Zeroed out investigations

Anyone have any thoughts about this ? As I see it, the big priorities are number one zero out your investigations, number two get your contacts made and number three help those who cannot meet number one and number two requirements.

There's no help at my office...it's everyone on their own. I think JABA had something to do with setting THAT policy!

Same in 132. I would drop dead if I heard someone offer to help out another officer with contacts or anything else.

Same in 132. I would drop dead if I heard someone offer to help out another officer with contacts or anything else.

We have the exact opposite in my office. We all pitch in and get it done. I'd like to brag about the staff in my unit, but we have to give credit where credit is due. The supervisors set the tone and actually lead by example. It's amazing how well an office runs when everyone actually works!

Does making contacts actually mean you are supervising a case? When you complete you assigned investigations,etc. in a timely manner, does this mean the public is safer? When we get Chain gang man, we will continue to make stats, complete investigations and lock em up and throw away the keys to the kingdom. Will the public be safer? Don't rush in with your answers.

What the heck was that last post suppose to mean :?: ?

It was by wee willie winkle, what did you expect.

[mystikwarrior]

Does making contacts actually mean you are supervising a case?
No. It means they came in at the beginning of the month and gave you a blue piece of paper and you went and saw them at their job two weeks later for two minutes. What they did the other 719 hours in the month you have no idea. But you got to check the right boxes on your stat sheet. And that's all that counts.

Does making contacts actually mean you are supervising a case? When you complete you assigned investigations,etc. in a timely manner, does this mean the public is safer? When we get Chain gang man, we will continue to make stats, complete investigations and lock em up and throw away the keys to the kingdom. Will the public be safer? Don't rush in with your answers.

By definition, yes, it does. The difference between a CO and a CPO is that a CO supervises the CONFINEMENT of an INMATE, while a CPO/CPSO/CPS supervises an OFFENDER LIVING AT LIBERTY. Supervising a case is different for different levels of supervision; there is obviously more intense contact for SOP, CC, and DOP than for regular probation. That is because, by definition, more contact is prescribed by the Court for those cases, for whatever reason.

We are supervising a case when we are doing our jobs in a manner where (A) we are doing what is prescribed, and (B) we project competance and commitment to the offender. An offender is as well supervised as that offender believes he/she is. If an offender believes that a probation officer may come by their house at any time (and they can believe that even when the officer only gets out there once a month), they will act accordingly. Effective supervision, given our time constraints, and our other duties, means projecting competance and commitment to our offenders, perhaps more than anything else.

As for investigations: The public IS safer when investigations are done timely. That's because our investigations have public safety ramifications. Think about it: If an IT60 is done timely, there is greater likelihood that an offender who needs sex offender therapy or drug treatment will be receiving those services. There's a greater liklihood that the kind of residence the offender actually has will be known to the officer (does he live with mom, or in a crack house?). There's a greater likelihood that a violator will be in jail sooner, and, thus, unable to hurt the general public. If a PSI is done timely, there is more likelihood that a Judge will read and dissect it, especially if there is a statement to the effect (with facts, hopefully, to back it up) that the offender is not suitable for further supervision and needs incarceration.

I believe that what we do now is important to public safety. I would also suggest that, as a class of professionals, our desires for greater compensation will not be enthusiastically met if we keep projecting the idea that what we do at our jobs is really unimportant and irrelevant. There's a whole lot I'd like different, but I don't believe that probation officers are irrelevant. I believe that the general public, whether it is recognized or not, is safer BECAUSE Correctional Probation Officers supervise those who, without supervision, would not live within the law.

Yeah, RIGHT!!

[Merlin]

Does making contacts actually mean you are supervising a case?
No. It means they came in at the beginning of the month and gave you a blue piece of paper and you went and saw them at their job two weeks later for two minutes. What they did the other 719 hours in the month you have no idea. But you got to check the right boxes on your stat sheet. And that's all that counts.

Agreed. If central office really wanted to know what we were doing with our cases all they'd have to do is survey the offenders. Of course, we won't see that happen because it may expose a few loopholes :wink:

Does making contacts actually mean you are supervising a case?

If making contacts actually meant we were supervising a case I wouldn't get cases reassigned to me that were behind on COS, community service work, court fees, unemployed for no good reason, etc...

By definition, yes, it does. The difference between a CO and a CPO is that a CO supervises the CONFINEMENT of an INMATE, while a CPO/CPSO/CPS supervises an OFFENDER LIVING AT LIBERTY. Supervising a case is different for different levels of supervision; there is obviously more intense contact for SOP, CC, and DOP than for regular probation. That is because, by definition, more contact is prescribed by the Court for those cases, for whatever reason.

We are supervising a case when we are doing our jobs in a manner where (A) we are doing what is prescribed, and (B) we project competance and commitment to the offender. An offender is as well supervised as that offender believes he/she is. If an offender believes that a probation officer may come by their house at any time (and they can believe that even when the officer only gets out there once a month), they will act accordingly. Effective supervision, given our time constraints, and our other duties, means projecting competance and commitment to our offenders, perhaps more than anything else.

As for investigations: The public IS safer when investigations are done timely. That's because our investigations have public safety ramifications. Think about it: If an IT60 is done timely, there is greater likelihood that an offender who needs sex offender therapy or drug treatment will be receiving those services. There's a greater liklihood that the kind of residence the offender actually has will be known to the officer (does he live with mom, or in a crack house?). There's a greater likelihood that a violator will be in jail sooner, and, thus, unable to hurt the general public. If a PSI is done timely, there is more likelihood that a Judge will read and dissect it, especially if there is a statement to the effect (with facts, hopefully, to back it up) that the offender is not suitable for further supervision and needs incarceration.

I believe that what we do now is important to public safety. I would also suggest that, as a class of professionals, our desires for greater compensation will not be enthusiastically met if we keep projecting the idea that what we do at our jobs is really unimportant and irrelevant. There's a whole lot I'd like different, but I don't believe that probation officers are irrelevant. I believe that the general public, whether it is recognized or not, is safer BECAUSE Correctional Probation Officers supervise those who, without supervision, would not live within the law.

Agreed some investigations effect public safety. The items on the IT60 can effect, minimally, public safety. The problem is we have gotten so hung up in the BS of the data entry. We are stuck with some nonessential duties. COPS, sentence structure repair, OT23 (Shoe size, religion, marital status) Entering casenotes, which is important, is a task within itself. We have so many codes so management can track easily versus ease for the officer.

Bottom line, I agree with what you are saying. Yes, we do perform an important role in public safety. I love my career but hate what my job has become. (I like being able to assist those who want to change as well as locking up those who want to cause havoc on society.) As far as qutiing, I am hopeful that we will change. I am hoping that the administration will decide to look at the real issues. If not this administration then maybe the next. If not the onloy thing I can try to do is make change where I can. I am a professional and proud to serve the citizens of the GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA.

By definition, yes, it does. The difference between a CO and a CPO is that a CO supervises the CONFINEMENT of an INMATE, while a CPO/CPSO/CPS supervises an OFFENDER LIVING AT LIBERTY. Supervising a case is different for different levels of supervision; there is obviously more intense contact for SOP, CC, and DOP than for regular probation. That is because, by definition, more contact is prescribed by the Court for those cases, for whatever reason.

We are supervising a case when we are doing our jobs in a manner where (A) we are doing what is prescribed, and (B) we project competance and commitment to the offender. An offender is as well supervised as that offender believes he/she is. If an offender believes that a probation officer may come by their house at any time (and they can believe that even when the officer only gets out there once a month), they will act accordingly. Effective supervision, given our time constraints, and our other duties, means projecting competance and commitment to our offenders, perhaps more than anything else.

As for investigations: The public IS safer when investigations are done timely. That's because our investigations have public safety ramifications. Think about it: If an IT60 is done timely, there is greater likelihood that an offender who needs sex offender therapy or drug treatment will be receiving those services. There's a greater liklihood that the kind of residence the offender actually has will be known to the officer (does he live with mom, or in a crack house?). There's a greater likelihood that a violator will be in jail sooner, and, thus, unable to hurt the general public. If a PSI is done timely, there is more likelihood that a Judge will read and dissect it, especially if there is a statement to the effect (with facts, hopefully, to back it up) that the offender is not suitable for further supervision and needs incarceration.

I believe that what we do now is important to public safety. I would also suggest that, as a class of professionals, our desires for greater compensation will not be enthusiastically met if we keep projecting the idea that what we do at our jobs is really unimportant and irrelevant. There's a whole lot I'd like different, but I don't believe that probation officers are irrelevant. I believe that the general public, whether it is recognized or not, is safer BECAUSE Correctional Probation Officers supervise those who, without supervision, would not live within the law.

Agreed some investigations effect public safety. The items on the IT60 can effect, minimally, public safety. The problem is we have gotten so hung up in the BS of the data entry. We are stuck with some nonessential duties. COPS, sentence structure repair, OT23 (Shoe size, religion, marital status) Entering casenotes, which is important, is a task within itself. We have so many codes so management can track easily versus ease for the officer.

Bottom line, I agree with what you are saying. Yes, we do perform an important role in public safety. I love my career but hate what my job has become. (I like being able to assist those who want to change as well as locking up those who want to cause havoc on society.) As far as qutiing, I am hopeful that we will change. I am hoping that the administration will decide to look at the real issues. If not this administration then maybe the next. If not the onloy thing I can try to do is make change where I can. I am a professional and proud to serve the citizens of the GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA.

Bottom line, I agree with what you are saying. Yes, we do perform an important role in public safety. I love my career but hate what my job has become. (I like being able to assist those who want to change as well as locking up those who want to cause havoc on society.) As far as qutiing, I am hopeful that we will change. I am hoping that the administration will decide to look at the real issues. If not this administration then maybe the next. If not the onloy thing I can try to do is make change where I can. I am a professional and proud to serve the citizens of the GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA.

I hear you loud and clear. I enjoy mentoring and supervising. The problem is though that there's no means to measure how well we really supervise our cases. I actually know officers that don't talk to their offenders unless they have to. They take their report, tell them to report to the drug room, test their sample and when the offenders test negative they are escorted out the door. Home visits consist of "honk honk". All the required OP's, drug tests, WMR's and home visits are logged into the database and not one meaningful contact was made. What a scam! I suspect these same officers get zero satisfaction from their job and are too busy working on their application for a job opening at the local police dept.

[mystikwarrior]

If central office really wanted to know what we were doing with our cases all they'd have to do is survey the offenders.
Didn't New York do that and all the POs got mad? Why would they get mad?
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from a survey of your caseload. I think it would be a good thing for Florida to do.

If central office really wanted to know what we were doing with our cases all they'd have to do is survey the offenders.
Didn't New York do that and all the POs got mad? Why would they get mad?
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from a survey of your caseload. I think it would be a good thing for Florida to do.

http://www.officer.com/article/article. ... 5&id=29362 (http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=5&id=29362)

Ex-Cons Will Rate NYC Parole Officers



A detailed questionnaire that allows felons to judge the performance of their parole officers has the officers up in arms, claiming the ex-jailbirds are in no position to evaluate their work.

The survey, a rough draft of which was obtained by The Post, asks ex-convicts about their employment status, drug use, living arrangements and how well their parole officers work with them - a query that makes the officers livid.

"Do you know what a field day these violent felons, these vicious criminals are going to have?" asked an incredulous Parole Officer Manuelita Clemente, a council leader with Division 236 of the Public Employees Federation.

A Manhattan parole supervisor agreed.

"It's despicable. It's absolutely outrageous! They are going to evaluate parole officers by the opinions of a parolee," said the boss, who requested anonymity.

According to law-enforcement sources, the questionnaire was e-mailed to regional directors and area supervisors from parole administrators in Albany late last week.

Sources also said the opinion polls will be distributed in waiting rooms of parole facilities, allowing ex-cons to fill the sheets out before their visits with the officers.

Proposed lifestyle questions include: "When I absconded, I was broke . . . yes or no" and "I understand the consequences of taking a risk, on a scale of 1 (I don't understand) to 5 (I do understand)."

Among the queries that have parole officers steamed are: "My parole officer cared whether I completed parole . . . yes or no" and "Was the parole officer very interested in your problems on a scale of 1 (no) to 5 (yes)."

"I am not supposed to be interested in them; my job is to supervise them," said one parole boss who found that question particularly offensive.

"If they don't like me, so what? I've never met a parolee who did like their parole officer."

State Division of Parole spokesman Scott Steinhardt said the two-page, 21-question feedback form obtained by The Post is a very early draft that has yet to be fully vetted by the administration and may, in fact, not even go out.

"It's not unprecedented to survey parolees and their family members," Steinhardt explained, saying it has been done in the past in other ways with the intention of finding out what works and what more can be done.

"We are looking for staff recommendations to better address public safety and develop strategies to enable individuals to successfully complete parole supervision."

Bottom line, I agree with what you are saying. Yes, we do perform an important role in public safety. I love my career but hate what my job has become. (I like being able to assist those who want to change as well as locking up those who want to cause havoc on society.) As far as qutiing, I am hopeful that we will change. I am hoping that the administration will decide to look at the real issues. If not this administration then maybe the next. If not the onloy thing I can try to do is make change where I can. I am a professional and proud to serve the citizens of the GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA.

I hear you loud and clear. I enjoy mentoring and supervising. The problem is though that there's no means to measure how well we really supervise our cases. I actually know officers that don't talk to their offenders unless they have to. They take their report, tell them to report to the drug room, test their sample and when the offenders test negative they are escorted out the door. Home visits consist of "honk honk". All the required OP's, drug tests, WMR's and home visits are logged into the database and not one meaningful contact was made. What a scam! I suspect these same officers get zero satisfaction from their job and are too busy working on their application for a job opening at the local police dept.

Drug testing during report week is lazy and a waste of time. Everyone who tests during report week giver their cases carte blanc to use the rest of the month. They get their stats, but it is ineffective.

I disagree. Try a dopo caseload. Most of them are in treatment several nights a week, and those who aren't use regardless of when they come in and report. That must be why I do at least 6 vops a month just from reporting. Did I catch them all? Probably not. How many of yours are out driving on a suspended license that you didn't catch because you don't post surveillance at their residence 24/7? Think they all drive themselves to the probation office? Some do, and even some of those walk to their cars and drive away. Did you catch them all?

Give me a break. There's no way in hell I can, or will, or even want to , supervise these people 24/7. I'm sure during the 15 minutes I left them to go take a piss, they'd rape five kids and shoot up a supermarket.

I disagree. Try a dopo caseload. Most of them are in treatment several nights a week, and those who aren't use regardless of when they come in and report. That must be why I do at least 6 vops a month just from reporting. Did I catch them all? Probably not. How many of yours are out driving on a suspended license that you didn't catch because you don't post surveillance at their residence 24/7? Think they all drive themselves to the probation office? Some do, and even some of those walk to their cars and drive away. Did you catch them all?

Give me a break. There's no way in hell I can, or will, or even want to , supervise these people 24/7. I'm sure during the 15 minutes I left them to go take a piss, they'd rape five kids and shoot up a supermarket.

Dude, take a pill!

If central office really wanted to know what we were doing with our cases all they'd have to do is survey the offenders.
Didn't New York do that and all the POs got mad? Why would they get mad?
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from a survey of your caseload. I think it would be a good thing for Florida to do.

http://www.officer.com/article/article. ... 5&id=29362 (http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=5&id=29362)

Ex-Cons Will Rate NYC Parole Officers



A detailed questionnaire that allows felons to judge the performance of their parole officers has the officers up in arms, claiming the ex-jailbirds are in no position to evaluate their work.

The survey, a rough draft of which was obtained by The Post, asks ex-convicts about their employment status, drug use, living arrangements and how well their parole officers work with them - a query that makes the officers livid.

"Do you know what a field day these violent felons, these vicious criminals are going to have?" asked an incredulous Parole Officer Manuelita Clemente, a council leader with Division 236 of the Public Employees Federation.

A Manhattan parole supervisor agreed.

"It's despicable. It's absolutely outrageous! They are going to evaluate parole officers by the opinions of a parolee," said the boss, who requested anonymity.

According to law-enforcement sources, the questionnaire was e-mailed to regional directors and area supervisors from parole administrators in Albany late last week.

Sources also said the opinion polls will be distributed in waiting rooms of parole facilities, allowing ex-cons to fill the sheets out before their visits with the officers.

Proposed lifestyle questions include: "When I absconded, I was broke . . . yes or no" and "I understand the consequences of taking a risk, on a scale of 1 (I don't understand) to 5 (I do understand)."

Among the queries that have parole officers steamed are: "My parole officer cared whether I completed parole . . . yes or no" and "Was the parole officer very interested in your problems on a scale of 1 (no) to 5 (yes)."

"I am not supposed to be interested in them; my job is to supervise them," said one parole boss who found that question particularly offensive.

"If they don't like me, so what? I've never met a parolee who did like their parole officer."

State Division of Parole spokesman Scott Steinhardt said the two-page, 21-question feedback form obtained by The Post is a very early draft that has yet to be fully vetted by the administration and may, in fact, not even go out.

"It's not unprecedented to survey parolees and their family members," Steinhardt explained, saying it has been done in the past in other ways with the intention of finding out what works and what more can be done.

"We are looking for staff recommendations to better address public safety and develop strategies to enable individuals to successfully complete parole supervision."

That's what you get when you put bleeding heart liberals in charge who hate law enforcement in general.

I disagree. Try a dopo caseload. Most of them are in treatment several nights a week, and those who aren't use regardless of when they come in and report. That must be why I do at least 6 vops a month just from reporting. Did I catch them all? Probably not. How many of yours are out driving on a suspended license that you didn't catch because you don't post surveillance at their residence 24/7? Think they all drive themselves to the probation office? Some do, and even some of those walk to their cars and drive away. Did you catch them all?

Give me a break. There's no way in hell I can, or will, or even want to , supervise these people 24/7. I'm sure during the 15 minutes I left them to go take a piss, they'd rape five kids and shoot up a supermarket.

Dude, take a pill!

After your swabbed of couse!

investigations are just that...investigations. The whole key is to have truly manageable caseloads. My office has most of the officers at close to 100 or abit over. What are you going to effectively supervise at that level. On top of that we are not fully staffed. Proper staffing is key, DOC is always running at a deficit. Until that changes...zeroing out investigations is not in the interest of public safety. We pretend to supervise these people...they pretend to comply.

By definition, yes, it does. The difference between a CO and a CPO is that a CO supervises the CONFINEMENT of an INMATE, while a CPO/CPSO/CPS supervises an OFFENDER LIVING AT LIBERTY. Supervising a case is different for different levels of supervision; there is obviously more intense contact for SOP, CC, and DOP than for regular probation. That is because, by definition, more contact is prescribed by the Court for those cases, for whatever reason.

We are supervising a case when we are doing our jobs in a manner where (A) we are doing what is prescribed, and (B) we project competance and commitment to the offender. An offender is as well supervised as that offender believes he/she is. If an offender believes that a probation officer may come by their house at any time (and they can believe that even when the officer only gets out there once a month), they will act accordingly. Effective supervision, given our time constraints, and our other duties, means projecting competance and commitment to our offenders, perhaps more than anything else.

As for investigations: The public IS safer when investigations are done timely. That's because our investigations have public safety ramifications. Think about it: If an IT60 is done timely, there is greater likelihood that an offender who needs sex offender therapy or drug treatment will be receiving those services. There's a greater liklihood that the kind of residence the offender actually has will be known to the officer (does he live with mom, or in a crack house?). There's a greater likelihood that a violator will be in jail sooner, and, thus, unable to hurt the general public. If a PSI is done timely, there is more likelihood that a Judge will read and dissect it, especially if there is a statement to the effect (with facts, hopefully, to back it up) that the offender is not suitable for further supervision and needs incarceration.

I believe that what we do now is important to public safety. I would also suggest that, as a class of professionals, our desires for greater compensation will not be enthusiastically met if we keep projecting the idea that what we do at our jobs is really unimportant and irrelevant. There's a whole lot I'd like different, but I don't believe that probation officers are irrelevant. I believe that the general public, whether it is recognized or not, is safer BECAUSE Correctional Probation Officers supervise those who, without supervision, would not live within the law.

Agreed some investigations effect public safety. The items on the IT60 can effect, minimally, public safety. The problem is we have gotten so hung up in the BS of the data entry. We are stuck with some nonessential duties. COPS, sentence structure repair, OT23 (Shoe size, religion, marital status) Entering casenotes, which is important, is a task within itself. We have so many codes so management can track easily versus ease for the officer.

Bottom line, I agree with what you are saying. Yes, we do perform an important role in public safety. I love my career but hate what my job has become. (I like being able to assist those who want to change as well as locking up those who want to cause havoc on society.) As far as qutiing, I am hopeful that we will change. I am hoping that the administration will decide to look at the real issues. If not this administration then maybe the next. If not the onloy thing I can try to do is make change where I can. I am a professional and proud to serve the citizens of the GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA.

Only agree in part. I once sat down and tried to determine each and every time requirement and operational officer task listed in policy. The thought was that if I could list them all, I could then develop some system that would assist me in managing a case load, so that policy requirements were consistently met. Unfortunately after finding about 500 of the the little buggers (and I never did get through all of the policies), I concluded there was no effective management system that could be developed, especially in light of an ever expanding case load.

We are never trained on how to manage policy requirements, nor are we trained on managing a case load. Supervisors are not trained on how to prioritize. If you want to raise some eyebrows, just ask your supervisor to proritize your contact requirements when case loads begin to reach 100 or above. They even recinded the policy that covered case load management because the majority of the policy had nothing to do with the subject area. I would offer a challenge to anyone in Operations to show me how to manage all policy requirements, and further show me the resources that are available, and how you use them. Instead, you go to a Basic Recruit Course that teaches you nada, they provide you with a case load and a computer when you graduate, and you are then left to your own devices. I pitty those offices where officers do not support each other. This simply exacerbates the learning curve, and frustrates the officer. It took me a minimum of six months just to learn which OBIS reports were useful.

In terms of contacts, any contact with an offender is better than none. However, if the physical supervision of offenders is a priority, why is it then that almost 80% of time is spent on administration? The truth is that field supervision should be 80% of your time and administration 20%. That is of course you want to truly have an impact on public safety.

I think stats are there as a tool for the officer- what you do with the time that you are in the field or in the office is up to you. I know that without the "monthly stats" there would be officers in my circuit who would never go in the field unless it was for an investigation or find out from the provider how someone is doing in treatment. As for public safety, I think the stats are there so that if something does happen, the officer, sup and up to the top won't have to explain to the public why the offender had not been seen in 3, 6, or 9 months. When I go out in the field, I talk to the offender and their family, if a neighbor is outside, I'll talk to them. I bring the offender back to my office, even if there is nothing pending. Do I do this on every occassion? No, but I try to do it as often as possible. Supervision is not meeting a stat, it is the interaction you have with the offender and the people in the offender's life. Stats are the only way to measure that contact has been made.

And to think, I thought stats were so my supervisor could easily find a way to beat me up on a monthly basis.

I think stats are there as a tool for the officer- what you do with the time that you are in the field or in the office is up to you. I know that without the "monthly stats" there would be officers in my circuit who would never go in the field unless it was for an investigation or find out from the provider how someone is doing in treatment. As for public safety, I think the stats are there so that if something does happen, the officer, sup and up to the top won't have to explain to the public why the offender had not been seen in 3, 6, or 9 months. When I go out in the field, I talk to the offender and their family, if a neighbor is outside, I'll talk to them. I bring the offender back to my office, even if there is nothing pending. Do I do this on every occassion? No, but I try to do it as often as possible. Supervision is not meeting a stat, it is the interaction you have with the offender and the people in the offender's life. Stats are the only way to measure that contact has been made.

You must be CC or a Specialist if you have time to do all that most CPO's with their caseloads never have time for all of that stuff.

PLEASE USE THE WORD INVETIGATION LIGHTLY. WE HAVE IVESTIGATIONS TO DO A POST OR TO HAVE AN OFOA SIGNED OR TO MAKE A HOME CONTACT, DO YOU REALLY THINK THESE ARE INVESTIGATIONS IN THE REAL LEO WORLD. :roll:

..

..