or program engagement),
and close monitoring or surveillance.
Non-reporting probation
Supervision that never required the probationer, during any period of the probation term, to report
to a court or correctional authority on a regular basis either in person, by telephone or mail, or by
electronic means.
Operational responsibility
The responsibility for implementing decisions.
Reporting functions of probation
Data collection and reporting activities, for example the preparation of monthly or annual reports.
Staffing
The hiring, terminating, re-assigning, or promoting of staff.
Subsidiary probation office
A field, district, satellite or other similar type of office operated by a central office. While a
subsidiary office may actually manage/supervise adult probationers, the central office has
authority over adult probation.
Supervision officers
Full- and part-time staff who supervise adult probationers, regardless of their position or the
amount of time they spend conducting supervision activities. Some agencies may refer to these
staff as officers, agents, or caseworkers.
Supervisory functions of probation
Officer supervision of adult probationers either through face-to-face visits, mail, phone, or
electronic means.

B-8

Agency name: NAME, ADDRESS
Throughout this questionnaire, the term “your agency” will be used to identify NAME, ADDRESS.
Please think of this agency when responding to the questions, regardless of whether your agency is
associated with a larger agency or department in any way. Also, please consider only adult probation,
unless instructed otherwise in specific questions, even if your agency supervises other correctional
populations.

SECTION A. Contact Information
1. Please provide the contact information for the person completing this questionnaire.
Contact Name:
Title:
Agency Name:
Address:

Phone:

Extension:

Email:

SECTION B. Organizational Structure
2. In which branch of government is NAME located?
1

Executive branch

2

Judicial branch

3

Other (Please describe)

3. Which of the following best describes NAME’S level of government?
1

Federal

2

State

3

Local

4

Other (Please describe)

B-9

4. Is NAME a subsidiary probation office that is operated by a central office?

► Subsidiary probation office is a field, district, satellite or other similar type of office operated by a
central office. While a subsidiary office may actually manage/supervise adult probationers, the
central office has authority over adult probation.
1

Yes

2

No → SKIP TO QUESTION 6.

5. What is the name and address of the central office that your subsidiary office is a part of?
Name ______________________
Address ________________________
SKIP TO QUESTION 31.

6. Does NAME perform any of the following functions of adult probation?
a. Administrative functions, such as record storage and maintenance,
budget preparation, personnel management or similar clerical or
management activities.
b. Reporting functions, such as data collection and reporting activities, for
example the preparation of monthly or annual reports.
c.

Supervisory functions, where your staff (e.g., officers, agents,
caseworkers) supervise adult probationers either through face-to-face
visits, mail, phone, or electronic means.

d. Other functions

Yes

No

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

d1. Please describe the other functions performed by your agency.
____________________________
IF 6a, 6b, 6c, AND 6d = NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 31.

7. On June 30, 2013, did your agency supervise adults on non-reporting probation?
► Non-reporting probation means that the probationer was never required, during any period of their
probation term, to report to a court or correctional authority on a regular basis either in person, by
telephone or mail, or by electronic means.
1

Yes

2

No → SKIP TO SECTION C.

B-10

8. On June 30, 2013, did your agency’s total adult probation population consist only of probationers on
non-reporting probation?
1

Yes

2

No

SECTION C. Authority and Operational Responsibility
As you continue with this questionnaire, please remember to think of NAME when asked about “your
agency,” regardless of whether your agency is associated with a larger agency or department in any way.
Also, please consider only adult probation, unless instructed otherwise in specific questions, even if your
agency supervises other correctional populations.
The next few questions ask about authority and operational responsibility.
► Authority refers to the ability to make decisions about adult probation.
► Operational responsibility refers to the responsibility for implementing those decisions.

9. Who has authority to set the budget for your agency?
► Providing recommendations about the amount of your agency’s budget is not considered setting
your agency’s budget.

Yes

No

1

2

b1. Please name/describe_____________

1

2

Your agency

1

2

1

2

a. Legislature
b. Higher level agency

c.

d. Other
d1. Please name/describe ____________________________

B-11

10. Once your agency’s budget has been set, who is responsible for operations spending by your
agency?

Yes

No

1

2

b1. Please name/describe_____________

1

2

Your agency

1

2

1

2

1

2

a. Legislature
b. Higher level agency

c.

d. Lower level agency
d1. Please name/describe_____________
e. Other
e1. Please name/describe ____________________________

11 Who has authority to set the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) or part-time equivalent (PTE)
positions for your agency?
► Providing recommendations about the number of FTE or PTE positions for your agency is not
considered setting the number of positions.

Yes

No

1

2

b1. Please name/describe_____________

1

2

Your agency

1

2

1

2

a. Legislature
b. Higher level agency

c.

d. Other
d1. Please name/describe ____________________________

12. Once the numbers of FTE and PTE positions are set, who is responsible for staffing at your agency?
► Staffing is defined as at least one of the following: hiring, terminating, re-assigning, or promoting
of staff.

Yes

No

1

2

b1. Please name/describe_____________

1

2

Your agency

1

2

1

2

1

2

a. Legislature
b. Higher level agency

c.

d. Lower level agency
d1. Please name/describe_____________
e. Other
e1. Please name/describe ____________________________

B-12

The next questions ask about establishing and implementing policies or procedures for adult probation
such as levels of supervision, use of risk assessments, or the type and frequency of contact. Sometimes
policies and procedures are set to meet adult probation standards which may be established by your
agency or a higher-level agency or court system. However, establishing probation standards is not
considered setting policies or procedures for the purposes of this census.
13. Who has the authority to establish policies or procedures for the supervision of adult probationers in
your agency?

Yes

No

1

2

b1. Please name/describe_____________

1

2

Your agency

1

2

1

2

a. Legislature
b. Higher level agency

c.

d. Other
d1. Please name/describe ____________________________

14. Who is responsible for implementing the policies or procedures for the supervision of adult
probationers at your agency?

Yes

No

1

2

b1. Please name/describe_____________

1

2

Your agency

1

2

1

2

1

2

a. Legislature
b. Higher level agency

c.

d. Lower level agency
d1. Please name/describe_____________
e. Other
e1. Please name/describe ____________________________

B-13

15. From July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, did your agency use funding from any of the following sources
for adult probation?

Yes

No

a. Federal grant

1

2

b. Federal sources other than federal grants

1

2

c.

1

2

d. State sources other than state grants (include any regular allocation)

1

2

e. County sources (include any regular allocation)

1

2

f.

1

2

g. Court costs paid by adult probationers

1

2

h. Fines paid by adult probationers

1

2

i.

Fees paid by adult probationers

1

2

j.

Any other sources

1

2

State grant

City or municipal sources (include any regular allocation)

j1. Please identify the other sources: ____________________________

16. Does your agency collect fines from any adult probationers either directly or through a collection
agent?
► Fines are monetary penalties paid by probationers. Fines include but are not limited to day fines,
violation fines, and restitution.
1

No fines are collected

2

Collected directly by agency

3

Collected through a collection agent

4

Collected both directly and through a collection agent

17. Does your agency collect fees from any adult probationers either directly or through a collection
agent?
► Fees are paid by probationers to cover the cost of operations and include, but are not limited to,
supervision fees, program fees, drug testing fees, pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report fees,
and risk or needs assessment fees.
1

No fees are collected

2

Collected directly by agency

3

Collected through a collection agent

4

Collected both directly and through a collection agent

B-14

IF 6c = NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 31.

SECTION D. Functions of Supervision
The next questions ask about supervision activities that may be conducted directly by your agency or
through a third party such as a private company, non-profit organization, or different government agency.
When answering, please think about who performs the activity, regardless of who owns any equipment
that might be used to perform the activity.
As you continue, please remember to think of NAME when asked about “your agency,” regardless of
whether your agency is associated with a larger agency or department in any way. Also, please consider
only adult probation, unless instructed otherwise in specific questions, even if your agency supervises
other correctional populations.
18. Does your agency use the following methods to conduct supervision of any adult probationers, either
directly or through a third party?
Yes

No

a. Mail

1

2

b. Phone

1

2

c.

1

2

1

2

Text

d. Email

19. Does your agency conduct face-to-face supervision of any adult probationers, either directly or
through a third party?
► Face-to-face supervision is conducted through in-person visits such as office or field visits.
1

No face-to-face supervision is done

2

Done directly by agency

3

Done through a third party

4

Done both directly and through a third party

B-15

20. Does your agency conduct intensive supervision (ISP) of any adult probationers, either directly or
through a third party?
► ISP is a more rigorous form of supervision than standard probation. It often emphasizes extensive
contact, stringent conditions (e.g., drug testing, curfews, employment, or program engagement),
and close monitoring or surveillance.
1

No ISP is done

2

Done directly by agency

3

Done through a third party

4

Done both directly and through a third party

21. Does your agency use electronic supervision for routine reporting of any adult probationers, either
directly or through a third party?
► Electronic supervision uses automated or electronic means, such as interactive voice recognition
(IVR) or reporting kiosks for routine reporting. It does not include telephone, email, or text
reporting.
1

No electronic supervision is done

2

Done directly by agency

3

Done through a third party

4

Done both directly and through a third party

22. Does your agency use electronic monitoring for the supervision of any adult probationers, either
directly or through a third party?
► Electronic monitoring uses electronic devices or systems to monitor or track probationers’
locations, activities, or behaviors. Examples can include, but are not limited to, radio frequency
monitoring, Global Position System (GPS) monitoring, and alcohol monitoring.
1

No electronic monitoring is done

2

Done directly by agency

3

Done through a third party

4

Done both directly and through a third party

B-16

23. Which of the following are used by your agency to determine level, type, or conditions of supervision
for any adult probationers?
Yes

No

a. Standardized risk or needs assessment (such as the LSI-R or COMPAS)

1

2

b. Agency-developed risk or needs assessment

1

2

c.

1

2

1

2

Staff (e.g., officer, agent, caseworker) judgment of risks and needs

d. Other
d1. Specify: ____________________________

24. Does your agency provide specialized services or programs for sex offenders on adult probation,
either directly or through a third party?
1

No specialized services or programs for sex offenders on adult probation are provided

2

Done directly by agency

3

Done through a third party

4

Done both directly and through a third party

25. Does your agency provide specialized services or programs for mentally ill offenders on adult
probation, either directly or through a third party?
1

No specialized services or programs for mentally ill offenders on adult probation are provided

2

Done directly by agency

3

Done through a third party

4

Done both directly and through a third party

The next questions ask about your agency’s role in setting terms and conditions of supervision.
As you continue, please remember to think of NAME when asked about “your agency,” regardless of
whether your agency is associated with a larger agency or department in any way. Also, please consider
only adult probation, unless instructed otherwise in specific questions, even if your agency supervises
other correctional populations.

26. Can your agency impose standard or special conditions of probation for any type of adult
probationers? Imposing conditions includes amending or removing conditions as well as adding new
conditions.
Yes

No

a. Impose standard conditions

1

2

b. Impose special conditions

1

2

B-17

27. Can your agency grant an early positive discharge to any type of adult probationer prior to the
scheduled expiration of their sentence without appearing before a judge or court? This type of
discharge may be granted in response to the satisfaction of conditions, earned time credits, or in
accordance with agency policy.
1

Yes

2

No

28. Can your agency extend the period of probation supervision for any type of adult probationer without
appearing before a judge or court?
Yes
a. Agency can extend a period of supervision beyond the court imposed sentence

1

No
2

b. Agency can only extend a period of supervision if a probationer has not yet satisfied the terms of
their court imposed sentence (e.g., a sentence of one year on probation and completion of drug
1
2
treatment and drug treatment has not yet been completed)

29. Can your agency impose a period of incarceration on any type of adult probationer without appearing
before a judge or court? Incarceration may be imposed in response to a violation of conditions or a
revocation and may vary in duration.
1

Yes

2

No

The next questions ask about your agency’s use of correctional residential facilities.
► Correctional residential facilities are community-based facilities operated for correctional
purposes. Residents may be allowed extensive contact with the community, such as for
employment, work, or attending school, but are obligated to occupy the premises at night.
Examples include, but are not limited to, halfway houses, restitution centers, detention centers,
and prerelease or work release centers.

30. Does your agency use correctional residential facilities to confine or provide services to any adult
probationers?
1

Yes

2

No

B-18

31. (Excluding any correctional residential facilities that your agency uses), are you aware of any
correctional residential facilities used to confine or provide services to adult probationers in your
state?
1

Yes

2

No

ROUTING #1.
IF 30 = NO AND 31 = NO, SKIP TO ROUTING #3.
IF 30 = BLANK AND 31 = NO, SKIP TO ROUTING #3.
ELSE, CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 32.

32. Who operates correctional residential facilities in your state?
Yes

No

a. Federal agency

1

2

b. State agency

1

2

c.

1

2

d. Joint state and local agencies

1

2

e. Private agency

1

2

Local agency

33. We would like to know the name and, if possible, county in which each correctional residential facility
is located in your state. Please indicate if you would prefer to provide this information by email, fax,
or if you would like to enter the information at this time. If sending information by email or fax, please
be sure to include your login ID number.
1

Email → SEND THE INFORMATION TO bjscapsa@westat.com

2

Fax→ FAX THE INFORMATION TO THE CAPSA SURVEY DESK AT XXX-XXX-XXXX

3

Enter information now

4

I cannot provide this information

ROUTING #2.
IF 33 = ENTER INFORMATION NOW, CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 34.
ELSE, SKIP TO ROUTING #3.

B-19

34. Please provide the name and county in which each correctional residential facility is located.

Name of correctional residential facility
County

Name of correctional residential facility
County

ROUTING #3.
IF 6a, 6b, 6c, AND 6d = NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 49.
IF 4 = NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 49.
IF 6c = NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 49.
ELSE, CONTINUE WITH SECTION E.

SECTION E. Supervision Officers

The next questions ask about supervision officers in your agency.
► Supervision officers are full- and part-time staff who supervise adult probationers, regardless of
their position or the amount of time they spend conducting supervision activities. Some agencies
may refer to these staff as officers, agents, or caseworkers.

35. Are none, some or all of the supervision officers in your agency authorized to carry firearms?
1

None → SKIP TO QUESTION 37.

2

Some

3

All

36. How many of the supervision officers who carry firearms are required to do so?
1

None

2

Some

3

All

B-20

37. Do none, some or all of your supervision officers have the authority to arrest adult probationers
supervised by your agency?
1

None

2

Some

3

All

38. On June 30, 2013, how many full- and part-time supervision officers worked in your agency?
__________ Officers

39. Is this an exact count or an estimate?
1

Exact count

2

Estimate

SECTION F. Populations Supervised
The next questions ask about populations that may be supervised by your agency. As you answer these
questions, please remember to think about supervision done by NAME, ADDRESS.

40. On June 30, 2013, what type(s) of populations did your agency supervise?
► Some persons under your agency’s supervision may have multiple sentences or correctional
statuses, and may be supervised by your agency and another correctional agency. When
answering this question, only report the types of populations that your agency is responsible for
supervising.

a.

Adults on pretrial status awaiting trial

b.

Adults whose criminal proceedings have been suspended prior to
adjudication or conviction and pending completion of a period of
supervision in the community

Yes

No

1

2

1

2

c.

Adults on probation for a misdemeanor

1

2

d.

Adults on probation for a felony

1

2

e.

Adults on parole or other type of post-custody conditional release

1

2

f.

Juveniles

1

2

g.

Other populations

1

2

g1. Please describe the other populations: ____________________________

B-21

ROUTING #4.
IF 40c = NO AND 40d = NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 49.
ELSE, CONTINUE.

The next questions ask for aggregate counts of populations supervised by your agency.
41. On June 30, 2013, what was the total number of individuals supervised by your agency? Please
include all populations represented in your answer to the previous question. To review the previous
question, press the BACK button.
__________ Total population
IF ZERO, SKIP TO QUESTION 48.

As you answer the following questions, please remember to think about supervision done by NAME,
ADDRESS. Also, focus only on adult probation supervision even if your agency supervises other
populations.
► Adult probationers are persons who are subject to the authority of an adult criminal court or
correctional agency. Persons under the age of 18 who were prosecuted as adults in a criminal court
are considered adults for the purpose of this census.


Include all adult probationers regardless of their supervision or reporting status.



Include absconders who have not been officially removed from your agency’s caseload.



Include adult probationers legally your agency’s responsibility but supervised by another
agency, such as through a “courtesy supervision: or an interstate compact agreement.



Include adult probationers legally your agency’s responsibility but supervised by private
companies.

42. On June 30, 2013, what was the total number of adult probationers supervised by your agency?
__________ Probationers

IF ZERO, SKIP TO QUESTION 48.
IF 40c = NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 44.

43. How many of those adult probationers had a misdemeanor as their most serious offense?
__________ Probationers

B-22

IF 40d = NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 45.

44. How many of those adult probationers had a felony as their most serious offense?
__________ Probationers

45. Does the information you provided about the numbers of probationers represent individuals or cases?
MARK ALL THAT APPLY.
1

Individuals

2

Cases

46. Does the information you provided about the numbers of probationers represent exact counts or
estimates? MARK ALL THAT APPLY.
1

Exact counts

2

Estimates

47. Does your agency ever use private companies to supervise any adult probationers?
1

Yes

2

No → SKIP TO QUESTION 49.

48. Of those adult felony and/or misdemeanant probationers that your agency reported supervising on
June 30, 2013, how many were supervised by a private company?
__________ Probationers

49. (Excluding any private company that your agency uses), are you aware of any private companies
that are responsible for any function of adult felony or misdemeanant probation in your state?
1

Yes

2

No

B-23

ROUTING #5.
IF 47 = NO AND 49 = NO, SKIP TO SECTION G.
IF 47 = BLANK AND 49 = NO, SKIP TO SECTION G.
ELSE, CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 50.

50. We would like to know the name and, if possible, county in which a private company is responsible for
any function of adult felony or misdemeanant probation in your state. Please indicate if you would
prefer to provide this information by email, fax, or if you would like to enter the information at this time.
If sending information by email or fax, please be sure to include your login ID number.
1

Email → SEND THE INFORMATION TO bjscapsa@westat.com

2

Fax→ FAX THE INFORMATION TO THE CAPSA SURVEY DESK AT XXX-XXX-XXXX

3

Enter information now

4

I cannot provide this information

ROUTING #6.
IF 50 = ENTER INFORMATION NOW, CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 51.
ELSE, SKIP TO SECTION G.

51. Please provide the name and county (or counties) in which each private company operates in your
state.

Name of private company
County/Counties

Name of private company
County/Counties

B-24

SECTION G. Other Probation Agencies
52. CAPSA is designed to identify and enumerate adult probation supervising agencies in the United
States. Please review this list of agencies responsible for adult probation supervision throughout your
state.
Not counting any agency that you might have already reported on this survey, are you aware of any
other agencies responsible for any administrative, reporting, or supervisory functions of adult
probation in your state that is missing from the list?
1

Yes

2

No

ROUTING #7.
IF 52 = NO, SKIP TO SECTION H.
ELSE, CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 53.

53. We would like to know the name and, if possible, county in which any missing agency is located.
Please indicate if you would prefer to provide this information by email, fax, or if you would like to
enter the information at this time. If sending information by email or fax, please be sure to include
your login ID number.
1

Email → SEND THE INFORMATION TO bjscapsa@westat.com

2

Fax→ FAX THE INFORMATION TO THE CAPSA SURVEY DESK AT XXX-XXX-XXXX

3

Enter information now

4

I cannot provide this information

ROUTING #8.
IF 53 = ENTER INFORMATION NOW, CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 54.
ELSE, SKIP TO SECTION H.

B-25

54. Please provide the name and county in which each agency is located.

Name of agency
County

Name of agency
County

SECTION H. Comments
55. Definitions and questions are standardized for this national census and may not match your agency’s
definitions and practices. Please describe any instances where you were unable to apply the census
definition when answering a question.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

56. Please provide any general comments about the census or other comments that would be important
to interpreting your responses.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

57. How long did it take you to respond to this census? Please include time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering the data needed, and completing and reviewing your
responses.
___________ minutes

Thank you for participating in the Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies. You indicated that you
will share information about <> <> <>
<> via email or fax. Please remember to send the information to Westat at
bjscapsa@westat.com or XXX-XXX-XXXX and be sure to include your agency’s login ID number.

B-26

Thank you letter will be sent upon submission of each survey and if appropriate, remind agencies
to submit information by email (or fax):
Dear <> <>,
Thank you for participating in the Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies. Your survey indicates
that you will share information about <> <>
<> <> via email or fax. Please send the information to
bjscapsa@westat.com or XXX-XXX-XXXX at your earliest convenience and be sure to include your
agency’s ID number: XXXX.
Our analysts will review your survey, and we will be in touch if we have any questions. If you ever need to
make updates to your responses or have any questions about the census, please contact us at 1-888329-8124 or by email at bjscapsa@westat.com. Thank you for your support of this data collection.

B-27

Private Company Questionnaire
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
and acting as data collection agent
Westat and the American Probation and Parole Association

FORM APPROVED
O.M.B. No.: 1121-0339
EXPIRATION DATE: 01/31/2016

Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA)
INSTRUCTIONS
The Census of Adult Probation Supervising Agencies (CAPSA) is designed to identify and enumerate public
and private adult probation supervising agencies in the United States and obtain information about their
organizational structures, functions, and populations supervised. Only two questions ask for numerical
information: the counts of adults on probation for felonies and adults on probation for misdemeanors. All
other questions focus on your company’s practices.
Please read all definitions and questions carefully. These definitions were developed for the purpose of this
census; as such, definitions and question wording are standardized for this national census and may not
match your company’s definitions and practices. Because CAPSA is a national data collection, we ask all
study participants to use these standardized definitions. You can provide comments at the end of the
questionnaire; please describe any instances where you were unable to apply the census definition when
answering a question. The comment field can also be used to provide any other general or specific comments
about this questionnaire.
As part of this special pilot test, we hope to determine the how much time is associated with responding to the
census. At the end of the questionnaire, you will be asked to report how much time you (and/or your staff)
spent to complete the survey, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering the data needed, and completing and reviewing your responses. Please monitor the time spent as
you prepare and provide your responses. Thank you.

CONTACT INFORMATION:
Please complete this questionnaire by August 15, 2013. If you have questions, please contact the CAPSA
Support Team at 1-888-329-8124 or by email at bjscapsa@westat.com.
Please provide the contact information for the person completing this questionnaire.
Contact Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________
Title: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Company Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________
Address: __________________________________________________________________________________________
Telephone number: ___________________________________

Extension: _____________

E-mail: ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Burden Statement: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this collection of information, including

B-28

Att
suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street, NW, Washington, DC 20531; and
to the Office of Management and Budget, OMB No. 1121-0339, Washington, DC 20503.

Att

SECTION A.

Probation Supervision Responsibilities

The census focuses on adult probation. However, there are some questions that reference other
populations your company may supervise. As you answer each question, please consider only
adult probation, unless instructed otherwise.
Probation is a disposition or sentence for either a felony or misdemeanor that (1) is imposed by a criminal
court and (2) places the adjudicated person under the control, supervision and care of a public or
private correctional agency. The probation conditions form a contract with the court by which the
person must abide in order to remain in the community, generally in lieu of incarceration. Often,
probation entails monitoring or surveillance by a correctional agency, but in some instances,
probation may not involve any reporting requirements.
Adult probationers are those who are subject to the authority of an adult criminal court or a public or
private correctional agency. Persons under the age of 18 who were prosecuted as adults in a criminal
court are considered adults for the purpose of this census.
1.

Does your company perform any of the following functions of adult probation?
Yes

d. Administrative functions, such as record storage and maintenance,
budget preparation, personnel management or similar clerical or
management activities. ..................................................................................
e. Reporting functions, such as data collection and reporting activities, for
example the preparation of monthly or annual reports. .................................
f.

Supervisory functions, where your staff (e.g., officers, agents, or
caseworkers) supervise adult probationers either through face-to-face
visits, mail, phone, or electronic means. ........................................................

g. Other functions ...............................................................................................
d1. Please describe the other adult probation functions performed
by your company.
_________________________________________________________
2.

On June 30, 2013, did your company supervise adult probationers?
Yes .....................

1

No .......................

2

SKIP TO QUESTION 20.

Pilot Test CAPSA Private Questionnaire
May 6, 2013

B-30

No

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

Att

3.

On June 30, 2013, in how any states did your company supervise adult probationers?
_______ States

4.

On June 30, 2013, with which type(s) of government agency/court did your company have a
contract to supervise adult probationers?
For each type, please indicate if your company had no contract, a contract with a single
agency/court, or a contract with more than one agency/court.
Number of
Agencies/Courts
More
than one

None

One

a. Executive branch ......................................................................

1

2

3

b. Judicial branch .........................................................................

1

2

3

c.

1

2

3

d. Executive branch ......................................................................

1

2

3

e. Judicial branch .........................................................................

1

2

3

f.

1

2

3

g. Executive branch ......................................................................

1

2

3

h. Judicial branch .........................................................................

1

2

3

i.

1

2

3

Federal agency/court

Other ........................................................................................

State agency/court

Other ........................................................................................

Local agency/court

5.

Other ........................................................................................

From July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013, did any government agency/court with which your
company has a contract conduct any of the following types of oversight of your adult
probation supervision activities?
Yes

a. Require your company include a description of its policies and
procedures for supervising adult probationers in a contract or
memorandum of understanding? .......................................................................
b. Require your company obtain approval for any modification of its
policies and procedures for supervising adult probationers?............................
c.

Require your company to submit periodic reports on its performance of
adult supervision activities or the status of adult probationers? .......................

d. Perform audits or inspections of your company’s performance in
supervising adult probationers? .........................................................................

Pilot Test CAPSA Private Questionnaire
May 6, 2013

B-31

No

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

Att

SECTION B.

Populations Under Supervision

The next questions ask about the types of populations that your company supervises. Some
persons under your company’s supervision may have multiple sentences or correctional statuses,
and may be supervised by your company and another correctional agency. When answering these
questions, only report the types of populations that your company is responsible for supervising.

6.

On June 30, 2013, did your company supervise adults on non-reporting probation?
Non-reporting probation is supervision that never required the probationer, during any period of the
probation term, to report to a court or a public or private correctional authority on a regular
basis either in person, by telephone or mail, or by electronic means.

7.

Yes .....................

1

No .......................

2

SKIP TO QUESTION 8.

On June 30, 2013, did your company’s total adult probation population consist only of
probationers on non-reporting probation?
Non-reporting probation is supervision that never required the probationer, during any period of the
probation term, to report to a court or correctional authority on a regular basis either in person,
by telephone or mail, or by electronic means.

8.

Yes .....................

1

No .......................

2

On June 30, 2013, how many adult felony probationers did your company supervise?
_______ Adult Felony Probationers

9.

On June 30, 2013, how many adult misdemeanant probationers did your company
supervise?
_______ Adult Misdemeanant Probationers

10.

On June 30, 2013, what other type(s) of populations did your company supervise?
Yes

No

1

2

1

2

Adults on parole or other type of post-custody conditional release..................

1

2

d. Juveniles .............................................................................................................

1

2

e. Other populations ...........................................................................................

1

2

a. Adults on pretrial status awaiting trial ..............................................................
b. Adults whose criminal proceedings have been suspended prior to
adjudication or conviction and pending completion of a period of
supervision in the community ..........................................................................
c.

e1. Please describe: __________________________________________

Pilot Test CAPSA Private Questionnaire
May 6, 2013

B-32

Att

SECTION C.

Supervision Activities

The next questions ask about supervision activities that may be conducted directly by your
company. When answering, please think about who performs the activity, regardless of who owns
any equipment that might be used to perform the activity.
11.

Does your company use the following methods to conduct supervision of any adult
probationers?
Yes

a. Face-to-Face (conducted through in-person visits such as office or field
visits) ...................................................................................................................

12.

No

1

2

b. Mail ......................................................................................................................

1

2

c.

Phone ..................................................................................................................

1

2

d. Text .....................................................................................................................

1

2

e. Email ...................................................................................................................

1

2

Does your company collect fines from any adult probationers?
Fines are monetary penalties paid by probationers. Fines include but are not limited to day fines,
violation fines, and restitution.

13.

Yes .....................

1

No .......................

2

Does your company collect fees from any adult probationers?
Fees are paid by probationers to cover the cost of operations and include, but are not limited to,
supervision fees, program fees, drug testing fees, pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report fees,
and risk or needs assessment fees.

14.

Yes .....................

1

No .......................

2

Does your company conduct intensive supervision (ISP) of any adult probationers?
ISP is a more rigorous form of supervision than standard probation. It often emphasizes extensive
contact, stringent conditions (e.g., drug testing, curfews, employment, or program
engagement), and close monitoring or surveillance.

15.

Yes .....................

1

No .......................

2

Does your company use electronic supervision for routine reporting of any adult
probationers?
Electronic supervision uses automated or electronic means, such as interactive voice recognition
(IVR) or reporting kiosks for routine reporting. It does not include telephone, email, or text
reporting.
Yes .....................

1

No .......................

2

Pilot Test CAPSA Private Questionnaire
May 6, 2013

B-33

Att

16.

Does your company use electronic monitoring for the supervision of any adult
probationers?
Electronic monitoring uses electronic devices or systems to monitor or track probationers’
locations, activities, or behaviors. Examples can include, but are not limited to, radio frequency
monitoring, Global Position System (GPS) monitoring, and alcohol monitoring.

17.

Yes .....................

1

No .......................

2

Which of the following are used by your company to determine level, type, or conditions of
supervision for any adult probationers?
Yes

a. Standardized risk or needs assessment (such as the LSI-R or
COMPAS) ...........................................................................................................

No

1

2

b. Risk or needs assessment developed by your company..................................

1

2

c.

Risk or needs assessment developed by a client (i.e., agency/court)..............

1

2

d. Staff (e.g., officer, agent, case worker) judgment of risks and needs ..............

1

2

e. Other ...................................................................................................................

1

2

e1. Please describe: __________________________________________
18.

19.

Does your company provide specialized services or programs for sex offenders on adult
probation?
Yes .....................

1

No .......................

2

Does your company provide specialized services or programs for mentally ill offenders on
adult probation?
Yes .....................

1

No .......................

2

Pilot Test CAPSA Private Questionnaire
May 6, 2013

B-34

Att

SECTION D.
20.

CAPSA Response Time

How long did it take to respond to this census? Please include time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering the data needed, and completing
and reviewing your responses.
_______ Minutes

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE CENSUS OF ADULT PROBATION SUPERVISING AGENCIES.
PLEASE KEEP A COPY OF THIS SURVEY FOR YOUR RECORDS.

PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO:

Mail:

Fax:

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS,
CONTACT:

CAPSA (8838)
Westat
1600 Research Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20850-3129
301-279-4508

Pilot Test CAPSA Private Questionnaire
May 6, 2013

CAPSA SUPPORT TEAM
1-888-329-8124
E-mail: bjscapsa@westat.com

B-35

Att

APPENDIX C
 Public Agency Materials
o Head Cover Letter
o Respondent Cover Letter
o Questionnaire Topics
o Study Definitions
o Thank-you/Reminder Postcard
o Final Thank-you Letter
o Final Close-out Letter
 Private Company Materials
o
o
o
o
o

Head Cover Letter
Respondent Cover Letter
Thank-you/Reminder Postcard
Final Thank-you Letter
Final Close-out Letter

Head Cover Letter (Public Agency)

C-1

Respondent Cover Letter (Public Agency)

C-2

C-3

Questionnaire Topics

C-4

Study Definitions

C-5

Thank-you/Reminder Postcard (Public Agency)

C-6

Final Thank-you Letter (Public Agency)

C-7

Final Close-out Letter (Public Agency)

C-8

Head Cover Letter (Private Company)

C-9

C-10

Respondent Cover Letter (Private Company)

C-11

C-12

Thank-you/Reminder Postcard (Private Company)

C-13

Final Thank-you Letter (Private Company)

C-14

Final Close-out Letter (Private Company)

C-15

APPENDIX D
 Anecdotal Comments

This appendix provides information we collected from the pilot test respondents over the course of
the data collection period and throughout data retrieval. We presume that this information will
inform our decisions as we make changes to the instruments and data collection procedures in
preparation for the national study.
The comments are listed by topic area and agencies/states that provided them.

Functions of probation (Idaho Supreme Court, ID)
We were confused by Mr. Hong’s survey answers because he indicated “No” to all functions of
probation in question 6 and then entered a comment suggesting that his agency does in fact play
some role in probation. Through data retrieval, we learned that his agency, as the highest court in
the state, has a real interest in probation but does not actually perform any of the functions that
would qualify them for CAPSA. This is good news insofar as it means that the survey is working as
we envisioned. Mr. Hong was confused because he assumed that we knew about his agency’s
purview and still expected him to response. So he tried as best as he could given what he knows
about probation in his state.
Mr. Hong shared information about probation in Idaho which reveals that the Idaho Supreme Court
should not be included in CAPSA but that the Department of Correction should be included.
1. Felony probation is administered by the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC).
IDOC is an executive/state agency. Probation supervision is conducted through 7
IDOC offices throughout the state. All offices do the same thing; they take their orders
from IDOC. Probation officers are IDOC employees. If we want to know about felony
probation in Idaho, we want to go to the IDOC.
2. Misdemeanor probation is administered by county probation offices in the state’s 44
counties. Probation officers are county employees. The counties are organized into 7
judicial districts and each judicial district is overseen by a head judge. If we want to know
about misdemeanor probation in Idaho, we want to go to the 7 judicial districts’ head
judges.
3. The Idaho Supreme Court is interested in and has a stake in probation based on their
being the highest court in the state. The Supreme Court does not regularly provide
funding to IDOC or the counties for probation activities. On occasion, it funds special
projects like rolling out a new risk assessment tool or a statewide case management
system. Officers throughout the state enter data into the case management system and
the Supreme Court uses those data to produce reports. The Idaho Supreme Court is not
an appropriate respondent for CAPSA.

Funding (New York Division of Criminal Justice Services; Oregon
Department of Corrections)
In question 6, NY DCJS and OR DOC indicated that they do not perform supervisory functions;
they perform administrative and reporting functions. When they reached question 15, about sources
of funding, both agencies responded “No” to all sources. We conducted data retrieval with both
B-2

Att

agencies to inquire about those funding responses knowing that they must receive funding from
some source. During data retrieval, they explained that they responded this way because they do not
receive any funding (i.e., funding from those sources) to provide “adult probation services” or
“supervision service.” For example, DCJS replied that they are “a state agency that oversees and
provides direction for county probation departments. The county probation departments provide
all adult probation services in New York.”
We clarified that the funding question was asking where they received money to perform the
functions indicated in question 6, including administrative and reporting. This made sense to both
agencies and as a result, both said that they would change their response to “Yes” for question 15d –
State sources other than grants. Their funding comes from the state budget or State General Fund.

Methods of supervision and counts of probationers (Pennsylvania
Board of Probation and Parole)
For question 6 – item c, this agency answered “Yes” to indicate that they perform supervisory
functions. However, for question 18, they answered “No” to each item indicating that the agency
does not use any of the listed methods to conduct supervision of adult probationers. We conducted
data retrieval to determine whether they conduct supervision and if so, by what method.
The respondent shared that he may have misinterpreted question 18. If the question was asking “Do
you use these forms of communication at any point during the supervision of a probationer” then,
yes, his agency does sometimes send them mail or use phones to communicate with them. “But
none of those methods are considered supervision, as all offenders must have face-to-face contact
with their officers at least once a month. In short, we do not have mail-reporting or phone-reporting
options.”
We also contacted this agency about questions 42, 43, and 44, counts of total probationers, felony
probationers, and misdemeanant probationers. In question 42, they indicated 8,114 total
probationers. However, for questions 43 and 44, they indicated 5,229 misdemeanant probationers
and 2,774 felony probationers, which equals 8,003 total probationers. We asked whether there was
an explanation for this discrepancy or if one of the responses should be changed.
The respondent shared that “Pennsylvania has a class of crimes below misdemeanor known as
Summary Offenses. The missing offenders are all within that category…Summary Offenses are
crimes that are relatively small, such as underage drinking or first-time offenders charged with retail
theft. From the PA criminal code, they are crimes in which a person cannot serve more than 90 days
incarcerated… They would be treated exactly the same as all other offenders by our agency. That
means they are normally active unless they are being revoked or are absconding.”

Assorted survey items (Minnesota Department of Corrections)
The MN DOC was selected for data retrieval because they did not provide a response to question
26 which asked whether their agency is able to “impose standard or special conditions of probation
for any type of adult probationers? Imposing conditions includes amending or removing conditions
as well as adding new conditions.” The agency told us that they were confused by the question and

Att

unsure how to answer because a simple “Yes” or “No” would be inaccurate. Specifically, the agency
shared that they “told the interviewer that we needed to check with the survey authors or
someone. The law allows our agents to add or change supervision sanctions; however, an agent
cannot remove a court-imposed condition without the approval/signature of the court.”
When we thanked the respondent for her feedback, she shared a list of additional items where she
“had difficulty fitting responses into discreet categories, at least as listed.” She shared the following
items:









Question 4: We have subsidiary offices for probation provided by the DOC, but this
office is not the subsidiary. I’m not sure your survey captured that. Our subsidiary
offices were not all listed on the list I emailed you – we have “district offices” which may
encompass more than one county but we also have quite a few smaller local offices.
Question 27: Phrased “without appearing before a judge or court.” “Early discharges
can be granted with a judge’s signature here, but that doesn’t require ‘appearing’.”
Question 28a: “Again, may need a judge’s signature in some situations, but it’s not always
an ‘appearance’.”
Question 29: Agents can issue Apprehension and Detention orders without appearing
before a judge or court. “This isn’t really a period of incarceration, but an ability to have
law enforcement detain until appearing before a court.”
Question 37: “The law allows agents to issue Apprehension and Detention orders, but
DOC policy doesn’t allow agents to personally take offenders into custody. We involve
law enforcement.”
Questions 41, 42, 43, 44: “We do this type of reporting annually for the federal
probation survey so our numbers are as of December 31, not as of June 30.”
Question 43: “You lump misdemeanor into one category. We have two categories of
misdemeanor – plain misdemeanor and a gross misdemeanor. I have numbers for each
and also the lump sum. Not sure which number the interviewer wrote down.”

CRFs, private companies, and the organization of probation in TN
(General Sessions Court - Nashville & Davidson County Department of Probation, TN)
For question 31, this agency responded “Yes” to indicate awareness of correctional residential
facilities in their state. At question 33, they reported that they could provide a list of the name and
county of each correctional residential facility. However, we had not received a list until data
retrieval began, so we contacted the respondent to inquire about said list.
The respondent said they had not sent a list because he was unsure what we were looking for. He
said that “Correctional” is the key word. “If you are talking about state, federal, or local jails and
prisons you can easily access that information. If you are referring to halfway houses, I can email
you a link of the approved halfway house list that both Federal and State Probation use, but, those
facilities are not ‘lock down’.” We reminded him of our survey definition and said if he felt that the
facilities on the approved halfway house list fit the definition, to please forward that link to us. He
shared the following link to the Tennessee Offender Re-Entry for Transitional Housing. “These are

Att

halfway houses that the State Board of Probation and Parole has approved for their offenders.”
Link: http://www.tnoffenderreentry.com/housing-transitional/#listing.
The respondent also shared that there are “Re-Entry Centers in Tennessee for federal offenders in
the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The United States Probation & Pretrial Services
offices in Tennessee utilize the[se]...programs for their probation, supervised release, and pretrial
offenders.”
1. Dismas Charities operates centers in Nashville and Memphis. Those locations, along
with other centers throughout the U.S., can be found at www.dismas.com
2. Midway Rehabilitation operates a center in Knoxville. Go to http://midwayrehab.org/
3. The Salvation Army operates a center in Chattanooga. Go to
http://csarmy.org/contact.asp
Similarly, this agency answered “Yes”’ to question 49, to indicate awareness of private companies
responsible for adult felony and/or misdemeanant probation in their state. However, for question
50, they indicated that they could not provide a list of the private companies. We conducted data
retrieval to find out why they could not provide this information. The respondent replied that
“There are private for-profit and not-for-profit probation agencies throughout Tennessee. There
are none in our county. Simply put, I am not going to research the names and locations of private
agencies. I do not have the time.”
The respondent went on to share information about the organization of probation in Tennessee. It
is summarized below, as it relates to the purview of CAPSA:
Tennessee has two criminal courts:
1. General Sessions Court – the flow of all criminal felony and misdemeanor cases begins
here.
Probation cases out of the General Sessions Court are always misdemeanor cases
(including felonies reduced to misdemeanors in this court). Probation supervision for
General Sessions Court cases is the responsibility of the county. There are just a small
number of counties that have a county-owned Probation Department. Our Probation
Department is a county department (or in our case a metropolitan department, because
our city/county governments are merged). Private Probation agencies handle
supervision for all other counties and I do not know how to find out who they all
are. Providence Community Corrections (not to be confused with my description of
community corrections below) is one and Correctional Alternatives, Inc. is
another. Providence website is www.provcorp.com. I think BI (Behavioral
Interventions) might also operate private probation in Tennessee.
2. Criminal Court (sometimes referred to as the “State Trial Court”) – felonies after
indictment by a grand jury, and misdemeanor cases where the defendant wants a jury
trial.
Probation out of Criminal Court is handled by either State Probation and Parole or
Community Corrections. State Probation and Parole is a department within the

Att

Department of Correction that supervises parolees from prison and probation cases
noted above (i.e., misdemeanor cases where the defendant wants a jury
trial). Community Corrections operates on a federal grant and State Probation and
Parole is the pass-through entity. State Probation and Parole awards the
contracts. Community Corrections is in all the counties. Their mission is to supervise
felons that would normally be sentenced to prison. Those offenders are normally placed
on GPS or EM and are under house arrest. The Case Manager (i.e., officer) caseloads
are very small (25-30). Community Corrections supervises those offenders for a year
and then transfer them to State Probation and Parole to complete their community
supervision.
Community Corrections agencies are either county or non-profit. In my county they are a
government agency. They are called Davidson County Community Corrections. Mid-Cumberland
Community Corrections is a non-profit that supervises all those cases in all the surrounding counties
and a few others. Other non-profits are located throughout Tennessee. The link to the community
corrections agencies is: http://www.tn.gov/correction/communitycorrections/cc_directory.shtml