Detailed Information on the
District of Columbia: Community Supervision Program Assessment

Administration will continue to develop meaningful baseline measures and ambitious targets for key CSP performance measures.

Measure: Rearrest rate - Percentage of supervised offenders rearrested during the measurement period.

Explanation:Percentage of supervised offenders rearrested during the measurement period. (data reflect all offender categories.)

Measure: Technical violations

Explanation:Offenders receiving three or more tehcnical violations within the reporting period.

Measure: Drug Use

Explanation:Percentage of eligible offenders testing positive during reporting period.

Measure: Employment/Job Retention

Explanation:Percentage of offenders under supervision employed during reporting period and increased job retention period.

Measure: Education Levels

Explanation:Increased education levels among offenders placed in programming.

Measure: Recidivism

Explanation:Reduction in recidivism among violent and drug offenders under supervision.

Measure: Drug testing - Percentage of offenders on active supervision who are drug tested at least monthly.

Explanation:Al l eligible offenders on active supervision are drug tested at least monthly.

Measure: Treatment program completion - Percentage of offenders placed in contract treatment programs who satisfactorily complete the program.

Explanation:Offenders placed in contract treatment programs satisfactorily complete the program.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency's Community Supervision Program (CSP) provides supervision and support services for probationers, parolees, and offenders on supervised release sentenced by the District of Columbia (D.C.) Superior Court, as well as providing pre-sentence investigations to the court.

Evidence: National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33, Chapter 3), CSOSA Mission Statement (contained in Strategic Plan, FY 2000 - FY 2005).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: CSOSA was established as part of a Federal effort to relieve D.C. of several criminal justice functions. CSOSA supervises approximately 14,000 offenders at any given time. These offenders must be appropriately managed to safeguard the public and treated to decrease the probability of reoffense.

Evidence: CSOSA Strategic Plan, FY 2000-FY 2005; Community Supervision Program Case Management Activity Report, March 2004

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: CSP is the sole provider of community supervision for offenders sentenced under the D.C. Code. CSOSA has also developed additional service capacity in some areas (e.g., drug treatment) where services are available to D.C. residents through local programs but sufficient capacity does not exist to provide services to offenders.

Evidence: Certification Report, July 2000; FY 2005 budget request (CSF 3, "Treatment and Support Services")

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: From its inception, CSP focused on proven strategies: risk assessment-based classification combined with needs assessment; close supervision combined with graduated sanctions for non-compliance; drug testing and treatment; and community-based partnerships. These four basic operational strategies form the basis for CSP's program model and the foundation of its performance measurement system.

Evidence: CSOSA Strategic Plan; "The Underlying Philosophy Behind 'What Works'" (summary paper)

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: CSP has based its program on reliable risk and needs assessment ("The Screener"). Initial risk screening results determines the frequency of a defendant's contact with his/her supervision officer. The Screener is also used to predict the likelihood of rearrest, assess the offender's functional needs in 15 specific areas, and develop a prescriptive supervision plan.

Evidence: Auto Screener draft screen shots; Addiction Severity Index instrument

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: CSP has five intermediate outcome measures that reflect the purpose of the program: decrease in rearrest; decrease in drug use; decrease in multiple technical violations; increase in employment and job retention; and increase in education levels. These five outcome measures support CSP's single long-term outcome measure: reduction in recidivism among violent and drug offenders under CSP supervision.

Evidence: CSOSA Strategic Plan, CSP FY 2005 Performance Plan and Report, 2005-2010 Strategic Plan

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The process of establishing targets and timeframes for both intermediate and long-term outcome measures has been incremental. CSP does not have reliable baseline data for its long term outcome and thus cannot measure progress toward that target.

Evidence:  

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: CSP has 17 intermediate performance measures. These measures have been refined and revised through the initial strategic planning period, as data availability improved and programs were fully implemented. CSP is currently revising the measures based on the capabilities of its automated case management system.

Evidence: FY 2005 Performance Plan and Report

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Of the 17 performance measures, baselines and targets have been established for six. For the remaining measures, data problems have prevented the establishment of reliable baselines. CSP is revisiting the measures to assess their viability given their current data capability. CSP intends to develop baselines and targets for all measures selected during 2005.

Evidence:  

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: CSP's partners include government and contract service providers, the Pretrial Services Agency, and other criminal justice agencies. CSP and its partners collaborate through the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council on a variety of initiatives. CSP's contracted service providers are subject to annual performance reviews to ensure that services are provided in accordance with both CSP and national standards.

Evidence: Index of active Memorandi Of Understanding; contractor quality assurance instrument.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Only three CSP program components have been evaluated independently: presentence investigations, the Assessment and Orientation Center program, and the "Screener." CSP established an Office of Research and Evaluation in 2002 which is currently developing an agency-wide evaluation plan that features independent, external studies.

Evidence:  

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: CSP currently organizes its budget requests and performance measures around the four Critical Success Factors (CSFs) that represent the agency's primary operating strategies. CSP is working to establish long term goals and better align performance targets with resource allocation and requests.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Since the implementation of its automated case management system, Supervision Management and Automated Record Tracking (SMART), in 2002, CSP has made significant progress in its ability to conduct meaningful performance measurement. Establishing and staffing an Office of Research and Evaluation have also enabled CSP to set priorities and begin designing protocols for more rigorous performance measurement and evaluation.

Evidence: FY 2005 Performance Plan and Report

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: CSP uses the SMART program to regularly create reports used to manage the program and improve performance. For example, regular caseload reports are used to ensure that supervision offices are deployed to maintain the optimum caseload. Also, CSP routinely collects and uses data from partner agencies, as outlined in MOUs.

Evidence: Sample caseload report, sample rearrest report, sample RAV compliance report, sample U.S. Attorney's release memo, sample Public Law Statistical Report, SMART Note #54 (RAV Preparation)

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: CSP evaluates the performance of all staff involved in supervision using a system that ties job responsibilities and tasks to the agency's Critical Success Factors. Managers are evaluated according to performance contracts containing specific targets to improve performance on key output measures. Also, CSP's treatment providers are subject to quality assurance reviews.

Evidence: General Supervision CSO Evaluation Instrument; sample performance contract for Community Supervision Services; Quality Assurance audit form; treatment outcome data form

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: CSP obligates funds for authorized purposes within appropriated amounts apportioned by the Office of Management and Budget. CSP's obligation authority pertains to the supervision and provision of related services to adult offenders under our purview. The CSP purchase process provides funds availability and appropriateness controls for all obligations. For FY 2003, CSP had obligated 99.8% of its annual appropriated funding by the end of the fiscal year.

Evidence: Funds Control Policy; unqualified independent audit opinions, October 1997 thorugh FY 2003.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: In designing and deploying its automated case management system, SMART, CSP has implemented a number of IT improvements that increase the efficiency and cost effectiveness of program execution. Recent enhancements have also increased the efficiency of treatment referral processing, as well as the obligation of treatment funds and de-obligation of those funds if the offender is a "no-show." These processes now occur in close to "real time," compared to a previous delay of up to two weeks while paperwork was processed and transmitted.

Evidence: SMART Operating Manual

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: CSP partners with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), training MPD recruits, presenting high-risk cases within each Police Service Area, and conducting joint field visits. CSP also maintain an active presence in the community through Community Justice Action Networks, which are active in each police district. CSP's success at establishing effective partnerships led to a leading role in the District's Comprehensive Reentry Strategy for Adults which included the Office of the Mayor; the Corrections Trustee; DC Prisoners Legal Services Project; the DC Department of Corrections; the DC Department of Mental Health; and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Evidence: 2005 Performance Plan and Report; sample letters of support; Comprensive Reentry Strategy final report

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: CSOSA's Funds Control Policy requires an annual audit of its budgetary financial statement. An independent auditing firm has conducted four independent audits of CSOSA's Statement of Budgetary Resources. In each audit, no material waknesses were identified, and CSOSA received unqualified opinions. Beginning with FY 2004, the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-289) requires CSOSA to submit comprehensive annual audited financial statements to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget(OMB). CSOSA will prepare and audit its first set of comprehensive statements in FY 2004.

Evidence: Funds Control Policy; unqualified independent audit opinions, October 1997 thorugh FY 2003.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: CSP has undertaken a number of initaitives to improve program management and increase the quality and use of performance data. For example,The Standards and Compliance Unit, recently relocated to the Office of the Director, conducts performance audits, develops operating procedures, and undertakes special projects to review compliance with key policies.

Evidence: SMART data quality report; Standards and Compliance Unit functional statement; sample performance contract for Community Supervision Services

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: CSP has not demonstrated progress toward its long-term performance goal of reducing recidivism among violent and drug offenders by 50 percent. This is primarily because data was not available to establish a baseline recidivism rate. CSP is working towards establishing baseline data for this outcome measure.

Evidence:  

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: CSP has met or exceeded its annual performance goal for 5 of 17 measures.

Evidence: FY 2005 Performance Plan and Report

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: CSP's computerized case managements system, SMART, has increased operational efficiency significantly by automating the case record system and increasing officers' access to drug testing data, eliminating the need to do separate computer searches or to submit a request for that data. CSP intends to establish efficiency measures once their baseline data is reliable.

Evidence: SMART users' manual

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: CSP's program compares favorably to other, similar programs in several areas: CSP's average caseload of approximately 50 active cases per officer, as opposed to 105 in Maryland, ensures that meaningful supervision can occur ; CSP uses the preferred approach supported by research (combining diligent surveillance drug testing with sanctions and treatment).

Evidence: Information on caseloads and "Proactive Community Supervision" in Maryland obtained through state agency web sites.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Although independent evaluation has concluded that CSOSA's Assessment and Orientation Center program is effective, the study only represents one aspect of the total supervision program. The Office of Research and Evaluation is currently developing a comprehemsive evaluation plan for CSP.

Evidence: