Alabama Juvenile Probation Officers Weighted Workload ...

Alabama Juvenile Probation Officers Weighted Workload Assessment Study Final Report

NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS COURT SERVICES DIVISION

707 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2900 Denver, Colorado 80202

Alabama Juvenile Probation Officer Weighted Workload Assessment Study

Final Report

January, 2010

Project Staff Suzanne Tallarico, Project Director

John Douglas

Ken Tomlinson

Daniel J. Hall, Vice President

Court Consulting Services 707 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2900

Denver, Colorado 80202

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................... i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ii I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 II. Overview of a Workload Assessment Model ...................................................................... 3

Theory and National Context of Weighted Workload Assessment ................................. …3 III. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 5

Time Study ........................................................................................................................ 6 Data Elements ................................................................................................................... 7 Case Types ....................................................................................................................... 7 Case-Related Activities ...................................................................................................... 8 General Administrative/Other Activities .............................................................................. 9

IV.Determining Juvenile Probation Officer Availability ......................................................... 10

JPO Day and Year Value ................................................................................................. 10 The JPO Year .................................................................................................................. 10 The JPO Day ................................................................................................................... 11 Hours Available Per Day .................................................................................................. 12 JPO Year Value ............................................................................................................... 12

V. Alabama Juvenile Probation Officer Time Study and Case Weights ............................... 13

Case Weights .................................................................................................................. 13 Adequacy of Time Survey ................................................................................................ 15

VI. Juvenile Probation Officer Workload Calculation and Resource Needs ......................... 17

Probation Officer FTE Needs Estimated by the Model ..................................................... 17 Qualitative Factors Affecting the Determination of Judicial Resources ............................. 18

VII. Keeping the Workload Assessment Model Current and Future Use of the Model......... 19 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 20 APPENDIX A: ALABAMA JPO CASE TYPE AND ACTIVITY CATEGORIES ...................... 21 APPENDIX B: CASE WEIGHT ADJUSTMENTS AND RATIONALE ................................... 24 APPENDIX C: STATEWIDE JPO RESOURCE NEED MODEL ........................................... 25 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 35

Alabama Juvenile Probation Officers Weighted Workload Assessment Study

National Center for State Courts i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Any project in which consultants are hired to work in a state requires a high level

of coordination between the consulting staff and the agency with whom they are working.

We were fortunate to work with April Johnson, a very capable and dependable individual

on this project. April was always available when any information was needed or to

answer our questions that helped us understand the Juvenile Probation System in

Alabama. She also provided us with every piece of information we requested – quickly

and with a smile. This project truly has been made easier because of her hard work and

commitment to ensuring this project’s success.

Conducting meaningful workload studies also requires the dedication and effort

of an Advisory Committee that can help guide the project to meet the needs of the state.

In this capacity, we worked with a very capable group of line officers and Chief Probation

Officers. This committee met in snowy and icy conditions as well as hot and humid

conditions. They reviewed documents and provided useful and thoughtful feedback.

The project team would like to thank our very capable committee, whose names are

listed below.

Advisory Committee Members Pat Cannedy (Mobile County)

Scott Kearley (St. Clair County) Bill Lovelace (Lauderdale County, Chief Probation Officers’ Association President)

Eric Morris (Autauga County) Jennifer Nix (Marion County)

Lee Rhodes (Lauderdale County) Betty Simmons (Talladega County)

Alma Turner (Calhoun County) Gary Watson (Coffee County) Josette White (Sumter County) Harry Williams (Morgan County)

Beverly Wise (Montgomery County)

AOC Representatives Mittie Chappell (AOC – HR Division)

Paula Collins (AOC – IT Division) Callie Dietz (ADC – State Court Administrator)

April Johnson (AOC – Family Court Division, Study’s Project Manager) Vonda Sanders (AOC – Assistant Director, HR Division) Karen Trussell (AOC – Director, Family Court Division)

Tom Wright (AOC – Assistant Director, Family Court Division)


National Center for State Courts ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview

Excessive caseloads for Juvenile Probation Officers (JPOs) jeopardize both

public safety and the quality of supervision officers can provide to the youth they

supervise in the community. The quality of investigation and supervision services is

directly related to the number of Juvenile Probation Officers available to handle the

probation investigation and supervision work in Alabama.

Currently, the state of Alabama does not use workload standards on which to

base its need for Juvenile Probation Officers. In order to be more objective in

determining their staffing needs for Juvenile Probation Officers, the Alabama

Administrative Office of Courts contracted with the National Center for State Courts to

develop workload standards for Juvenile Probation Officers, taking into account all

activities Juvenile Probation Officers are statutorily required to perform.

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has conducted workload

assessment studies for many years. The weighted caseload method uses time as a

measure for workload and is based on the assumption that the more time required to

process, manage, or supervise a case, the more work is involved.

In this study, a case weight or workload values is defined as the average amount

of time it takes to investigate or supervise a particular type of case. Workload values are

computed based upon the average number of minutes it takes to complete tasks

associated with juvenile probation investigations and supervision. Using case weights,

the number of probationers can be translated into workload for Juvenile Probation

Officers.

Methodology

The core of the workload assessment model is a time study wherein Juvenile

Probation Officers kept track of the amount of time they spent on the various case types

by activity and on non-case-specific responsibilities such as work-related community

activities, committee work and meetings. The time study was conducted during the four-

week period between March 30 and April 24, 2009. Ninety-one percent (91.95%) of the


National Center for State Courts iii

348 personnel who perform JPO duties in all but Jefferson and Shelby Counties

participated in the time study.1

The combination of the case-specific time study data and the number of new

cases on probation creates the workload standards or “individual case weights” for each

case type category. The case weights represent the average annual amount of time a

JPO is expected to work on each case (in minutes) for each case type category. By

applying the case weights to current or projected new cases a measure of case-specific

workload can be computed. Case-specific workload divided by the amount of time

available per Juvenile Probation Officer for case-specific work provides an estimate of

JPO resources required to manage the caseload. This approach, which involves few

complicated procedures, is sufficiently rigorous to provide a model for measuring

resource demands and evaluating resource allocations.

Juvenile Probation Officers were also asked to participate in an adequacy of time

survey to examine whether current staffing levels were sufficient to provide reasonable

and satisfactory service to the public. This survey asked Juvenile Probation Officers to

evaluate whether specific job tasks, covering pre-disposition reports, supervision, and

general work activities, had an adequate amount of time to attend to in a satisfactory

manner. Nearly fifty percent (48.57%) of JPOs responded to the survey, so the results

are an indication of the views of a reasonable sample of Juvenile Probation Officers

regarding the adequacy of time for completing various work-related tasks.

Findings

The case weights for each case type were reviewed by the study’s Advisory

Committee, made up of probation representatives across the state, to determine if any

qualitative adjustments were necessary. In this review process, the Advisory Committee

considered factors other than the actual time recorded in the time study. Upon review,

adjustments were made to five of the case types’ workload values calculated from the

time study data (these adjustments are described in Appendix B).

Based on FY 2008 new cases, the JPO workload assessment model estimates

that overall the state needs 29.3 additional JPO FTE to manage the probation workload

(see Figure ES 2). It is important to note that this needs assessment study focused only

1 Some participants work in classifications other than JPO (e.g. ASAs), but sometimes perform

JPO duties. All JPO work was recorded. The Probation Departments in Jefferson and Shelby counties opted not to participate in the time study, so they are not included in the final need model.


National Center for State Courts iv

on JPO work, and as such only reflects JPO FTE needs. Therefore, the FTE need does

not take into account any additional support staff in the Juvenile Probation Offices, such

as ASAs, JCC Coordinators, etc.

The final case weights and the overall JPO resource needs model are presented

in Figures ES 1 and ES 2.

Figure ES 1: Final Juvenile Probation Officer Workload Values

Annual

Case

Case Categories Weights (Minutes)

Dependency – Intake 58

CHINS/Delinquency – Intake 88

CHINS/Delinquency – Pre-Disposition 211

CHINS/Delinquency – Early Warning 50

CHINS/Delinquency – Informal Adjustment 141

CHINS/Delinquency – Consent Decree 189

CHINS/Delinquency – Probation 645

CHINS/Delinquency – Aftercare/In Placement 765

Other (Adult/Civil) 103


National Center for State Courts v

Figure ES 2: Juvenile Probation Officer Resource Needs by County

County

Available

FTE

FTE

Demand

Absolute

FTE Need

Adjusted

FTE Need

Autauga 3 2.47 -0.53 0.00

Baldwin 7 11.44 4.44 4.44

Barbour 2 1.79 -0.21 0.00

Bibb 2 2.87 0.87 0.87

Blount 3 1.91 -1.09 0.00

Bullock 1 0.40 -0.60 0.00

Butler 2 0.35 -1.65 0.00

Calhoun 7.5 7.05 -0.45 0.00

Chambers 2 2.54 0.54 0.54

Cherokee 2 1.74 -0.26 0.00

Chilton 3 1.48 -1.52 0.00

Choctaw 1 0.57 -0.43 0.00

Clarke 2 1.32 -0.68 0.00

Clay 1 0.85 -0.15 0.00

Cleburne 1 0.48 -0.52 0.00

Coffee 4 2.96 -1.04 0.00

Colbert 3 1.67 -1.33 0.00

Conecuh 1 0.74 -0.26 0.00

Coosa 1 0.76 -0.24 0.00

Covington 3 3.11 0.11 0.11

Crenshaw 1 0.89 -0.11 0.00

Cullman 6 3.04 -2.96 0.00

Dale 4 4.16 0.16 0.16

Dallas 4 4.67 0.67 0.67

DeKalb 3 2.60 -0.40 0.00

Elmore 4 4.37 0.37 0.37

Escambia 3 1.63 -1.37 0.00

Etowah 5 3.95 -1.05 0.00

Fayette 1 1.20 0.20 0.20

Franklin 2 2.72 0.72 0.72

Geneva 3 2.54 -0.46 0.00

Greene 1 0.80 -0.20 0.00

Hale 2 0.63 -1.37 0.00

Henry 2 1.74 -0.26 0.00

Houston 8.5 7.48 -1.02 0.00

Jackson 3 3.26 0.26 0.26

Jefferson NA NA NA NA

Lamar 2 0.75 -1.25 0.00Lauderdale 6 5.61 -0.39 0.00

Lawrence 4 2.66 -1.34 0.00

Lee 6.5 8.65 2.15 2.15

Limestone 4 3.11 -0.89 0.00

Lowndes 1 0.42 -0.58 0.00

Macon 3 0.88 -2.12 0.00

Madison 16 14.17 -1.83 0.00

Marengo 3 2.54 -0.46 0.00

Marion 1 2.50 1.50 1.50

Marshall 4.5 9.89 5.39 5.39

Mobile 31 32.89 1.89 1.89

Monroe 1 1.89 0.89 0.89

Montgomery 21 12.11 -8.89 0.00

Morgan 7.5 8.95 1.45 1.45

Perry 1 0.29 -0.71 0.00

Pickens 2 1.49 -0.51 0.00

Pike 3 3.79 0.79 0.79

Randolph 2 1.15 -0.85 0.00

Russell 4 3.30 -0.70 0.00

Shelby NA NA NA NA

St. Clair 3.5 6.34 2.84 2.84

Sumter 1 0.47 -0.53 0.00

Talladega 3 3.26 0.26 0.26

Tallapoosa 3 4.36 1.36 1.36Tuscaloosa 10 9.33 -0.67 0.00

Walker 5 4.57 -0.43 0.00

Washington 1 0.28 -0.72 0.00

Wilcox 1 0.77 -0.23 0.00

Winston 2 0.75 -1.25 0.00

TOTAL 257 241.82 -15.18 29.33


National Center for State Courts vi

Model Considerations

This report presents the findings from the workload analysis performed by the

NCSC for Alabama Juvenile Probation Officers. In the absence of any significant

changes in case management, organizational structure or legislation related to Juvenile

Probation in Alabama, the case weights developed during the course of this study

should be accurate for several years. However, periodic updating, like that conducted

here, is necessary to ensure that the case weights continue to accurately represent JPO

case work and workload. Increased efficiency, statutory or procedural changes, or

implementation of various case management initiatives over time may result in

significant changes in case processing.

Qualitative factors also can affect JPO resource needs, and these should be

considered when determining a state’s resource needs. There can be local differences

that result in some case types taking longer in some counties within a single state.

Indeed, in a state like Alabama where there is no clear state-wide supervision model,

these variations clearly exist. This model should be only one factor in the consideration

of resource needs. The issues identified above and any other issues that are particularly

relevant to Alabama should be considered when using this model to determine resource

needs.


National Center for State Courts 1

I. Introduction

Nationally, probation leaders face continual challenges of effectively managing

rising caseloads, limited probation officer staff, and increasing supervision requirement

expectations. The American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) has tried for

years to develop national standards for caseload sizes; but has been unsuccessful

because of the vast variation in state and local investigation and supervision practices.

Even so, the APPA recognizes the need for developing national standards as guidelines,

but strongly endorses the need for states to determine local workloads based on

carefully conducted time studies (Burrell, 2006).

In response to these multiple and sometimes conflicting challenges and

problems, state probation leaders are increasingly turning to more sophisticated

techniques to provide quantitative documentation of probation resource needs. Two

constant and recurring problems are inherent with these challenges: (1) objectively

assessing the number of Probation Officers required to handle current and future

caseloads, and (2) deciding whether probation resources are being allocated according

to need. Assessing the probation workload through the development of a weighted

workload assessment model is a rational, credible, and practical method for meeting

these objectives and determining the need for probation officers.

Currently, the state of Alabama does not use workload standards on which to

base its need for Juvenile Probation Officers. In order to be more objective in

determining their staffing needs for juvenile probation officers, the Alabama

Administrative Office of Courts contracted with the National Center for State Courts to

develop workload standards for Juvenile Probation Officers, taking into account all

activities Juvenile Probation Officers are statutorily required to perform.

The Juvenile Probation Officer workload assessment study was designed to

measure the workload of the state’s Juvenile Probation Offices. At the time this study

commenced, there were 275 probation agents, ranging in classification from Chief

Probation Officers to Juvenile Probation Officers in Alabama.2 Juvenile Probation

Officers in Alabama are officers of the court and, as such, are expected to deliver quality

services and public protection in the course of their work. The Juvenile Probation

Officers “provide in-state probation supervision, interstate compact supervision;

2 Not all counties participated; therefore, not all juvenile probation officers were represented in the

study.



counseling and/or community referral services to those placed on probation. Working

with various government and private providers, JPOs are able to offer intensive

probation and community based services as an alternative to committing individuals to

the Department of Youth Services” (Alabama Unified Judicial System web page).

Additionally, the probation departments are required to prepare pre-dispositional reports

to the Court upon request.

In this study, a case weight or workload values is defined as the average amount

of time it takes to investigate or supervise a particular type of case. Workload values are

computed based upon the average number of minutes it takes to complete tasks

associated with juvenile probation investigations and supervision. Using case weights,

the number of probationers can be translated into workload for Juvenile Probation

Officers.

This report details the methodology of the Alabama Juvenile Probation Officer

Workload Assessment Study. A workload assessment model containing differentiated

case management processing times (pre-disposition report development and

supervision activities) is presented for each of the major classification categories

handled by the Probation Departments3. Specific objectives of the JPO workload

assessment study are as follow:

To conduct a quantitative assessment of Juvenile Probation Officers’ work requirements on a statewide basis

To develop accurate and representative case weights for the appropriate investigation and case supervision levels

To provide an accurate and understandable model to assess the need for Juvenile Probation Officers.

3 A workload assessment model is a quantitative representation of the inter-related variables that

work together to determine probation services resource needs. A change in one variable will affect other variables and the total determination of the juvenile probation officer resource needs. The term “model” is commonly used in the social sciences to denote this relationship of variables.



II. Overview of a Workload Assessment Model

Theory and National Context of Weighted Workload Assessment

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has conducted workload

assessment studies for many years. These studies aim at assisting states in developing

meaningful, easily understood criteria for determining overall resource needs, taking into

account both case specific and non-case specific workload factors. In all, the National

Center has conducted more than 60 workload and staffing assessments in the last 10

years. The studies have been performed in a variety of contexts – statewide and local

efforts, and general and limited jurisdiction courts. These studies have involved judges,

quasi-judicial officers, administrative and clerical staff, court clerks, public defenders and

probation officers. All studies are anchored by a “weighted caseload” model that directly

measures the variations in time required to manage different case types within the

appropriate context.

The weighted caseload method uses time as a measure for workload and is

based on the assumption that the more time required to process, manage, or supervise

a case, the more work is involved. Assessing workload through the development of a

weighted caseload model is being adopted by an increasing number of states4.

National Center workload studies are grounded in the principle that adequate

resources are essential to the effective management of cases, delivering quality service

to the public and maintaining public safety. Meeting these challenges in Alabama

involves the objective assessment of the number of Juvenile Probation Officers needed

to achieve their mission and objectives.

For Juvenile Probation Officers, a case weight is defined as the average amount

of time it takes to investigate or supervise a particular type of case. Case weights are

computed based upon the average number of hours it takes to complete tasks

associated with probation investigations and supervision. Case weights are

disaggregated by case types. Using case weights, the number of probationers can be

translated into workload for Juvenile Probation Officers.

While case filings and new placements to probation can help determine the

demands placed on Probation Departments, unadjusted filing or placement figures offer

4 See Douglas, John. Examination of NCSC Workload Assessment Projects and Methodology:

1996-2006, March 2007 for a detailed description of weighted workload studies conducted by the NCSC between 1996 and 2006.



only minimal guidance regarding the amount of work generated by these cases.

Juvenile Probation Officers in Alabama are officers of the court and, as such, are

expected to deliver quality services and public protection in the course of their work.

The inability to differentiate the work associated with each type of investigation or level

of supervision could create the misperception that an equal number of cases filed or

placed on probation for two different types should result in equivalent workloads when it

comes to investigation and supervision requirements. Rather, cases vary in complexity,

and different types of cases require different levels of attention from Juvenile Probation

Officers. To account for this variation in case types, specific case weights are

developed. By weighting these cases in a Probation Officer needs model, a more

accurate assessment can be made of the amount of time required to supervise and

manage the caseload, and caseload can be translated into manageable workloads.

The overall goal of this study was to accurately determine the amount of time

required by Juvenile Probation Officers to supervise or investigate different types of

cases in an efficient and effective manner. Juvenile Probation Officer resource needs

are defined in this study as all supervision, investigative, and other related work that falls

under the jurisdiction of Juvenile Probation Officers (JPOs) in Alabama.

Determining workload through the use of a weighted caseload model has

become a well-accepted method for determining the need for resources, and as a result,

the methodology used in this study has been adopted by an increasing number of

states5.

This report details the Alabama JPO Weighted Workload Assessment Study

methodology and presents the workload assessment model for JPO need. The findings

from the present study can be used to assist the AOC and the legislature in determining

the need for JPO resources as well as to determine where those resources could be

located to effectively distribute the necessary JPO FTE (full time equivalent) positions.

5 During the past ten years, the National Center for State Courts has conducted weighted

workload assessment studies for probation officers in North Dakota, South Dakota and Colorado; for judges in California, Colorado, Georgia, Guam, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wyoming. The NCSC has also conducted numerous weighted workload studies for court clerks, public defenders and other attorneys, and local courts as well, and several such projects are currently under way.



III. Methodology

The NCSC worked with an Advisory Committee specifically created for this study,

consisting of twelve Juvenile Probation representatives, including Chief POs,

supervisors and line staff representing a range of counties within the state of Alabama.

Additionally, seven representatives of the AOC, including the Administrative Director of

Courts, and representatives from Human Resources, Family Court and Information

Technology, participated in the Advisory Committee meetings.

The NCSC worked with the Advisory Committee to develop the critical

components of the workload study. This committee provided guidance and oversight

during the life of the workload assessment project. Specifically, the Advisory Committee

provided advice and commentary on the overall study design, the identification of case

types and activities, the duration of the time study, the approach, and reviewed the draft

case weights prior to the completion of the project.

The core of the workload assessment model is a time study wherein Juvenile

Probation Officers keep track of the amount of time they spend on the various case

types by activity and on non-case-specific responsibilities such as work-related

community speaking, meetings and committee work. The combination of the case-

specific time study data and the filing and average length of stay data for the same time

period creates the workload standards or “individual case weights” for each case type

category. The case weights represent the average annual amount of time a JPO is

expected to work on each case (in minutes) for each case type category. By applying

the case weights to current or projected new cases a measure of case-specific workload

can be computed. Case-specific workload divided by the amount of time available per

Juvenile Probation Officer for case-specific work provides an estimate of JPO resources

required to manage the caseload. This approach, which involves few complicated

procedures, is sufficiently rigorous to provide a model for measuring resource demands

and evaluating resource allocations. The model is straightforward and the basic

methodological steps are listed below. The remainder of this report section describes in

detail the steps which were used to build the Alabama Juvenile Probation Officer

Workload Assessment Model.



Time Study

The NCSC staff utilized a time study to measure the time JPOs spent processing

all phases of the ten case types6 identified for use in this workload assessment study.

Training on the purpose of the workload study, how to record time and how to use the

data collection instrument was provided to JPOs across the state in a webinar format.

The time study preparation involved viewing a one hour narrated session which included

an online demonstration of how to navigate the data entry tool. Special one hour call-in

sessions were offered each day during the weeks of March 9-13 and March 16-20, 2009.

Additionally, written instructions were made available to all JPOs. Finally, the NCSC

maintained a Help Desk that was available during working hours Monday through Friday

of each week during the time study. JPOs could call or email the Help Desk with

questions regarding how to record time or to report errors that needed to be fixed.

During the four-week period of March 30 through April 24, 2009, 320 of the 348

personnel (JPOs and any ASAs, CPOs or other staff who engaged in probation officer

work during the study period) in all counties except for Jefferson and Shelby, fully

participated in the time study (91.95% participation rate).78 The juvenile professional staff

recorded their time on a paper-based time tracking form, and then transferred this

information to a web-based data entry program (see Figure 1). Once submitted, the

data were automatically entered into NCSC’s secure database. Collecting data from

JPOs across the state ensures that sufficient data is collected to provide an accurate

average of case processing times for all case types identified.

6 The time study originally included 16 case types, six of which were specialty court programs

(gun court, mental health court, truancy court, drug court, teen court and other specialty courts); however, the inability to provide caseload sizes for these programs prohibited the development of case weights for the specialty courts. The time that was recorded in these categories was moved into the CHINS/delinquency Probation (supervision) category. 7 Some participants work in classifications other than JPO (e.g. ASAs), but sometimes perform

JPO duties. All JPO work was recorded. The Probation Departments in Jefferson and Shelby counties opted not to participate in the time study, so they are not included in the final need model. 8 During the original four-week time study, some participants incorrectly logged work-related

travel time, necessitating a second four-week data collection period in which to collect work-related travel time only. This data was collected between November 2 and November 27, 2009. Only those staff members who traveled for work purposes logged data during this period.



Figure 1: Data Entry Screen for Alabama Juvenile Probation Officer Workload

Assessment Study

Data Elements

NCSC project staff met with the Advisory Committee on January 14, 2009 to

determine the case type categories, case-related, and general administrative/other

activities to be included in the study. A more detailed description of all of the time study

elements is provided in Appendix A.

Case Types

Selecting the number of case types and case events to be used in a weighted

workload study involves a trade-off between having enough information to ensure the

accuracy of the workload standards and minimizing the data collection burden on the

participating Juvenile Probation Officers. The more case types and events that are

included in a weighted workload study, the more burdensome it can be to the



participants. However, determining the appropriate types of cases to be weighted is

particularly important because the workload standards must eventually be attached to

readily available case data to determine workload. Figure 2 presents the case types for

which data were collected in this study (a full explanation of these can be found in

Appendix A).

Figure 2: Alabama JPO Case Types Categories

Case Categories

Dependency – Intake

CHINS/Delinquency – Intake

CHINS/Delinquency – Pre-Disposition

CHINS/Delinquency – Early Warning

CHINS/Delinquency – Informal Adjustment

CHINS/Delinquency – Consent Decree

CHINS/Delinquency – Probation

CHINS/Delinquency – Aftercare/In Placement

Other (Adult/Civil)

Case-Related Activities

Case-related activities are the essential functions that JPOs engage in within a

certain case type. As with the case types, the essential functions were categorized into

manageable groups for the time survey. Figure 3 outlines the case-related activities

measured in the time study (a full explanation of these activities can be found in

Appendix B). You will see that in the “Other (Adult/Civil)” case type there is no

distinction between activities. These are generally basic supervision-only cases, so the

Advisory Committee decided not to identify specific activity categories for this case type.



Figure 3: Case-Related Activities

CASE CATEGORY

DEPENDENCY CASES

CHINS/DELINQUENCY CASES

OTHER (ADULT/CIVIL) CASES

PROCESS → INTAKE INTAKE ALL PROCESSES Activities In court activities

Out of court activities

Administrative activities

Complaint activities

Other activities

Early warning activities (handled at intake)

No activities (all time is recorded in a single category)

PRE-DISPOSITION REPORT

Investigation activities

In-court activities

Other activities

SUPERVISION (case type) Record all supervision activities based on type of case:

Informal adjustment

Consent decree

Probation

Aftercare/In placement

Early warning (handled under supervision)

General Administrative/Other Activities

Activities that do not relate to a specific case but must be done by Juvenile

Probation Officers are defined as general administrative/other activities. The key

distinction between case-related and general administrative activities is whether the

activity can be tied to a specific case. Figure 4 lists the general administrative/other

activities measured in this study (Appendix A provides a full explanation of these

activities).

Figure 4: General Administrative/Other Activities9

Education & Training* Non-case Specific Court Community Activities & Speaking Work-related Travel Committee & Work-related Meetings Vacation Time*

General non-case related administration Time Study Recording Time* General Research/Keeping Current Other

9 Please note that study participants were asked to record time associated with the starred items

in Figure 4 (Education & Training and Vacation Time), however, this time was pulled out of the analysis and “replaced” with the average of the respondents’ useable time. The reader will see, in the discussion of the JPO Year Value that education and time off were accounted for in the year value, so using that time would result in double counting.



IV. Determining Juvenile Probation Officer Availability

To determine the expected workload for a year, a determination of how much

time is available to do the work must be made. The JPO year value is the average

amount of work time a Juvenile Probation Officer has available to manage cases.

Calculating the JPO year value is a two-step process. The first step is to determine how

many days per year are available for Juvenile Probation Officers to work (the JPO year);

the second step is to determine how the business hours of each day are divided

between case-specific and non-case-specific work (the JPO day). Multiplying the

average business hours by the number of days worked in a year results in the JPO year

value, which is an estimate of the amount of time the “average” Juvenile Probation

Officer has to manage (supervise or investigate) cases during the year.

JPO Day and Year Value

In probation workload studies there are three factors that contribute to the

calculation of JPO need: new cases, case weights and the JPO year value.

So that:

Workload = New Cases x Workload Standard (case weight)

Juvenile Probation Officer Need = Workload / JPO Year Value

The JPO Year

Many assumptions underlie the JPO year value. Weekends, state holidays, and

time related to vacations, illness, attending statewide conferences and other professional

development activities are subtracted from the calendar year to determine the number of

days available to manage cases. While determining the number of weekend days and

state holidays in a year is easy, determining the average time taken (or that is

reasonable to take) for vacation, illness, conferences, and other professional

development is more difficult. Because a state’s study period may not be representative

for all factors, the project team relied on the Advisory Committee to estimate the average

time taken for vacation, illness, conferences, and professional development. Calculating

the “average” JPO year requires determining the number of days Juvenile Probation

Officers have to attend to case-related matters.



Development of the JPO year value begins with a baseline of 365 days in the

year and subtracts the 104 weekend days and 13 state holidays. Actual average leave

figures were computed for all classes of probation officers, which amounts to 25.65 days

per probation officer per year. Education and training is based upon the need to engage

in professional development training annually, including safety and other training; two

days was the amount agreed upon by the Advisory Committee. The number of days

available, after subtracting an average amount of time away from the office, is 220.35

days per year. Figure 5 presents these calculations.

Figure 5: Calculating the JPO Year

The JPO Day

The JPO day is separated into two parts: the amount of Juvenile Probation

Officer time devoted to (1) case-related matters and (2) general administrative matters.

Making a distinction between case-related and general administrative time provides

clear recognition that JPOs have many varied responsibilities during the day.

1. Case-related time includes all time devoted to:

All activity associated with developing pre-disposition reports Attending to intake duties Attending to all in-office supervision duties Conducting field visits Responding to violations

2. General administrative time includes time devoted to:

Activities associated with the operation of the office as well as attending local meetings and statewide committees

General paperwork not associated with a specific case Professional meetings Community activities and public education

PO Year Days

Total Days per Year 365

Subtract Non-Working Days:

Weekends - 104

Holidays - 13

Vacation, sick & other leave - 25.65

Education/Training - 2

Total Working Days per Year 220.35



Hours Available Per Day

To determine the number of average available hours per year, the model must

first estimate a reasonable average of available work hours per day. Again, the NCSC

project team consulted the Advisory Committee to develop these estimates. The

Advisory Committee concluded that a reasonable average of available working time is 9

hours per day (representing a typical 8:00 - 5:00 work-day). This nine-hour day includes

a one-hour lunch and 30 minutes for breaks and personal time, allowing for 7.5 hours of

working time each day.

Data recorded by Juvenile Probation Officers during the time study period

indicated that, on average, approximately 6.1 hours (378.7 minutes) per day were

dedicated to case-specific work, 8.3 minutes per day were recorded for work-related

travel for those counties with travel allocations and no minutes were assigned for those

without travel allocations,10,11 and 63 minutes was spent on non-case-specific

(administrative) activities. Figure 6 presents the calculations for the JPO day.

Figure 7: Calculating the JPO Day

Time per Day

Hours Per Day

Minutes Per Day for

Counties with Travel

Minutes Per Day for

Counties without Travel

Total Time Per Day 9 540 540 Lunch & Breaks - 1.5 90 90 Total Travel - .13 8.3 0 Total General Administrative - 1.05 63 63

Total Daily Case-Specific Time = 6.31 378.7 387

Total Annual Case-Specific Time = 1,390.8 83,447 85,275

JPO Year Value

Multiplying the JPO year value (220.35 days) by the number of hours in a day

available for case-specific work (378.7 minutes per day) gives you the amount of time

available per year for Juvenile Probation Officers in Alabama to work on cases. Thus,

the JPO year value for Alabama for those counties with travel time allocated is 83,447

10

The travel time represents the average travel time for those counties reporting any travel time. All work-related travel time is split across all JPO FTE; so it is represented as an average amount of travel per day per person, whether all JPOs travel or not. 11

Not all counties recorded travel time associated with JPO activities. For those counties where no time was recorded for travel, no travel time was assigned in the need model. The impact of no travel time assignment is a slightly higher case-specific time value 85,275 minutes per year compared to 83,447 minutes per year for those counties with travel time allocated.



minutes of case-specific time per JPO per year (220.35 days x 378.7 minutes per day);

for those counties without travel time included in the model, the case-specific time per

JPO per year is 85,275 minutes (220.35 days per year * 387 minutes per day).12

The JPO year value estimates a reasonable amount of time a Juvenile Probation

Officer should work in a year. This value is used even though not all Juvenile Probation

Officers currently take this exact amount of leave.

V. Alabama Juvenile Probation Officer Time Study and Case Weights

A time study measures case complexity in terms of the average amount of JPO

time actually spent managing different types of cases, from the initial referral or

placement to termination. The essential element in a time study is collecting time data

on all Juvenile Probation Officer activities. For this study, Juvenile Probation Officers in

Alabama recorded all time spent on various case types on a daily time log and then

entered their time on a web-based data collection instrument. Juvenile Probation

Officers’ activities included time spent on case-specific work, general administrative

work, and travel time.

Case Weights

As discussed earlier, time study data was collected from all Juvenile Probation

Officers statewide during a four-week period spanning March 30 to April 24, 2009. To

calculate preliminary case weights, the average amount of JPO time required to handle

a particular case for a year, the one-month time data was extrapolated to 12 months and

divided by the number of new cases for each case type in fiscal year 2008.

The case weights by case type provide a picture of current JPO practice in

Alabama. For example, as shown in Figure 8, JPOs in Alabama recorded the annual

value of 10,309,493 minutes associated with CHINS/Delinquency probation. To develop

the case weight, we divided the time in minutes by the number of new

CHINS/Delinquency probation cases in fiscal year 2008 (10,309,493 minutes / 15,989

cases). The resultant case weight of 645 minutes means that, on average, it takes a

JPO 645 minutes per year (53.75 minutes/month) to supervise a youth on probation. By

aggregating all of the time recorded for each case type and dividing that time by the total

12

Time represented is rounded according to computations in the spreadsheet model.



number of new cases for a year, we are able to smooth the anomalies across the case

type to incorporate both the unusually long cases and the unusually short cases into the

average.

Figure 8: Example of Case Weight Calculation for CHINS/Delinquent: Probation

Minutes Recorded for CHINS/Delinquency

Probation Cases (extrapolated to 12 months)

New CHINS/Delinquency

Probation Cases Annually

Case Weight

10,309,493 ÷ 15,989 =

645 minutes/year

(53.75 minutes/month)

The utility of a weighted caseload system is now easy to illustrate. For example,

while the number of new cases placed on informal adjustment at 141 minutes per case

per year (4,044) and the number of consent decree cases (189 minutes per case per

year for 4,284 cases) are similar, the case weights are different. The workload

associated with supervision an informal adjustment cases is 570,204 minutes compared

to 809,676 for consent decree cases.13 Because of the difference in the case weights

more time is associated with the supervision of consent decree cases than for informal

adjustments. Clearly, caseload is not the same thing as workload. The case weights

for Alabama JPO case types are shown in Figure 9.

It may be easier to think of the time associated with supervision cases as a

monthly case weight. Because supervision is generally thought of in terms of monthly

activity, case weights can be looked at as monthly values. Since most cases are based

on a one-year term, generating a monthly workload value simply requires the annual

case weight to be divided by 12. Both the annual and monthly case weights are shown

in Figure 9 for supervision cases.

Figure 9: Final Alabama JPO Case Weights

Annual

Case

Case Categories Weights (Minutes)

13

To calculate workload for informal adjustments the computation is: Informal adjustment = 141 minutes/case x 4,044 cases = 570,204 minutes per year; consent decree case supervision: 189 minutes/case x 4,284 cases = 809,676 minutes per year.



Dependency 58

CHINS/Delinquency – Intake 88

CHINS/Delinquency – Pre-Disposition 211

CHINS/Delinquency – Early Warning 50

CHINS/Delinquency – Informal Adjustment 141

CHINS/Delinquency – Consent Decree 189

CHINS/Delinquency – Probation 645

CHINS/Delinquency – Aftercare/In Placement 765

Other (Adult/Civil) 103

Adequacy of Time Survey

Juvenile Probation Officers were also asked to participate in an adequacy of time

survey to examine whether current staffing levels were sufficient to provide reasonable

and satisfactory service to the public. This survey asked Juvenile Probation Officers to

evaluate how well specific tasks, covering pre-disposition reports, supervision, and

general work activities, were actually being performed by the JPOs. The survey was

administered via a web-based survey instrument which was made available to JPOs

over an approximate four-week period. Overall, the participation rate for this survey was

reasonably adequate at 48.57%. The results are an indication of the views of nearly half

of the Juvenile Probation Officers regarding the adequacy of time for completing various

work-related tasks.

For the adequacy of time survey, Juvenile Probation Officers were asked to rate

how much time they had for each of the 21 tasks on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being

“almost never” and 5 being “almost always.” An average rating of “3.0” or greater

indicates that Juvenile Probation Officers have adequate time to perform the specified

tasks, indicating an adequate level of staffing to complete the listed tasks.

Figure 10 presents the average scores for each of question category. An

average score of 3 or higher typically indicates that survey respondents feel they have

an adequate amount of time to satisfactorily engage in the work represented by each

question. Figure 10 indicates that, in every category, average scores are just below the

threshold of three, suggesting that the survey respondents are slightly less than satisfied

with the amount of time they have to do their work.

The case weights for each case type were reviewed by the Advisory Committee

to determine if any qualitative adjustments were necessary. In this review process, the

Advisory Committee discussed each case type and case weight, considering the work



expectations and the adequacy of time survey data. Upon this lengthy review and

discussion, a few adjustments were made to the case weights calculated from the time

study data. All of these adjustments were made because it appeared time had been

entered into some categories incorrectly. A description of each change is provided in

Appendix B.

Figure 10: Juvenile Probation Officer Adequacy of Time Survey Scores

Dependency Cases AVG

Intake 2.79

CHINS/Delinquency Cases

Intake 2.76

Pre-Disposition 2.67

Supervision 2.35

Other (Adult/Civil) Cases

All Processes 2.93

Specialty Courts

Gun Court 3.00

Mental Health Court 2.65

Truancy Court 2.68

Drug Court 2.63

Teen Court 2.71

Other Specialty Court 2.69

Non-Case Specific Activities

Education and Training 2.70

Community Activities & Speaking 2.72

Committee/Work Related Meetings 2.64

Travel (Work Related) 2.74

Vacation/Illness/Unpaid Leave 2.79

General Research/Keeping Current 2.47

Non Case Related Administration 2.61

Court Time 2.72

NCSC Time Study Project 2.77

Other 2.63

Alabama JPO Workforce Adequacy

of Time Survey



VI. Juvenile Probation Officer Workload Calculation and Resource Needs

Once the JPO year value and the case weights have been established, the

calculation of Juvenile Probation Officers needed to manage the workload of the

Alabama probation system is completed. Juvenile Probation Officer case related

demand is calculated by dividing the JPO workload value (the annual number of minutes

of work required based on caseload and case weights) by the JPO year value. The

resulting number represents the JPO case-related full time equivalents (FTE) needed to

manage the work of the probation system in Alabama. Figure 11 displays the steps

taken to compute Juvenile Probation Officer demand.

Figure 11: Calculation of Total Needs

Step 1 For Each Case Type: Case Weight x New Cases = Workload

Step 2

For Each Case Type: Sum individual case type workloads to obtain the total workload for each County (total minutes of work expected)

Step 3

For Each County: Divide the total workload by the JPO year value (case related minutes) to obtain JPO resource needs

Applying the case weights to the expected number of new cases in each

category produces the overall JPO case-related workload for each county. The case-

related workload value for the state is 20,230,671 minutes, based on FY 2008 new

cases.14 The number of JPO resources needed to process the workload in each county

is calculated by multiplying the number of new cases by each case weight. The result is

the number of JPOs required to process the workload of each county.

Probation Officer FTE Needs Estimated by the Model

Based on FY 2008 new cases, the JPO workload assessment model estimates

that overall the state needs 29.3 additional JPO FTE to manage the probation workload

(see Figure 12). It is important to note that this needs assessment study focused only

14

This does not include the workload for Jefferson and Shelby Counties.



on JPO work, and as such only reflects JPO FTE needs. Therefore, the FTE need does

not take into account any additional support staff in the Juvenile Probation Offices, such

as ASAs, JCC Coordinators, etc.

Figure 12: Alabama JPO Resource Needs Model

Case Type

Case Weight in

Minutes

TOTAL

FILINGS

STATEWIDE

Dependency 58 8,839

CHINS/Delinquency - Intake 88 43,488

CHINS/Delinquency - Pre Disposition 211 11,143

CHINS/Delinquency: Early Warning 50 5,364

CHINS/Delinquency: Informal Adjustment 141 2,981

CHINS/Delinquency: Consent Decree 189 4,199

CHINS/Delinquency: Probation 645 15,086

CHINS/Delinquency: Aftercare 765 864

CHINS/Delinquency: In Placement 765 1,161

Other (Adult/Civil) 103 7,555

Total 100,680

Case-Specific Workload (Weights x Filings) 20,230,671

Staff Average Minutes Available (220.35 days @ 7.5 hours) 99,158

Non case specific time (63 minutes/day) 13,882

Work related travel (statewide average)* 1,829

Availability for Case-Specific Workload 83,447

JPO Resource Need Calculation 0.0

FTE Positions 257.0

FTE Demand (Need) 241.8

Overall Staffing Need: over (-)/under (+) -15.2

Adjusted Staffing Need (for counties showing need only) 29.3

*For counties reporting no travel time, the statew ide average w as not used.

Qualitative Factors Affecting the Determination of Judicial Resources

Qualitative factors also can affect JPO resource needs, and these should be

considered when determining a state’s resource needs. There can be local differences

that result in some case types taking longer in some counties within a single state; and

this is especially true in a state like Alabama, where statewide standard for investigation

and supervision do not exist. The size of a county can also have an impact on case

management responsibilities. While we tried to build in travel time by using the



statewide average, we may have still underestimated the impact travel has on case

management abilities. Additionally, when large counties require the use of satellite

offices, it might be necessary to maintain a full time JPO in one office even if the

caseload demands do not require it. Another qualitative factor to consider is that larger

counties might have the benefit of specialization within case types, allowing some

economies of scale.15

This model should be only one factor in the consideration of resource needs.

The issues identified above and any other issues that are particularly relevant to

Alabama should be considered when using this model to determine resource needs.

VII. Keeping the Workload Assessment Model Current and Future Use of the Model

This report presents the findings from the workload analysis performed by the

NCSC for Alabama Juvenile Probation Officers. In the absence of any significant

changes in case management, organizational structure or legislation in the Alabama

Juvenile Courts, the case weights developed during the course of this study should be

accurate for several years. However, periodic updating, like that conducted here, is

necessary to ensure that the case weights continue to accurately represent JPO

workload. Increased efficiency, statutory or procedural changes, or implementation of

various case management initiatives over time may result in significant changes in case

processing.

The workload assessment models are tools that can be used effectively in

Juvenile Probation Officer resource management. The 2008 new case data were used

to validate the model, and indicate the JPO resource needs for that year of new cases.

The standards should be applied to new cases (or projected new cases) for successive

years to determine Juvenile Probation Officer needs in the future. The real power of the

models lies in their applicability in predicting future JPO resource needs with caseload

projection analysis.

15

Specialization could also increase the amount of time an officer spends on certain kinds of cases. For example, if a county designated an officer to supervise a special mental health court caseload, the special demands of this case type could be greater than the case weight indicated for regular probation supervision.



APPENDICES



APPENDIX A: ALABAMA JPO CASE TYPE AND ACTIVITY CATEGORIES

CASE SPECIFC CATEGORY & PROCESS

For each investigation or supervision case type, you will also select a level and activity. The on-line data entry tool limits the options under level and activity based upon the type selected.

CASE SPECIFIC CATEGORY

DEFINITION

Dependency Cases Child who is in need of care or supervision and who has been abused and/or neglected.

CHINS Cases Child who commits an offense that would not be an offense if committed by an adult such as truancy, beyond control, runaway, curfew, minor possession of alcohol, etc.

Delinquency Cases Child charged with committing a criminal act as defined by legal statute.

Other (Adult/Civil) Cases All work done on “other” cases will be recorded under this category.

Specialty Courts All work done on specialty court cases will be recorded in the category of the specific case type. No separate processes (such as in court or office visit) will be identified.



CASE-SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES

DEPENDENCY CASES INTAKE

Out of court activities – receive/examine dependency complaints, preliminary inquiry, file petition, file appropriate paperwork, data entry

CHINS/DELINQUENCY CASES INTAKE

Complaint activities – receive/examine complaints, preliminary inquiry, informal adjustment decisions, file appropriate paperwork, data entry

Case related activities– casefile management, making copies of received reports

PRE-DISPOSITION ACTIVITIES (CHINS/Delinquency Cases)

Report development activities– develop reports, complete forms, make appointments, arrange transportation for evaluations, notify family/legal guardian and detention facilities

In court activities– testify, presentation of information developed relative to pre-disposition report

Other activities– copies, complete applications, disseminate info to appropriate parties, attend related meetings

SUPERVISION (CHINS/Delinquency Cases) Record all supervision activities based on type of case:

Informal adjustment– monitor progress, casefile management, attend related meetings, visit child

Consent decree– monitor progress, casefile management, attend related meetings, monitor payment history, visit child

Probation–monitor court ordered terms, casefile management, attend related meetings, monitor payment history, visit child

In placement-monitor placement progress, casefile management, attend related meetings, visit child

Aftercare– monitor court ordered terms, casefile management, attend related meetings, monitor payment history, visit child

Early warning (handled under supervision) – monitor school attendance, converse with school personnel, visit child

OTHER (ADULT/CIVIL) CASES

Record all work associated with “other” cases, including those adult cases being supervised for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, etc., in this category. For this case category, no separate processes have been identified for recording purposes.



NON CASE-SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES

Activities that do not relate to the processing of an active case but must be done by probation officers are defined as non case-related activities. The key distinction between case-related and the non case-related activities is whether the activity can be tied to a specific case.

Non-Case Specific Activities Definition

Education and Training This time will be accounted for in the “probation year value,” but we ask participants to enter time dedicated to this activity during the time study so it does not get double counted in the analysis.

Community Activities, Speaking Engagements Any work done under this category that is conducted in the official capacity of a JPO.

Committee/Work Related Meetings All committee-related work, work-related meetings and any work that stems from either.

Travel (work related)

Includes client related, meeting related, training related (any reimbursable travel)

Vacation/Illness/Unpaid Leave This time will be accounted for in the “probation year value,” but we ask participants to enter time dedicated to this activity during the time study so it does not get double counted in the analysis.

General Research/Keeping Current Any professional reading or research conducted related to your work as a JPO.

Non Case Related Administration

Includes contacts with referral agencies, completing time sheets, and other paper-work type job requirements.

Court time Only record time here if you spend time in court to generally be on call to the judge (not for specific intake, report or supervision activities)

Time Study Project Time spent recording and entering time study data.

Other Any non-case specific activity not included in any other category.



APPENDIX B: CASE WEIGHT ADJUSTMENTS AND RATIONALE

The table below describes, for the five case types for which adjustments were made, the nature of the adjustment and the rationale. Weights for case types not denoted in this table were not adjusted.

Case Type Rationale for Change Original Case

Weight

Final Case

Weight

Dependency There should be no in-court or administrative work associated with dependency cases, based on statute. Therefore, time recorded for in-court activity (37 minutes) and administrative work (52 minutes) were deducted from the original case weight.

147 58

CHINS/Delinquency – Intake

The committee agreed that time associated with “early warning” cases and “other activities” should not be included in time associated with this case type. Therefore time recorded for these events (14 minutes and 30 minutes, respectively) were deducted from the original case weight.

132 88

CHINS/Delinquency – Predisposition Report

The committee agreed that only report development and in-court activities should be included in this case weight. A total of 89 minutes associated with “other activities” was removed from the original case weight.

300 211

CHINS/Delinquency: Early Warning

The committee agreed that all work associated with early warning cases should be incorporated into this case type in only one location. The committee made the assumption that time was recorded in both the CHINS/Delinquency intake category and the early warning category, so the time associated with the former (14 minutes) was deducted from the original case weight of 64.

64 50

Aftercare and In-Placement – Joined into Aftercare

Time for aftercare and in-placement cases was recorded separately during the time study. The committee agreed it would be best to combine these as one case type for purposes of modeling. Therefore, the time was re-computed and the newly computed case weight for the combined category is 765.

960 765



APPENDIX C: STATEWIDE JPO RESOURCE NEED MODEL

Case Type Case Weight in Minutes Autauga Baldwin Barbour Bibb Blount Bullock Butler

Dependency 58 150 108 31 204 178 21 12

CHINS/Delinquency - Intake 88 438 1,594 214 301 513 51 54

CHINS/Delinquency - Pre Disposition 211 11 176 55 440 0 0 0

CHINS/Delinquency: Early Warning 50 1 0 0 2 243 0 0

CHINS/Delinquency: Informal Adjustment 141 21 115 0 11 5 0 1

CHINS/Delinquency: Consent Decree 189 59 294 26 54 34 0 0

CHINS/Delinquency: Probation 645 156 739 127 121 119 40 22

CHINS/Delinquency: Aftercare 765 5 82 15 1 0 0 0

CHINS/Delinquency: In Placement 765 20 124 25 21 8 3 0

Other (Adult/Civil) 103 219 628 28 16 17 0 99

Total 1,080 3,860 521 1,171 1,117 115 188

Case-Specific Workload (Weights x Filings) 206,029 954,382 152,548 239,540 159,375 33,801 29,976

Staff Average Minutes Available (220.35 days @ 7.5 hours) 99,158 99,158 99,158 99,158 99,158 99,158 99,158

Non case specific time (63 minutes/day) 13,882 13,882 13,882 13,882 13,882 13,882 13,882

Work related travel (statewide average)* 1,829 1,829 0 1,829 1,829 0 0

Availability for Case-Specific Workload 83,447 83,447 85,275 83,447 83,447 85,275 85,275

JPO Resource Need Calculation

FTE Positions 3.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0

FTE Demand (Need) 2.5 11.4 1.8 2.9 1.9 0.4 0.4

Overall Staffing Need: over (-)/under (+) -0.5 4.4 -0.2 0.9 -1.1 -0.6 -1.6

Adjusted Staffing Need (for counties showing need only) 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 *For counties reporting no travel time, the statewide average was not used.



Case Type Case Weight in Minutes Calhoun Chambers Cherokee Chilton Choctaw Clarke Clay

Dependency 58 341 43 54 111 3 15 10

CHINS/Delinquency - Intake 88 1,126 402 541 229 79 191 87









Total 3,046 822 1,167 616 158 410 297




Work related travel (statewide average)* 1,829 1,829 1,829 1,829 0 1,829 1,829



FTE Positions 7.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

FTE Demand (Need) 7.0 2.5 1.7 1.5 0.6 1.3 0.9

Overall Staffing Need: over (-)/under (+) -0.5 0.5 -0.3 -1.5 -0.4 -0.7 -0.1




Case Type Case Weight in Minutes Cleburne Coffee Colbert Conecuh Coosa Covington Crenshaw

Dependency 58 70 161 16 57 19 0 3

CHINS/Delinquency - Intake 88 122 825 400 62 103 596 93









Total 315 1,656 798 297 241 1,346 337




Work related travel (statewide average)* 1,829 1,829 0 1,829 0 0 0



FTE Positions 1.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0

FTE Demand (Need) 0.5 3.0 1.7 0.7 0.8 3.1 0.9

Overall Staffing Need: over (-)/under (+) -0.5 -1.0 -1.3 -0.3 -0.2 0.1 -0.1




Case Type Case Weight in Minutes Cullman Dale Dallas DeKalb Elmore Escambia

Dependency 58 202 12 86 167 25 85

CHINS/Delinquency - Intake 88 839 630 669 702 642 362

CHINS/Delinquency - Pre Disposition 211 0 44 253 0 330 44

CHINS/Delinquency: Early Warning 50 231 9 36 249 2 0

CHINS/Delinquency: Informal Adjustment 141 64 152 15 0 31 54

CHINS/Delinquency: Consent Decree 189 35 61 95 76 145 78

CHINS/Delinquency: Probation 645 164 276 275 156 272 85

CHINS/Delinquency: Aftercare 765 10 21 24 5 0 0

CHINS/Delinquency: In Placement 765 10 10 40 3 3 6

Other (Adult/Civil) 103 195 450 235 117 265 76

Total 1,750 1,665 1,728 1,475 1,715 790

Case-Specific Workload (Weights x Filings) 253,902 346,916 389,653 217,067 364,482 135,669

Staff Average Minutes Available (220.35 days @ 7.5 hours) 99,158 99,158 99,158 99,158 99,158 99,158

Non case specific time (63 minutes/day) 13,882 13,882 13,882 13,882 13,882 13,882

Work related travel (statewide average)* 1,829 1,829 1,829 1,829 1,829 1,829

Availability for Case-Specific Workload 83,447 83,447 83,447 83,447 83,447 83,447


FTE Positions 6.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0

FTE Demand (Need) 3.0 4.2 4.7 2.6 4.4 1.6

Overall Staffing Need: over (-)/under (+) -3.0 0.2 0.7 -0.4 0.4 -1.4

Adjusted Staffing Need (for counties showing need only) 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 *For counties reporting no travel time, the statewide average was not used.



Case Type Case Weight in Minutes Etowah Fayette Franklin Geneva Greene Hale Henry

Dependency 58 167 52 5 39 7 31 93

CHINS/Delinquency - Intake 88 638 178 230 393 227 123 135









Total 1,468 441 736 1,073 473 238 730




Work related travel (statewide average)* 1,829 0 1,829 1,829 1,829 1,829 1,829



FTE Positions 5.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0

FTE Demand (Need) 3.9 1.2 2.7 2.5 0.8 0.6 1.7

Overall Staffing Need: over (-)/under (+) -1.1 0.2 0.7 -0.5 -0.2 -1.4 -0.3




Case Type Case Weight in Minutes Henry Houston Jackson

Jefferson - Birmingham

Jefferson -

Bessemer Lamar Lauderdale Lawrence

Dependency 58 93 249 154 29 220 17

CHINS/Delinquency - Intake 88 135 1,514 478 200 1,042 542









Total 730 3,256 1,083 351 2,570 1,054

Case-Specific Workload (Weights x Filings) 145,516 623,997 271,745 0 0 63,782 468,257 227,015



Work related travel (statewide average)* 1,829 1,829 1,829 NA NA 0 1,829 0

Availability for Case-Specific Workload 83,447 83,447 83,447 0 0 85,275 83,447 85,275


FTE Positions 2.0 8.5 3.0 NA NA 2.0 6.0 4.0

FTE Demand (Need) 1.7 7.5 3.3 NA NA 0.7 5.6 2.7

Overall Staffing Need: over (-)/under (+) -0.3 -1.0 0.3 NA NA -1.3 -0.4 -1.3

Adjusted Staffing Need (for counties showing need only) 0.0 0.0 0.3 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 *For counties reporting no travel time, the statewide average was not used.



Case Type Case Weight in Minutes Lee Limestone Lowndes Macon

Madison (Huntsville) Marengo Marion

Dependency 58 504 128 29 9 327 35 21

CHINS/Delinquency - Intake 88 1,383 441 87 213 3,214 361 305









Total 3,368 1,449 215 373 5,902 959 932

Case-Specific Workload (Weights x Filings) 721,661 259,783 35,071 74,622 1,182,148 211,855 208,446



Work related travel (statewide average)* 1,829 1,829 1,829 0 1,829 1,829 1,829



FTE Positions 6.5 4.0 1.0 3.0 16.0 3.0 1.0

FTE Demand (Need) 8.6 3.1 0.4 0.9 14.2 2.5 2.5

Overall Staffing Need: over (-)/under (+) 2.1 -0.9 -0.6 -2.1 -1.8 -0.5 1.5




Case Type Case Weight in Minutes Marshall Mobile Monroe Montgomery Morgan Perry Pickens

Dependency 58 490 1,211 45 841 93 17 44

CHINS/Delinquency - Intake 88 1,817 5,796 332 1,932 1,987 40 183

CHINS/Delinquency - Pre Disposition 211 572 1,364 220 374 385 33 110


CHINS/Delinquency: Informal Adjustment 141 14 1,263 1 4 3 0 8


CHINS/Delinquency: Probation 645 598 2,397 96 808 598 8 106




Total 4,384 12,748 733 4,632 3,928 115 489

Case-Specific Workload (Weights x Filings) 825,192 2,744,793 160,768 1,010,777 746,678 24,854 124,718



Work related travel (statewide average)* 1,829 1,829 0 1,829 1,829 0 1,829



FTE Positions 4.5 31.0 1.0 21.0 7.5 1.0 2.0

FTE Demand (Need) 9.9 32.9 1.9 12.1 8.9 0.3 1.5

Overall Staffing Need: over (-)/under (+) 5.4 1.9 0.9 -8.9 1.4 -0.7 -0.5




Case Type Case Weight in Minutes Pike Randolph Russell Shelby St. Clair Sumter Talladega

Dependency 58 36 37 426 96 3 383

CHINS/Delinquency - Intake 88 424 123 619 1,431 74 903









Total 1,414 326 1,779 3,285 313 2,691

Case-Specific Workload (Weights x Filings) 316,639 96,096 275,536 0 540,879 38,898 479,450



Work related travel (statewide average)* 1,829 1,829 1,829 NA 0 1,829 1,829

Availability for Case-Specific Workload 83,447 83,447 83,447 #VALUE! 85,275 83,447 83,447


FTE Positions 3.0 2.0 4.0 NA 3.5 1.0 3.0

FTE Demand (Need) 3.8 1.2 3.3 NA 6.3 0.5 5.7

Overall Staffing Need: over (-)/under (+) 0.8 -0.8 -0.7 NA 2.8 -0.5 2.7

Adjusted Staffing Need (for counties showing need only) 0.8 0.0 0.0 NA 2.8 0.0 2.7 *For counties reporting no travel time, the statewide average was not used.



Case Type Case Weight in Minutes Tallapoosa Tuscaloosa Walker Washington Wilcox Winston

TOTAL FILINGS

STATEWIDE

Dependency 58 2 654 92 28 41 0 8,839

CHINS/Delinquency - Intake 88 705 2,300 873 70 152 158 43,488

CHINS/Delinquency - Pre Disposition 211 0 88 165 0 0 0 11,143

CHINS/Delinquency: Early Warning 50 0 76 322 0 3 25 5,364

CHINS/Delinquency: Informal Adjustment 141 1 97 2 1 5 12 2,981

CHINS/Delinquency: Consent Decree 189 202 243 2 0 7 0 4,199

CHINS/Delinquency: Probation 645 345 598 300 22 72 61 15,086


CHINS/Delinquency: In Placement 765 12 15 15 2 0 2 1,161

Other (Adult/Civil) 103 106 257 201 0 2 46 7,555

Total 1,410 4,371 2,001 123 282 304 100,680

Case-Specific Workload (Weights x Filings) 371,403 778,855 381,598 23,645 64,578 62,459 20,230,671



Work related travel (statewide average)* 0 1,829 1,829 0 1,829 1,829 1,829



FTE Positions 3.0 10.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 257.0

FTE Demand (Need) 4.4 9.3 4.6 0.3 0.8 0.7 241.8

Overall Staffing Need: over (-)/under (+) 1.4 -0.7 -0.4 -0.7 -0.2 -1.3 -15.2

Adjusted Staffing Need (for counties showing need only) 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.3

*For counties reporting no travel time, the statewide average was not used.



Bibliography

Bemus, Brian, Gary Arling and Peter Quigley. (1983) Workload Measures for Probation

and Parole, Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections

Burrell, William (2006) Caseload Standards for Probation and Parole, Perspectives,

Lexington, KY.

Douglas, John. (2007) Examination of NCSC Workload Assessment Projects and

Methodology: 1996-2006, March 2007, National Center for State Courts, Denver,

Colorado.

Alabama Juvenile Probation Officers Weighted Workload ...

Documents

Transcript of Alabama Juvenile Probation Officers Weighted Workload ...