Risk Class, Point system, and workload

So what instrument would be used to determine risk class? The CMC? The old risk system? The officer currently has the ability to increase and decrease risk class. The increase is done at the office level. The decrease must be done at the DCA level. If you can convince them that it needs to be increased or decreased then do so. You can use your skills to justify your point.

The OPPAGA report states that we need to supervise according to risk class. I think they missed the boat. We do supervise at the risk commensurate with the level of risk. I don't know how the automated system works. I know it is better then the way we used to do it.

The criteria on the CMC or the other risk formats give some ideas of what can be expected from an objective viewpoint. As far as the officer making the determination, this is a bad idea each officer has his or her own subjective criteria. An objective model has to be used to ensure continuity.

As far as the points system, it was the best idea that could be thought up. I still like it and believe that it gives a good guideline as to work level and caseload size. The problem is/was the obsession with equalization.

The key is the supervisors assigning in a logical way. Taking cases from an officer and then assigning new cases the same week makes no sense. I see the assigning problems everyday though.

I would like to hear some ideas on what you all think can be done better. Any ideas?

To where the caseloads are high, stop the every week switching of new cases. It has to end.

[mystikwarrior]

So what instrument would be used to determine risk class?
Well you could start with a valid peer-reviewed system already tested and proved in another state. But Florida is too proud to use something another state already uses. The current system is about as accurate as a dart board in the dark. But hey, that's the Florida way.

[Merlin]

Well you could start with a valid peer-reviewed system already tested and proved in another state.

What's wrong with the system DOC is using now? According to the OPPAGA report it's working just fine. Didn't DOC hit the nail on the head with the maximum cases identifying thoses that are the most likely to commit serious crimes?

It's a no brainer that we need to put more effort into the maximum cases. The answer isn't to let up on the CC and SO cases, but to better manage PO1 caseloads. CC and SO cases do have low recidivism rates so why let up on the supervision standards? If it works don't fix it.

Personally, I think we need to have minimum and maximum officers at the PO1 level. There may be other valid solutions to the problem, but the bottom line is I'm glad OPPAGA actually took the time to see which group/class of offenders we have that are actually posing the risk to the community. The big question is though, what are we going to do about it now that we know this information?

[Diogenes]

What is wrong with the current system? No one understands how it works. We have all seen horrible examples that show up as minimum. To say that we can over ride it up to MAX (what it should be) only means the system does NOT work. Way way back we used the Parole Commission's guidelines for decision making that were at least understandable. You factored in points for age at first offense number of offenses etc. It gave you some idea of what kind of bad guy you were dealing with. Of course it also meant you had to do some work and some research and some responsibility. As nother poster pointed out there are several good risk class systems out there. Why not use one of them?

Any risk/contact requirements need to be adjustable for caseload size. No one can supervise 100 max cases therefore if you have 100 cases the contacts requirements ( risk class?) must be reduced. The legislature must understand this and fund us accordingly.

That is what I think but I could be wrong

[Merlin]

The legislature must understand this and fund us accordingly.

That is what I think but I could be wrong

You are not wrong at all. How long have you been around DOC? I can't count the number of times they changed they way we do risk class. One day half your caseload could be max and after central office does their magic with the computer the next day most of the max cases are medium or minimum. It's all about money and politics. If DOC reports too many max cases and don't have the staff to complete the work all they have to do is change the risk class. Come on we've all seen this done over the years. And the CMC was a joke......ever have a sex offender that didn't score out to minimum on a CMC?

I had an offender's risk raised from MIN to MAX and another case from MIN to SX4. In both instances the computer changed the risk class back to their original risk class.

[Merlin]

I had an offender's risk raised from MIN to MAX and another case from MIN to SX4. In both instances the computer changed the risk class back to their original risk class.

Remember years ago when they'd change the risk class more often than your offenders change their underware and we'd blame it on Larry Hamilton? :D :D

Now tell me, if you have SX4 and SX5 cases what's the diff? They are both sex offenders with equal contact standards....so what's the purpose in this anyway? If a SX5 is really more dangerous than a SX4 then why doesn't DOC set the contact standards accordingly?

[mystikwarrior]

Didn't DOC hit the nail on the head with the maximum cases identifying thoses that are the most likely to commit serious crimes?
Well you have a contradiction of sorts but I think I understand. The system properly identified the Max Risk cases and the evidence is in the report. They committed 71% of the new crimes.
The system also says that sex offenders are an even higher risk than Max. But the report says they only committed 7.6% of the new offenses.
I assume you attribute this low number to the method used to actually supervise those sex offenders; and the high number of crimes by Max offenders is because the method used to supervise those offenders is woefully deficient? What do you propose be changed in that regard? Sex offenders have 3 contacts per month and Max have 2. Can seeing the offender one more time each month make such a drastic difference in the number of new crimes?



Now tell me, if you have SX4 and SX5 cases what's the diff?
I'm not privy to these internal classifications beyond what the OPPAGA report contains. What are they and at this stage what determines the level? Actual offense? Other underlying factors like prior offenses of any kind?
A good way to look at this is to take a look at John Couey. He was on probation for a misdemeanor offense. But if he had been on state supervision, what would his risk level have been?

[Merlin]

Well you have a contradiction of sorts but I think I understand. The system properly identified the Max Risk cases and the evidence is in the report. They committed 71% of the new crimes.
The system also says that sex offenders are an even higher risk than Max. But the report says they only committed 7.6% of the new offenses.
I assume you attribute this low number to the method used to actually supervise those sex offenders; and the high number of crimes by Max offenders is because the method used to supervise those offenders is woefully deficient? What do you propose be changed in that regard? Sex offenders have 3 contacts per month and Max have 2. Can seeing the offender one more time each month make such a drastic difference in the number of new crimes?

Let’s get down to the basics here. Why are criminals placed on supervision? And what’s DOC’s goal? The top priority is public safety, right? How do we keep the public safe from the criminals we supervise? By preventing them from hurting people. How can we achieve this? 1) Incarceration and 2) Rehabilitation.

If we identified who is most likely to commit the next serious crime then what would be the most responsible action in your opinion? Do we sit back and say, “Oh well, max cases are our career criminals and they will never change” or should we take a more proactive approach?

Probation and public safety are only vaguely related. If the probation period does it's job and changes the offender's behavior so he does not commit crimes than the public is safe.

Immediate and certain public safety is accomplished by locking them all up i.e do away with probation. The public will be safe until they are released.

We need to stop thinking about probation as contributing to public safety in any but the longest of terms. Probation is a crap shoot sometimes you win -the offender goes straight sometimes you lose the offender reoffends. Ultimately it is all up to the offender NOT the PO. We can recommend, guide, direct and violate but we are not making the public safe and it is dishonest to say we are.

I say we share some of this responsibility of keeping the public safe with the state attorneys, public defenders and judges (a.k.a. court). You can have a guy on super-duper high risk, but when he violates, the court may not see him as big a risk as DOC does or they may not really care. They seem to somehow be immune to any negative press the media may shell out. I have had "violent offenders" who commit violation after violation, including new felonies and they just get reinstated. We don't have a risk classifacation that transcends the whole "wheel" of justice. Plain english- it doesn't matter if we, including central office, think an offender is dangerous, because the court system decides if we will continue to supervise this person in the community or if the person will be incarcerated.

[mystikwarrior]

Why are criminals placed on supervision?
In the case of probation, allegedly because the court determined that the offender had a fair chance of getting his act together. Reality is that probation is granted because there isn't enough prison space. Prison releasees are on supervision in order to 'wean' them from the structured and somewhat worry-free environment of prison and adjust to having to work for a living again.

If we identified who is most likely to commit the next serious crime then what would be the most responsible action in your opinion?
Within the bounds of law and court order? Keep that leash very tight and begin determining what will be needed to reduce that likelihood.

If the probation period does it's job and changes the offender's behavior so he does not commit crimes than the public is safe.
True to a degree. But what of the time period between the imposition of sentence and the change in behavior? It doesn't change in a day or a week. It takes time to change behavior and in that time there is a threat that the offender will commit a new crime. If probation is working that threat will diminish as time goes on.

we are not making the public safe and it is dishonest to say we are.
Not sure how you can say that. If you have a case with a clear disposition to get drunk and beat people up, are you not making it safer for the public if you violate that case when you find him decidedly drunk on Friday night down at the local watering hole?

it doesn't matter if we, including central office, think an offender is dangerous, because the court system decides if we will continue to supervise this person in the community or if the person will be incarcerated.
True. So how do you fix it? Well, you start in Tallahassee in the Legislature. Some states and the Feds flat out prohibit probation sentences for certain crimes. Some do not allow probation for a repeat felon, especially a violent one. In Florida; according to sentencing data, a 7-time felon has a near 50/50 chance of probation for the 8th offense. That's ridiculous. I'm not advocating a three-strikes law where a 3rd felony is automatic life. But at least prohibit probation sentences.

[Merlin]

True. So how do you fix it? Well, you start in Tallahassee in the Legislature. Some states and the Feds flat out prohibit probation sentences for certain crimes. Some do not allow probation for a repeat felon, especially a violent one. In Florida; according to sentencing data, a 7-time felon has a near 50/50 chance of probation for the 8th offense. That's ridiculous. I'm not advocating a three-strikes law where a 3rd felony is automatic life. But at least prohibit probation sentences.

We can always lock up more people. Problem is prisons aren't cheap. No money = earlier parole. Probation, parole, early release, conditional release, control release, supervised release, provisional release, house arrest, community control; it's all the same. The prisons can only hold so many people and the rest are living in YOUR neighborhood. So it boils down to 1) how many inmates do we want to house? and 2) How much money are we willing to spend? Right now it seems like the sky's the limit on locking up sex offenders......at some point either the taxpayers will empty their pockets or they'll realize that we've got to save a few cells in the prison for the OTHER Bad guys.

I had a distrubing conversation with a fellow officer on Friday. Seems the officer only supervises his case based on risk classification. The officer has a caseload of 80 -> 4 max, 16 med, and 60 min! The officer goes in the field 1 day of month (an hour max to see the 4 cases); every other month, the officer goes in the filed 1 day a month for 4 hours; and during the 3rd month, the officer "tries" to get out in the field for a "whole" day to make conacts.

This is a receipe fpr disaster!

[Merlin]

I had a distrubing conversation with a fellow officer on Friday. Seems the officer only supervises his case based on risk classification. The officer has a caseload of 80 -> 4 max, 16 med, and 60 min! The officer goes in the field 1 day of month (an hour max to see the 4 cases); every other month, the officer goes in the filed 1 day a month for 4 hours; and during the 3rd month, the officer "tries" to get out in the field for a "whole" day to make conacts.


Just curious if you think there's a reason why this officer is assigned a disproportional amount of minimum cases? It's been quite some time since I've worked a mainstream caseload; but I was under the impression that the average PO1 had quite a few more max cases on his/her caseload....well at least in my office. Does this PO have other issues going on? Maybe court duties, extra PSI's, handicaps or some type of limitation which restricts the amount of field work he/she can perform?

I know an officer that has issues restricting her driving at night. Obviously if her Doctor won't let her drive at night because of her poor night vision it stands to reason her supervisor shouldn't assign her cases that require curfew checks passed 10 p.m., for example. HIPPA restricts supervisors from discussing certain issues going on with personnel....there may be a valid reason that may not be so evident. Just a thought.

I had a distrubing conversation with a fellow officer on Friday. Seems the officer only supervises his case based on risk classification. The officer has a caseload of 80 -> 4 max, 16 med, and 60 min! The officer goes in the field 1 day of month (an hour max to see the 4 cases); every other month, the officer goes in the filed 1 day a month for 4 hours; and during the 3rd month, the officer "tries" to get out in the field for a "whole" day to make conacts.

This is a receipe fpr disaster!

HE IS FOLLOWING DC RISK CLASS. SO IS THE RISK CLASS A DISASTER. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mystikwarrior]

HE IS FOLLOWING DC RISK CLASS. SO IS THE RISK CLASS A DISASTER.
The risk class is a joke and the OPPAGA report proves it.

HE IS FOLLOWING DC RISK CLASS. SO IS THE RISK CLASS A DISASTER.
The risk class is a joke and the OPPAGA report proves it.

The new system is bad but if we did what OPPAGA report wanted it would be dump on officer week - with no statutory limits on cases they would give you 60 hours of work a week again but no overtime and you better not work over 40 but you better also get your job done. You gotta love DOC...

not a recipe for disaster, that officer is finally doing the job the way Tally intends it to be: according to the stats. Why see a min case every month? Doesn't count towards anything. Can get 100% doing exactly what that officer is doing, and there's not one thing anyone can do to punish him. Seems we all have it wrong, execpt those unfortunate senior officers and specialists who have a whole case load of MAX offenders and have to do lots of time in the field.

Kudos to someone who finally does the job the way the administration wants. Bet that officer has the least amount of stress of any of us.

not a recipe for disaster, that officer is finally doing the job the way Tally intends it to be: according to the stats. Why see a min case every month? Doesn't count towards anything. Can get 100% doing exactly what that officer is doing, and there's not one thing anyone can do to punish him. Seems we all have it wrong, execpt those unfortunate senior officers and specialists who have a whole case load of MAX offenders and have to do lots of time in the field.

Kudos to someone who finally does the job the way the administration wants. Bet that officer has the least amount of stress of any of us.

SO RIGHT

[mystikwarrior]

Can get 100%
100% of what?
What is your job exactly? To be able to fill in the correct numbers in a monthly form? Score 100% and say you met all the contact requirements?

Curious if anybody here can tell me how many of this particular PO's cases violate for a new offense? Do you think that since he saw the minimum case the minimum number of times required that he has no culpability in the fact that minimum case just killed three people?
I don't. It isn't about numbers. It's about protecting the public and doing what you can to make that case become a productive member of society.

Can get 100%
100% of what?
What is your job exactly? To be able to fill in the correct numbers in a monthly form? Score 100% and say you met all the contact requirements?

Curious if anybody here can tell me how many of this particular PO's cases violate for a new offense? Do you think that since he saw the minimum case the minimum number of times required that he has no culpability in the fact that minimum case just killed three people?
I don't. It isn't about numbers. It's about protecting the public and doing what you can to make that case become a productive member of society.

In defense of CPO's most are in offices with a lot of turnover and high case loads - its everything they can do to get the paper work done that has to be done on these cases. So when most only have 20 maxes that is all they should see if required considering they have to see more due to the constant new gains each month. All DOC is worried about is when an offender does something bad is if you followed procedure or had some reason you could have violated but you didnt no matter how trivial they second guess you. The caseworker mentality went out the door for good after Deltona and it looks like it will stay that way with the media dictating to DOC by second guessing everything we do, when an offender goes off the deep end.

As long as there is a PO to castigate and fire it will be business as usual.

Back to postive posting boards about all of us and not union junk.

while we had to do some extra work, I thought it worked well. How about you all , did it work for you ?

while we had to do some extra work, I thought it worked well. How about you all , did it work for you ?

CMC were a joke last 6 were b's and the case was sit which is min. I remember officers doing CMC's to empty chairs. Why pay money for system that is more screwed up than this on is?

If this system is roken, CMS is broken what works.
Forme it worked best when we could use our discreation and bump them up or down without any flack if they suddenly committed a new crime, Under the current system of disipline I would neve rbump someone down.,

....
I know an officer that has issues restricting her driving at night. Obviously if her Doctor won't let her drive at night because of her poor night vision it stands to reason her supervisor shouldn't assign her cases that require curfew checks passed 10 p.m., for example. HIPPA restricts supervisors from discussing certain issues going on with personnel....there may be a valid reason that may not be so evident. Just a thought.[/quote]

Since ther is no light (sorry for the pun) duty if the officer can not work at night, can she still be a PO? If I get a doctor note saying I can not breath inner city air can I only get cases in the country? :twisted:

All officer have to be avaiable to work curfews, maybe they should become a mainstream officer who has less cases with curfews.

I like Phil's idea. Mainstream over 80 cases=overtime weekly. Dop over 50 cases=overtime weekly. Spec over 50 case=overtime weekly. Phil knows how the Sup's hide the cases too. You know, as a cpo your pp11 shows you at 95 and the sup ask that you "WATCH" these 20 cases not under your number! Phil is ready for that too. If they want our caseload to be so high, then we need overtime. Lets not forget the PSI's and the PLC's and PTI's factored in the numbers. Hey, they created the job. Now it is time we get it to work for us " the field officer's ". Hey Phil, great idea. You have my vote. If you want to ask him some questions, just e-mail him at

philforpres2007@aol.com

Pedro For President. He's cool!

Pedro backed Phil two weeks ago! Come on folks, get with the program!!

How long have we said this system needs to be fixed, and we have been ignored. Here you go Mr Media have at it . Remember fixing it comes at a price of more positions, and less data entry work.

It is time we either stand together or fall together.

We need more officers on the street supervising. The reason for the current risk class is easy, cheaper is better. We can put the majority of our mainstream cases in Min Status , and load them up.Look at the majority of a mainstream caseload it looks like this 14 Max, 25 Med, and 65 min. Why because if they had 79 max, how could they do it with the amount of paperwork and data entry required on a 100 plus caseload. Yes back in the days we all had 100 plus , and walked a mile in snow to school, but we did not have to be tied to a desk 90 % of the time. So if outing them all in Max is the knee jerk reaction, then get the mianstream officers help, and snow boots.

So if outing them all in Max is the knee jerk reaction, then get the mianstream officers help, and snow boots.

I"m sorry but your are wrong. Mainstream and Help do not fall in to the same sentence with Central Office and as far as the snow boots...well, shut the hell up. If Central Office finds out we have boots they will take them away too.

Its got nothing to do with help or any consideration for the field officer. Sec. McLoser is out for himself and thats it and his cronies are useless.

Up your McDonough!!!!!!!!!!!!

How does a prison releasee out on conditional release for armed robbery get set at minimum risk in this system? Only by the Florida Department of Corrections risk class system.

Why? Because then the Col. can get rid of 177 positions due to low points on the officers. It has nothing to do with public safety but it increases caseloads and makes Central Office look like they are saving money. You go Col. Klink. Someday you will be exposed for who and what you are!!!!!

As I pointed out in my series of posts on the Risk class system-the major problem is the manipulation of it ( primarily by Region 3 in general and Hillsborough in particular) to artificially boost the number of positions, officers, sups and support staff. It appears anyone there can -and does - manually override cases to max for any or no reason.

IF the system works -and NO ONE in central office will say it doesn't. then let it work and stop the manual overrides.

You cannot win if you mess with it. Say a case blows and the press finds he is a min case. You can blame the risk class system and let the wonks in CO argue it. BUT, if the press finds any shmoe can override the risk class and failed to make this guy a MAX then it now your fault for not having the prescience to KNOW he would break bad.

Be safe let the system work.

if they say it a Min, so be it . It is their system let them live with the results.

if they say it a Min, so be it . It is their system let them live with the results.

Perzactly

How does a prison releasee out on conditional release for armed robbery get set at minimum risk in this system? Only by the Florida Department of Corrections risk class system.

Why? Because then the Col. can get rid of 177 positions due to low points on the officers. It has nothing to do with public safety but it increases caseloads and makes Central Office look like they are saving money. You go Col. Klink. Someday you will be exposed for who and what you are!!!!!

He must have had probation overriding the release because all 16 codes are put at max by the computer regardless of the charge.

His first day on probation and he Med, bet by the end of the week he can be min. His charge 2 degree murder.

You are mistaking risk with the desire( yours) to punish the case. Statistically murders do not re-offend. The risk class is designed to predict when the case will break bad.

Take the time to read the manual on risk class and you may find out it is OK.

typically will not re offend, tell that to the victim of the a typical case. All murders should be max, alll.

typically will not re offend, tell that to the victim of the a typical case. All murders should be max, alll.

Which is why we have a risk class system. Boneheads like you would have everyone max all the time then cry about being over worked. You don't want risk class you want a reason to inflict your views ( i.e. punish).

I supposed your response to the victim would be " Gee lady I saw him twice last month." I will bet she will feel much better about her loss.

I do not see the SAO or the court apologizing for putting someone on probation that later re-offends. Why should we.

With criminal justice, as with life in general, sometimes shit happens.

Fund enough positions and let everyone be maxed. For this to happen the leg would have to fund twice as many positions.

typically will not re offend, tell that to the victim of the a typical case. All murders should be max, alll.

Which is why we have a risk class system. Boneheads like you would have everyone max all the time then cry about being over worked. You don't want risk class you want a reason to inflict your views ( i.e. punish).

I supposed your response to the victim would be " Gee lady I saw him twice last month." I will bet she will feel much better about her loss.

I do not see the SAO or the court apologizing for putting someone on probation that later re-offends. Why should we.

With criminal justice, as with life in general, sometimes shizzat happens.

It really doesn't matter how many contact we make because any offender can commit a heinous crime at any time. The risk class may take into account that some offenders don't typically reoffend; however, we should be paying closer attention to those that have acted out in the past. Why take the risk.

Probation is not punishment. It is simply monitoring the offenders behavior. How are extra contacts punishment? If you are going to the residence and waking the entire family every time, bringing LEO, searching, or dsiturbing their life it is inconvienent at best not punishment. You are not taking or restricting their freedom for any significant length of time. You are not removing them from the community, taking them from their family or causing employment loss. I Our job is to ensure community safety by supervising not punishing the offender. I have never heard of a search or contact called punishment so that concept is foreign to me.

typically will not re offend, tell that to the victim of the a typical case. All murders should be max, alll.

Which is why we have a risk class system. Boneheads like you would have everyone max all the time then cry about being over worked. You don't want risk class you want a reason to inflict your views ( i.e. punish).

I supposed your response to the victim would be " Gee lady I saw him twice last month." I will bet she will feel much better about her loss.

I do not see the SAO or the court apologizing for putting someone on probation that later re-offends. Why should we.

With criminal justice, as with life in general, sometimes shizzat happens.[/

It really doesn't matter how many contact we make because any offender can commit a heinous crime at any time. The risk class may take into account that some offenders don't typically reoffend; however, we should be paying closer attention to those that have acted out in the past. Why take the risk.

Probation is not punishment. It is simply monitoring the offenders behavior. How are extra contacts punishment? If you are going to the residence and waking the entire family every time, bringing LEO, searching, or dsiturbing their life it is inconvienent at best not punishment. You are not taking or restricting their freedom for any significant length of time. You are not removing them from the community, taking them from their family or causing employment loss. I Our job is to ensure community safety by supervising not punishing the offender. I have never heard of a search or contact called punishment so that concept is foreign to me.

spoken like the f'ing nazi CPO's have become -"If you are going to the residence and waking the entire family every time, bringing LEO, searching, or dsiturbing their life it is inconvienent at best not punishment. "
Right and waterboarding ain't torture

everyone must put 1/3 more of the caseload in Min, effective 1-1-08

No way..Really!

isn't everyone else capped, they can only mess with the mainstream officer. Typically January is a shell game with the cases, all for the legislatives bodies , so bring it on .

typically will not re offend, tell that to the victim of the a typical case. All murders should be max, alll.

Which is why we have a risk class system. Boneheads like you would have everyone max all the time then cry about being over worked. You don't want risk class you want a reason to inflict your views ( i.e. punish).

I supposed your response to the victim would be " Gee lady I saw him twice last month." I will bet she will feel much better about her loss.

I do not see the SAO or the court apologizing for putting someone on probation that later re-offends. Why should we.

With criminal justice, as with life in general, sometimes shizzat happens.[/

It really doesn't matter how many contact we make because any offender can commit a heinous crime at any time. The risk class may take into account that some offenders don't typically reoffend; however, we should be paying closer attention to those that have acted out in the past. Why take the risk.

Probation is not punishment. It is simply monitoring the offenders behavior. How are extra contacts punishment? If you are going to the residence and waking the entire family every time, bringing LEO, searching, or dsiturbing their life it is inconvienent at best not punishment. You are not taking or restricting their freedom for any significant length of time. You are not removing them from the community, taking them from their family or causing employment loss. I Our job is to ensure community safety by supervising not punishing the offender. I have never heard of a search or contact called punishment so that concept is foreign to me.

spoken like the f'ing nazi CPO's have become -"If you are going to the residence and waking the entire family every time, bringing LEO, searching, or dsiturbing their life it is inconvienent at best not punishment. "
Right and waterboarding ain't torture

I guess I need to clarify. First of all I try to rarely disturb families or do ay of the things descrined. The family at least has the family member at home where they can enjoy the offenders company and the offender can be part of the family unit. The point is that it is an inconvienence not punishment. Thre offender can still exercise 99% of their freedoms. They can watch what they want. They can eat what they want. The possibility of harm is significantly reduced while at home. The chances that they are preyed on is minimal. It is almost the same as everyone else who has not commited a crime.

In reality they have to put up with about 10 hours of "work" aka probation requirements per month. Reporting, substance abuse classes, contacts with the officer. In comparison to being incarcerated it is a win situation for them.

Taking a chance of meetig the tossed salad man and losing total freedom or probation the choice is the inconvienence.

Does policy or administration now allow us to waterboard? Can we taze at will? How about pepper spraying for fun?

See them more then required by the policy and stay out of hot water.

Because -much like Jesus your very presence reduces evil impulses.
The probation officer as priest gotta love that. It ain't a job it is an avocation.