< Previous20 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS suggests that tele-therapy and other forms of virtual therapy can be effective, research has not yet tested this within a community supervision population (Turgoose, Ashwick, & Murphy, 2018). The coronavirus pandemic required rapid and substantial adaptation by agencies in every social sector. By evaluating how community supervision agencies responded and what practices work best, why, and for whom, we can harness data-driven lessons from this pandemic to inform guidelines for future preparedness. We will all be better prepared for future pandemics and other large- scale crises, as well as for the daily challenges faced by community supervision agencies, if we work together to produce and implement effective day-to-day practices and feasible contingency plans. Bios Holly Swan, Ph.D., is a sociologist and implementation scientist at Abt Associates with expertise in criminal justice, behavioral health, and health services research. Her primary research and evaluation focus areas include community supervision and reentry, diversion and alternatives to arrest, and the intersection of health and justice. She can be reached at Walter Campbell, Ph.D., is criminal justice researcher at Abt Associates. His research focuses on community supervision and reentry, geographic patterns of crime, institutional corrections, and quantitative program evaluation. He can be reached at Nathan Lowe, Ph.D., is the Program Director of Grants & Research at APPA. His areas of interest primarily concentrate on efforts to improve community supervision practices. Notably, he is co-author and manager of the Impaired Driving Assessment, a screening tool to identify risk and needs for individuals who are convicted of an impaired-driving offense. He has extensive experience in conducting research with populations involved with the justice system using mixed- mode methodologies and various statistical techniques. He received his Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Kentucky. References Abt Associates. (2019). Evaluating the impact of probation and parole home visits . Report for the National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from: Alarid, L. F., & Rangel, L. M. (2018). Completion and recidivism rates of high-risk youth on probation: Do home visits make a difference? The Prison Journal, 98 (2), 143- 162. doi:10.1177/0032885517753152 Akiyama, M. J., Spaulding, A. C., & Rich, J. D. (2020). Flattening the curve for incarcerated populations — Covid-19 in jails and prisons. N Engl J Med ; 382: 2075-2077. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2005687 Betesh, H. (2020, April 16). With COVID-19, understanding the evidence on supporting reentry employment is essential. [Blog post]. Retrieved Busanksy, A. (2020). What a pandemic can teach us about the future of criminal justice. Governing. Retrieved from: Burki, T. (2020). Prisons are “in no way equipped” to deal with COVID-19. Lancet , 21 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS 395(10234): 1411–1412. doi:10.1016/ S0140-6736(20)30984-3 Chapman, M., Irazola, S., & Swan, H. (2020). From policing to reentry: The implications of COVID-19 for the entire criminal justice system. [Blog post]. Retrieved from: Grattet, R., & Lin, J. (2016). Supervision intensity and parole outcomes: A competing risks approach to criminal and technical parole violations. Justice Quarterly, 33 (4), 565-583. doi:10.1080/07418825.2014.932001 Kinner, S. A., Young, J. T., Snow, K., Southalan, L., Lopez-Acuña, D., Ferreira- Borges, C., & O’Moore, E. (2020). Prisons and custodial settings are part of a comprehensive response to COVID-19. The Lancet: Public Health , 5(4), E188-E189. Liebrenz, M., Bhugra, D., Buadze, A., & Schleifer, R. (2020). Caring for persons in detention suffering with mental illness during the Covid-19 outbreak. Forensic Science International: Mind and Law , 1 , 2666- 3538. doi: Lindquist, C., Lattimore, P., Willison, J. B., Steffey, D., Stahl, M. H., Scaggs, S., Welsh- Loveman, J., & Eisenstat, J. (2018). Cross-site evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance FY 2011 second chance act adult offender reentry demonstration projects . Report for the National Institute of Justice. Retrieved Marbach, A. (2020). “Alexis Marbach answers questions on intimate partner violence and COVID.” Ask an Expert series, Abt Meredith, T., Hawk, S. R., Johnson, S., Prevost, J. P., & Braucht, G. (2020). What happens in home visits? Examining a key parole activity. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 0(0), 0093854820910173. doi:10.1177/0093854820910173 Nadel, M. & Campbell, C. (2020). Unpacking a complicated problem: Safely changing jails and prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medium . Retrieved Ostermann, M., Hyatt, J. M., & DeWitt, S. E. (2019). The influence of technical violation revocations on parole efficacy: employing competing risks survival analyses to address methodological challenges. Journal of Crime and Justice , 1-19. doi:10.1080/073564 8X.2019.1676817 Simmons, T. (2020). A little more creative’: How the coronavirus has changed probation, parole in Idaho. KTVB. Retrieved Turgoose, D., Ashwick, R., & Murphy, D. (2018). Systematic review of lessons learned from delivering tele-therapy to veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 24 (9), 575-585. doi:10.1177/1357633x17730443 Volkow, N. (2020). Collision of the COVID-19 and addiction epidemics. Annals of Internal Medicine . doi: Yang, H., & Thompson, J. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 outbreaks in prisons. BMJ, 369:m1362. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m13622 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS A CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR’S EXPERIENCE WITH THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC The following is an interview between Dr. Kimberly Kras (KK), co-editor of Perspectives, and Dr. Beth Skinner (BS) about her experience as a corrections director during the coronavirus pandemic. Dr. Skinner is the Director of the Iowa Department of Corrections. Her career with the department started in 2002. Prior to being Director, Dr. Skinner served as the Recidivism Reduction Coordinator for the department. She also previously worked for the CSG Justice Center on emerging trends within reentry and recidivism reduction. She has an M.S.W. and a Ph.D. in Social Work from the University of Iowa with an emphasis in criminology.23 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS KK: What’s the greatest change in service supervision practices that your agency has experienced? BS: The pandemic has changed how we review technical revocations. Our recidivism rate is about 39%, and half of our recidivism numbers are for technical revocations. That’s a big number, so understanding how to better handle such violations has been our top priority in terms of criminal justice reform. COVID showed us that we need to start addressing this right now, because we have to manage our prison population. We met with judicial districts and community-based corrections, asking them to run any technical type of violation through the central office first, where we would either approve or disapprove it. We really wanted to scrutinize these cases, assess the violators, and ask, “Can we manage them safely in the community without sending them back to prison?” And we found that, between just last year and this year, we have an 11% reduction in prison admissions for revocations, so that has been a significant success for us. We hadn’t had a reduction that sharp before, so that drop really reflects how we changed our practices. We have also seen an increase in our electronic monitoring, given that we don’t have eyes on individuals like we normally do because of COVID and social distancing and things like that. That means we have more individuals on electronic monitoring than we did last year. For some individuals we can’t see on a regular basis because of COVID, we want to at least be able to monitor their whereabouts. Another change is needing to be able to provide our districts with more opportunities for tele-health and tele-psychiatry, because for a lot of the supervised population--of not just Iowa, but across the country—there are mental health issues that need to be addressed. And so this is something that we’ve been working to especially build up during COVID. We also developed a housing voucher program. Some individuals who are on supervision rely on transitional housing, and during this time a lot of those transitional housing providers weren’t accepting anyone. So we worked with the Office of Drug Control Policy and put in a voucher program that we can use to support those people who would normally go to the transitional housing which wasn’t available. The voucher program allowed them to go to more stable housing, which I thought was pretty cool. The other area I would say we are focusing on is the increased use of technology for client contacts. Instead of coming into the office, clients are checking in by using text messages, FaceTime, and Google Meet. They’re “coming to the office” via technology. Anecdotally, what we’ve heard so far from the probation officers is that they feel like clients have been more engaged and are actually willing to share more if they’re struggling. That is interesting because they’re using technology, even if just a phone, instead of the traditional face-to-face setting, and yet they’re more engaged. I don’t know the explanation. Perhaps it’s not having to walk into the infrastructure of a probation office, or perhaps it feels more collaborative when you’re on the phone with someone and talking with them versus sitting across the desk from them. But that’s been very interesting for us and has been very positive. We are also progressing toward holding group meetings via online technology. We’re working on the process of changing curriculum over to make sure it’s user friendly and effective via Zoom or whatever platform we decide to use. All in all, we’re moving to 24 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS more technology for group-facilitated treatment, which also benefits us because we’re a very rural state. KK: What were some of the primary concerns of the clients? BS: One of the biggest lessons I think that we’ve learned through this pandemic is that communication is the key. Whether you’re an administrator, frontline officer, probation officer, residential officer, or in a work release facility, it’s important to know what’s going on. What is being planned, and how are we going to manage during COVID and moving forward? Are we going to meet in person? Are we going to do calls? Am I going to meet you at your house and stand outside on your sidewalk? It has been just so important to be able to communicate, and you can never do that enough, especially when everyone is concerned regarding what comes next and what the process is going to look like. For example, some staff members have kids and didn’t want to come into the office and have that exposure risk. So, we adjusted, and then we communicated clearly to the clients that, “Hey, we’re going to move to more remote supervision strategies.” That’s part of keeping them in the loop about what’s going to happen. Another big challenge has been figuring out how clients could complete programming, because with COVID we aren’t in the classroom. So, the goal was getting clients treatment, and that’s what we’ve been working on. I think this was one of the biggest concerns for clients during all this time of change, raising many questions for them. What happens now? What’s my responsibility as someone under supervision? I don’t want to violate, and I want to know what my responsibilities are. KK: What are some lingering issues for staff or for clients as we go forward? BS: I think for us it’s finding the resources to expand use of technology and making sure that we can effectively do tele-supervision--if that’s even a name. Also, we must ensure treatment for those who have significant mental health issues. We have a way to go in working out how we build a truly solid framework for tele- supervision. What will that look like? What are the standards? What are the expectations? It’s the same thing with the changes we’ve made regarding revocations. Can we take successful new practices we’ve adopted during the COVID time period and really keep them in play as we go forward, with a more structured and established process that everyone is aware of? With COVID, many policies and procedures have seemed to change on a daily basis, and this lack of consistency and underlying planning can cause problems. So, again, I think the “lingering” overall issue for us is figuring out how to develop an optimal tele-supervision infrastructure that outlines what that supervision will look like going forward, including expectations, roles, and processes. KK: What has the feedback been from staff about changing the model? BS: I think at first there was a little resistance to it. One positive factor is that they were provided a response matrix. We’d been developing one for some time, but we actually started implementing it during COVID, and that gave the officers options based on the risk level and the type of violation. Thus, officers had a tool set to help make more informed decisions, and there were some added benefits, I think. Instead of feeling like they were working in a silo or individually, staff had this matrix to look at. They were asked to consider what options could be used to keep these individuals safely in the community, and then they would be able to staff the case with their supervisor. There are more steps involved, but I think everyone agrees that 25 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS prison isn’t always the answer--that we can keep people safely in their communities and get them the additional treatment or resources they need so they don’t pose a risk. It really does benefit the system overall, because that way people can keep their jobs. Also, if they’re in school or if they have good, pro-social families, you can keep those protective factors in place. I think our new model has really moved us in a positive direction where people see that it’s working. KK: There have been many negatives that have come with changing the way we do business. What change has turned out to be beneficial that perhaps you never would have tried without a pandemic? BS: That’s great question. What comes to mind is moving to have revocation decisions approved by central office. It’s not likely we would have done that without these special circumstances, though we might have gotten there eventually with criminal justice reform. So, yes, I’d point to the difference made by having centralized vetting of revocation cases—having them come through the Deputy Director of Community- Based Corrections, undergoing a review, and not signed off by me unless we concur that “Yes, these are the ones that we will approve to send back to prison as a revocation.” That policy was probably one of the biggest changes made, and, as you know, it resulted in some great benefits. I also think a change that’s here to stay is increased tele-supervision and tele-health. In addition to benefits I discussed earlier, these technologies also impact how we look at admissions and releases as we work closely with the Board of Parole. We have a separate releasing agency here, so we need to make sure that there is constant communication between the prison counselors, the parole officers, and the Board for approval in terms of having the best-laid plans for giving people the greatest chance of success. We now have had an opportunity to sharpen the saw, if you will, in terms of reentry plans--to really fine tune them. Our counselors are working very closely and more collaboratively with the parole officers on the Community-Based Corrections side. Another great aspect of the change in our revocation process is that it appears our agents are shifting their perspective in terms of how to view the individuals that we serve and how we supervise them. This includes greater recognition of those who have substance abuse and mental health issues, with staff working more closely and collaboratively with public health, mental health, and substance abuse providers to get treatment services provided where appropriate. So, I think there’s also been a philosophical shift. I know accountability is still important--and there always should be an emphasis on accountability--but there’s also a balance between accountability and treatment and really getting these people what they need. We have some places in some of our offices that can be used for meeting spots if a client needs to come in and meet with an officer. To clarify, these designated areas are not necessarily offices—sometimes just a space, and sometimes in other places in the community. What is important is that we’ve ensured availability of such spaces, since seeing an officer in person may sometimes be needed. The last thing I’ll mention is training of our staff. For a long time, we’ve done considerable in-person training, and we are having to adjust that practice, just like we’re having to restrict in-person contact with those under supervision. If we can develop and improve online treatment services, we can surely develop and improve online staff training. That means focusing on technologic tools to train our folks, including pre-service education, with 26 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS options including E-learning, Zoom sessions, Google Meets, and more. The good news, given that we’re very rural, is that training is often getting to staff sooner. We’re starting to make that shift now, and these training changes are probably going to be around for some time. KK: What would you tell others who are either in your position or are working in other capacities in community-based corrections? What should they do, what’s going to happen next, and how can we cope? BS: First and foremost, one of the most important pieces of dealing with a pandemic of this size is good leadership. If you have the right people in the right seats making the right decisions, it’s very collaborative. It is important that you don’t make decisions in a vacuum. Instead, you should bring in your frontline staff, bring in your mid-level managers, and bring in people with boots on the ground to help make decisions. I think it’s so important to have that collaborative aspect and to have good leadership during this time. As stated before, another thing I cannot over-emphasize is communication. You cannot communicate enough. Make sure that you’re messaging not only to staff, but also to those that are under supervision, letting them know what’s going on. What are we going to do? Well, in the next couple of months I think people need to be patient. There are times recently when I’ve both been forgiving and been forgiven, because there is no playbook for this, and people are doing their best. However, this also is truly a time for opportunity as well—an opportunity to look at practice differently and to consider how the pandemic may have a silver lining in producing beneficial innovation. What we need to do is to take that silver lining and run with it. The pandemic is not great. We’re not loving its impact on our lives, and it has produced some terrible losses. However, it also doesn’t have to be the worst thing ever. I mean, it’s time to embrace the lessons it has given us and not make the mistake of losing this opportunity to leap forward in our professional practices. We should consider all that we have learned about communication, leadership and decision making, technical revocations, using remote classrooms, and online training and run with it. Some of our new approaches appear to be pretty successful, so let’s make sure we keep the momentum. I wouldn’t necessarily call what we now have “the new normal,” but I’d definitely say COVID has forced us into looking at our business differently, and I think a lot of positives have come out of that. Every day under the threat of COVID feels like Groundhog Day, and each day we have an opportunity to see that we can really do things differently. I strongly feel that when you have a crisis of this size that brings this much uncertainty, it also brings people together. It certainly seems to have brought those working with corrections in prisons, community-based corrections, and other state agencies closer, knowing that we are working elbow to elbow as one team, looking out for each other. I think one message that has come out crystal clear is we are now more cohesive. We’re a better team, and that’s a huge plus. When we come out of COVID, we will be war tested. We’re going to get through this. 28 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE COVID-19 IMPACT SURVEY FOR ADULT AND JUVENILE PROBATION IN TEXAS BY: KELLI D. MARTIN, PH.D. AND HALEY ZETTLER, PH.D.29 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION THE IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC ON COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS As the COVID-19 health crisis swept across the globe in early 2020, every societal institution was affected, including probation agencies in Texas. Basically, the “normal” way of life changed dramatically. For researchers, it was critical to conduct timely studies to gather information about this unique phenomenon. This article highlights preliminary findings from one of these studies, the COVID-19 Impact Survey for Probation in Texas. This survey was designed to gather information regarding the impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on probation department work environments and staff. Probation administrators (directors, deputy directors, unit managers/supervisors), probation officers (e.g., specialized caseload officers, regular caseload officers, court officers), and information technology (IT) personnel were targeted to complete the survey.1 Probation officer questions were designed to measure constructs including officers’ stress and workload issues, changes in relationships with clients, changes in officer attitudes, work environments, and clients’ issues. Questions for administrators mainly gathered information about financial concerns and tele-work issues. Probation in Texas Adult and juvenile Texas probation agencies operate at the county level with oversight at the state level through the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division for adult probation and the Texas Juvenile Justice Division for juvenile probation. Adult probation agencies in Texas are primarily funded through the collection of fees from those on supervision. Although probation operates at the county level, counties generally do not appropriate monies for staff salaries and benefits or monies for client programs. Depending on county size, some larger departments may receive money from the county for pre-trial programs. Due to the nature of funding streams, Texas probation has been especially impacted by COVID-19. It is estimated that through August 2020 the collection of supervision fees has been reduced by over $8 million statewide compared to the previous year. Study Methods A link for the voluntary and anonymous survey was distributed via email to directors of all adult and juvenile probation agencies in the entire state of Texas in June 2020, along with instructions, a project overview, and information about confidentiality. Approximately 123 adult probation agencies (also referred to as community supervision and corrections departments [CSCDs]) and 161 juvenile agencies were emailed the survey. Researchers then asked directors to distribute the survey to the targeted staff according to instructions. There was a 77% response rate out of 123 adult probation departments (N=95). The response rate for juvenile probation departments was much lower, with only 65 agencies out of 161 responding, for a 40% response rate. See Table 1 for details of the demographics for the 1,353 respondents who completed the survey.2Next >