Technical Assistance Report
Marion County, Indiana

Funded by the National Institute of Corrections
Technical Assistance No. 07C2029

Mark Carey
Barbara Chatzkel
Mike Brown

July 2007

Disclaimer

RE:

NIC Technical Assistance No. 07C2029

This technical assistance activity was funded by the Community Corrections
Division of the National Institute of Corrections. The Institute is a Federal agency
established to provide assistance to strengthen state and local correctional
agencies by creating more effective, human, safe and just correctional services.
The resource persons who provided the on site technical assistance did so
through a cooperative agreement, at the request of the Marion County Justice
Agency, and through the coordination of the national Institute of Corrections.
The direct onsite assistance and the subsequent report are intended to assist the
agency in addressing issues outlined in the original request and in efforts t
enhance the effectiveness of the agency.
The contents of this document reflect the views of Mr. Mark Carey, Ms. Barbara
Chatzkel and Mr. Mike Brown. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the national Institute of Corrections.

NIC TA No. 07C2029

2

NIC Technical Assistance Request No. 07C2029
Marion County
Background
In May 2007, the Chairs of the Marion County (Indiana) Criminal Justice Planning
Council and the Marion County (Indiana) Community Corrections Board
requested that the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) provide technical
assistance in preparing for and implementing a programmatic audit of Marion
County Community Corrections. They requested assistance in conducitng:
1. an overall review of the mission and goals of the Marion County
Community Corrections program
2. an assessment of the individual components of the program to determine
if the program and its components meet the goals and objectives of IC 1112-1 et seq and the governing sections of the Indianan Administrative
Code, and
3. work to determine how to best coordinate the operations of Marion County
Community Corrections with other programs and initiatives of the Marion
County justice system
In June 2007, NIC issued technical assistance authorizations to Mark Carey,
Barbara Chatzkel, and Mike Brown as members of The Carey Group to assist in
conducting a gap analysis and stakeholder interviews in preparation for a
broader strategic planning effort.
A two-day on site technical assistance visitation was conducted on July 2 and 3,
2007 by Mark Carey, Barbara Chatzkel and Mike Brown. Their goals for the
session were to interview justice system stakeholders in order to identify
strengths in program delivery as well as gaps in the provision of offender
services.
Attachment A, List of Justice Systems Stakeholders Interviewed, lists the justice
system stakeholders and titles that we met with, while Attachment B, Interview
Questions, is the list of questions asked of each of the stakeholders.
The team’s observations and recommendations are outlined in the remainder of
the report.
Indianapolis, the major city in Marion County, is the thirteenth largest city in the
United States. The city and county work hard to meet the challenges of providing
their residents with quality services and public safety.

NIC TA No. 07C2029

3

The County has just completed 30 years of federal oversight in dealing with jail
overcrowding. It has been a recurrent issue, consuming the attention of policy
makers and justice system personnel (with one interviewee describing it as the
longest federal oversight project in the nation’s history). It provoked an extensive
amount of planning and affected many agencies including Community
Corrections. The County currently operates two separate jail facilities. The first
facility, run by Sheriff employees, houses 1035 males and females. The second
facility, run under contract to the Sheriff by CCA, houses 1212 males.
In the recent past, as a part of a countywide initiative, Community Corrections
switched its risk/needs assessment too from the LSI-R to Compas. The switch
was a result of training issues, the need for extensive quality assurance, and the
requirement for trainers to be certified.
Within Community Corrections, there is a total of 75 full time equivalent (FTE)
staff. Based on data provided by Community Corrections, the $9,602,898 budget
is comprised of the following allocations:
State Grant
User Fees
County General
County Misdemeanant Fund
Pre Trial Fund
Criminal Justice Institute Fund

$
$
$
$
$
$

3,488,171
3,527,642
2,074,042
196,638
271,188
45,217

TOTAL

$

9,602.898

Most of the budget is allocated to vendor-run programs and facilities. A rough
estimate is that 70 FTE and $3 million is contract-related expenditures.
The Community Corrections agency fulfills a critical role in diverting offenders
from incarceration, both locally and at the state. Its mission statement is as
follows:
Marion County Community Corrections shall coordinate the County’s efforts to
divert defendants from incarceration and reintegrate them into the Community by
creating opportunities to modify behavior with appropriate supervision and
evidence based practices. These efforts are provided with respect for all
individuals while being mindful of public safety.
Its primary services include:
• Work release (pre- and post-trial) which will be transferred to the
Duvall Residential Center later in 2007
• Craine House Family Living Program (residential program for female
offenders with children)
• Independent Residential Program

NIC TA No. 07C2029

4

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Day Reporting Center (a multi-phase program that includes electronic
monitoring, supervision, and programming)
Daily Reporting (a less restrictive alternative to day reporting that
includes a kiosk)
Home Detention (including RF for adults and juveniles pre- and posttrial, a less restrictive form called Home Detention Curfew, and Home
Incarceration program for those released from jail early to reduce
overcrowding – Juvenile monitoring was recently assumed by the
Court)
GPS Monitoring
Alcohol Monitoring – SCRAM
Community Transition Program (a residential setting for those
offenders transitioning from the Indiana Department of Correction
Community Corrections Center (an alternative to jail with limited
programming)
Mental Health Program (additional supervision and services for those
offenders with an Axis 1 diagnosis of a severe and persistent mental
illness)

Community Corrections reports its caseloads for GPS as 55-60 and for RF as
125-130. With the filling of currently approved vacancies, the RF caseload
should be decreased to 95.
Recently, the Community Corrections Advisory board held a retreat to review the
mission of Community Corrections and to look at professional standards. The
agency is working on implementing some of the outcomes from that retreat.

Observations
Mission
Observation: Marion County Community Corrections has experienced an
expansion of the organization’s chartered mission, or mission creep, which
is causing internal and external questioning as to its purpose
Throughout the stakeholder interviews it was clear that the mission of Community
Corrections was generally understood to be first and foremost that of reducing
reliance on incarceration. However, most of the stakeholders also expected
Community Corrections to address behavioral change.
Community Corrections has experienced what appears to be mission creep in its
operation of what is in essence a jail (i.e., the Corrections Center) and not really
a diversion program. This has had the effect of altering the culture and mission
of the agency. This mission expansion is not necessarily a misstep in that the
County was in dire need for jail alternatives and Community Corrections took on

NIC TA No. 07C2029

5

this responsibility. While it was helpful to the County the effect has been to divert
Community Corrections’ attention from its core services (diversion and behavioral
change) especially in light of the condition of the facility and difficulty in proper
operations.
In conjunction with the Community Corrections Advisory Board, there was a
retreat that examined the mission and vision of Community Corrections.
Additional work included a SWAT analysis and the beginnings of strategic
planning. A proposed revised mission statement is being developed by staff for
consideration by the Advisory Board.

Continuum of Services
Observation: Marion County enjoys a comprehensive continuum of
intermediate sanctions within adult corrections.
Community Corrections provides a relatively diverse and complete array of
services. Figure 1, Continuum of Services, below illustrates this continuum of
services by intensity. The majority of offenders served within Community
Corrections are in home detention. While the County enjoys a wide continuum
the goal of behavioral change is only modestly being addressed when
considering total numbers of offenders served (see Direct Service Section
below). Attachment C, Staffing and Client Population by Major Programs,
summarizes staffing and client capacity as well as population (as of August 7,
2007) in the major programs.

Daily
Reporting

Home
Detention

Day Reporting Work
Release

Lowest Intensity

Correctional
Center

Highest Intensity

Figure 1, Continuum of Services
Marion County is partly managing its population through an innovative and
flexible arrangement with the courts. As a result of the court order wording,
Community Corrections is able to move clients up and down the continuum of
services without judicial review. This is an extraordinarily useful tool to manage
the population with the least amount of resources (i.e., returning to court or
modifying orders whenever an offender moves into or out of Community
Corrections programs).

NIC TA No. 07C2029

6

Community Corrections has long-term contracts with a number of service
providers. An example is Volunteers of America (VOA), whose program
incorporates evidence-based practice and charges a very low per client cost.
Community Corrections has been creative in adding daily reporting and a
rewards system including studio apartments and family passes.
Direct Service
Observation: The stakeholder confidence in Marion County Community
Corrections has been eroding due to concerns around perceived lack of
effective practices, inadequate follow through on alleged violations,
ineffective use of evidence based practices, and difficulties in the facility
and operations at the Community Corrections Center.
Several stakeholders expressed concern that the programming provided by
Community Corrections produced very little behavioral change. The exceptions
noted were the work in addiction and mental health services, cog groups in the
Correctional center, and the VOA contract. These services are provided to a
very small portion of the total Community Corrections client base. It was outside
the scope of this report to review the quantity or quality of the services provided.
However, a small sampling of cases was reviewed on July 3, 2007. The case file
review revealed little systematic approach toward criminogenic factors. The
results of the review are presented in Attachment D. Community Corrections
administration is aware of this deficiency and has expressed sincere desire to
move more deliberately in this direction. To their credit (and that of the Indiana
Department of Corrections) there is an increased emphasis on evidence based
practices. However, it cannot be stressed enough that this approach requires a
dedicated and persistent series of activities and expansion of knowledge base
and that it cannot be done if the agency is too busy putting out fires.
Community Corrections and Marion County needs to make a choice: do they
want Community Corrections to do many things partly well (and therefore, some
things not well), or do they want Community Corrections to do a selected number
of things and do them well? Based on limited on-site review and discussions, it
is our opinion that the Community Corrections is in need to retool their
programming around evidence-based practices and that this will take a concerted
and focused effort by administration. This will require that they have sufficient
control over basic operational issues (that offenders are where they are
supposed to be and that responses to violations are swift and effective).
Introducing evidence based practices will cause short-term disruption in staff
activities and such disruption will exacerbate any existing deficiencies. A plan
should be put in place to limit any short term negative side-effects of retooling the
agency. Some of the activities required under evidence based practices include:

NIC TA No. 07C2029

7

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

the consistent use of the risk/need assessment in making placement
and programming decisions;
more extensive use of cognitive behavioral programming;
identification and focus on the top four criminogenic needs through
case planning;
use of criminogenic interventions for direct line staff;
application of responsivity factors;
use of motivational engagement techniques; and
quality assurance and use of intermediate measures for improvement

A large portion of the eroding credibility of Community Corrections was reportedly
due to a real or perceived lack of accountability in home detention. There was
not time to validate this assertion within the scope of this technical assistance.
Serious problems were perceived by some stakeholders around not notifying the
proper individuals (including the victim) when violations of Home Detention by
Domestic Violence offenders occurred. Instances were related of the Community
Supervision Manager not looking for an offender once the strap was cut. The
reason given was that “we did not have good victim information” when the
information was reportedly available in the file. Community Corrections has been
meeting with stakeholders around these issues and, again to their credit, have
been making changes. Some of the stakeholders have noted that “things have
improved.” However, there was a lack of confidence that the issues have truly
been resolved and concerns expressed that they may still be happening but are
just unknown to them at this time.
A critical part of any correctional programming is that of quality assurance. There
must be processes in place to ensure that the risk/need assessment tools are
being conducted properly, that similar assessment scores are given by different
assessors, that the cognitive behavioral courses are being delivered according to
the model, that the top criminogenic needs are being met in case planning, etc.
Community Corrections acknowledged that they were in need of implementing
quality assurance mechanisms throughout the department.
Marion County Community Corrections Center (MCCCC)
Observation: Community Corrections has made improvements in the
facility and operations of the Corrections Center and more are required.
Community Corrections was appropriately given accolades and credited with a
“can do” attitude by stakeholders in their helping the overall county jail
overcrowding conditions by opening the Corrections Center. As noted
previously, however, the facility is in disrepair, and there have been contraband,
staffing, and operational issues. In January, 2007 the Indiana Department of
Corrections conducted a facility report indicating the need for a number of
structural and operational changes.

NIC TA No. 07C2029

8

The consultants conducted a site visit. It was observed that the Corrections
Center appeared to be much improved from the impression given from the
January 2007 Department of Corrections report. The facility was not crowded,
the building was clean, and the noise level was reasonable, Most of the
residents were on their bunks and no programming was provided while we were
present. The facility still needs significant work but it appeared in decent order
given the structural problems noted in the DOC report. This technical assistance
did not include a detailed review of the Center’s operations.

Communications and Coordination
Observation: Community Corrections is perceived to be communicating
and coordinating effectively with some stakeholders and is ineffective with
others
Many of the stakeholders interviewed spoke highly of the Community Corrections
services and their communication, noting that they were responsive to justice
system needs and eager to assist the County and Courts however they can.
Many noted how deferential the agency was to the courts which was both
positive (meeting their needs) and negative (not controlling the quality of services
due to system overload). Most of these positive comments came from
individuals who did not have personal, direct knowledge of the day-to-day
operations. In fact, it was observed that the further away the stakeholder was
(closer to policy but further from direct service), the more positive they felt about
Community Corrections’ services; the closer to direct service, the more critical
the stakeholder was.
Providing information to the courts and other stakeholders as to the degree to
which Community Corrections intervention is making a difference in long term
public safety would help solidify its value-add to the correctional system. This will
require not just statistics but an evaluation process to verify a causal link
between practices and outcomes.
While Community Corrections received high marks from many stakeholders, they
also were sharply criticized by those closest to the operations. Critics described
Community Corrections as disorganized and rudderless. Community Corrections
absence from recent meetings led to the comment that they were not a team
player in some joint endeavors. In addition, multiple stakeholders interviewed
cited Community Corrections’ poor relationship and coordination with both the
Department of Corrections (DOC) and Probation. This was reported by at least
two stakeholder interviews to have affected state funding and is perceived to be
creating strain at the state policy level.
The Criminal Justice Planning Council (CJPC) was created by county ordinance
283-221. Its general mission is to “identify the needs and problems of their

NIC TA No. 07C2029

9

particular offices, agencies and courts to suggest answers and help find solutions
to those needs and problems. It shall be the mission of the CJPC to study,
forecast and make recommendations to the city-county council regarding both
short-term and long-term needs of law enforcement and the criminal justice
system. The ordinance also enumerates twenty additional goals for the Council
ranging from advising agencies on improved policies to suggesting and
recommending standards for the administration of the criminal justice system.
None of these goals spoke directly to the goals of communication and
coordination.
Community Corrections Advisory Board (CCAB)
Observation: The CCAB contributes to the vitality of Community
Corrections through its quarterly meetings (e.g., review of mission,
program additions, and funding); however, it does not provide needed dayto-day operational assistance
The Community Corrections Advisory Board is functioning as their name implies,
in an advisory capacity. It is not set up as a Board of Directors where policy and
personnel issues are reviewed and operational policies endorsed. As a result, it
is somewhat removed from organizational details. This is consistent with their
set-up in that the Board meets quarterly and does not have routine, functioning
sub-committees that do work between meetings.
The Advisory Board members interviewed demonstrated a strong interest in the
success of Community Corrections and commitment toward its vision. Others
expressed a perception that it was primarily a “rubber stamping” Board with little
influence. A review of the minutes shows relatively poor attendance at the
sessions and little evidence of decisions and discussions being supported by
data or outcome measures.
The fact that the Advisory Board does not function as a Board of Directors and
meets only quarterly means that there is a strong reliance on the effectiveness of
Community Corrections leadership. The Director has been vigorous in his
pursuit of building the Community Corrections agency and in responding to the
needs of the courts and County. He has reportedly added the next tier of
management to reflect his vision for the agency.
However, currently, there is no process for conducting an annual performance
evaluation of the Director of his progress against Advisory Board approved
performance goals. Additionally, it is not clear how the Director receives work
direction on operational matters requiring corrections knowledge. The statute
states that the Director’s employment is nominated by the CCAB and approved
by the City County Council.

NIC TA No. 07C2029

10

\

Funding and Staffing
Observation: There are reportedly significant issues related to adequacy of
funding, control over intake, staff turnover, staff training, and
accountability issues
A number of issues were raised through the interviews and in the review of the
documents. All of these issues were known to Community Corrections
administration and efforts are underway to address them. They include the
following:
Turnover: There are exceptionally high turnover rates among staff within
Community Corrections. It was reported that it is not unusual for an offender to
have three or more officers handling their case over time. In 2006, a startling
64.4% of the staff turned over. In the first quarter of 2007, 14.6% have already
turned over. Salary adjustments were recently completed within the Home
Detention area. This should improve employee retention. However, staff
turnover for many reasons, salary being only one. Exit interviews are one way to
determine the cause for attrition. Many organizations are able to retain their
employees through strong vision, management, and intrinsic rewards. It is
possible that the salary adjustment will not suffice. It is strongly recommended
that this issue be addressed more fully. Research has clearly demonstrated that
recidivism reduction outcomes will not be obtained if there are high attrition rates.
Corrections is a relationship oriented business and change will not occur without
continuity.
Funding: Given the growing caseloads and the stable budgets,
Community Corrections may be under-resourced. Further work needs to be
done before we can validate that this is fact (see also the paragraph below on
proper workload size). Sometimes it is a matter of how staff is utilized and
whether efficiency measures are in place. It should also be noted that there was
some opinion that there is too heavy an emphasis on user fees, sometimes to the
detriment of the best interest of client success. Funding issues will require
further analysis.
Staffing and culture: Concern was expressed over the nature of the
existing agency culture, namely that it was overly law enforcement in its
orientation. While holding offenders accountable is a necessary part of
correctional supervision it cannot be the only focus. The research has identified
five key set of staff characteristics to be successful in behavioral change. As
such, a review of the existing culture is necessary along with a plan to ensure
that the programs are staffed by individuals who have the skills and

NIC TA No. 07C2029

11

predispositions to reduce recidivism over the long term. This is partly a
recruitment and training issue. It is also a management issue in that
management staff needs to be vigilant in reshaping behaviors and attitudes that
are inconsistent with the direction of the agency. This will not happen by chance
but require insight and persistence. Current administration efforts are supporting
this shift as, for example, even in the simple renaming of positions (from home
detention officers to community supervision managers).
Training: As the agency moves toward evidence based practices, it will be
critical that training needs be fulfilled. The areas below are categories of training
needed if behavioral change is a goal. In addition, the Community Corrections
Department was offered training on how to testify in court by the district
attorney’s office. It is recommended that these and other trainings that
demonstrate professionalism be adopted. A training plan should be put in place
that captures what is needed and what the priorities should be.
•

EBP principles (introduction)

•

Use of assessment tools

•

Core correctional practices

•

Motivational interviewing

•

Effective case management

•

Cog programming (specific to the intervention)

•

Aftercare planning/transition

•

Relapse prevention

•

Line supervisor training such as a curriculum entitled ASSiSST

Accountability measures: Just as critical are issues around accountability.
Most of the critical comments of Community Corrections were really about
accountability. Perceptions were raised about line supervisor follow through and
overall agency accountability of its staff. This requires immediate attention.
Quality assurance and fidelity: It is not enough to train staff and
implement programs. Most programs that fail to reach their intended outcomes
do so, in part, because they do not pay attention to the intermediate process
measures and quality assurance requirements. An entire curriculum is available
around fidelity for evidence based practices.

NIC TA No. 07C2029

12

Recommendations

The reader should be mindful of the limited nature of this initial report. It is a
result of a two day site visit and a review of documentation. More detailed
recommendations would be forthcoming if more information could have been
gathered over a longer period of time and by using additional processes. This
should be viewed as a preliminary, planning report that sets the stage for what
should be analyzed next and what process be used to develop specific
recommendations. It is basically a plan for a plan. The recommendations below
provide a pathway to establish concrete action steps.
Finally, the Marion County Criminal Justice Planning Council and the Marion
County Advisory Board should be applauded for initiating this request for
National Institute of Corrections’ assistance. It takes courage to ask an outsider
to review the inner workings of an agency to determine how things can be
improved. This report is not designed as an expose, but to lay out an evidencebased plan for improved services. The Community Corrections administration
and those interviewed appeared open, honest, and forthright in their opinions
which made this report much easier to complete.
It is recommended that Marion County Community Corrections complete a three
part process improvement plan described below. Some of these corrective
actions can be implements by Marion County. Others should be done by a
corrections profession(s) whose expertise is aligned with the responsibility.
Phase One: Preparation
Complete the following tasks:
1. Conduct a cultural assessment by surveying staff through the web based
Likert Organizational Climate Survey that measures key organizational
characteristics necessary to be present in order for an agency to be highly
productive and for an agency to be fully prepared to make changes toward
improved effectiveness. It takes fifteen minutes to fill out and asks the
respondents to mark on a scale of 1-20 how important certain organizational
characteristics are to them (e.g., does communication flow both upward and
downward, the degree to which ideas are listened to, etc.) Staff identifies the
degree to which each of the twenty organizational characteristics (which
represents the ideal work environment for them) should be present and then
mark on the same 1-20 point scale what actually exists. The goal is find out
how large the gaps are between ideal and what exists. If Marion County

NIC TA No. 07C2029

13

Community Corrections is going to be successful with changes it needs to
understand what the existing culture is from the staff’s perspective. The data
is compared to Community Corrections jurisdictions nationwide.
2. Complete a staff attitude/belief assessment such as one developed by
Dr. Simourd. This survey measures the relationship between staff
attitudes/beliefs and outcomes. She compiled some of the best known,
validated instruments that measure correctional staff beliefs about the work
they are in and the levels of job satisfaction, stress, and commitment. The
total survey will take about thirty minutes to complete on the web. The
specific topic areas addressed are:
a. Beliefs/Attitudes around rehabilitation
b. Beliefs/Attitudes around custody
c. Beliefs/Attitudes that address how staff approach their work
d. Attitude toward work
e. Job Satisfaction
f. Personal Growth and Challenge
g. Job Stress
h. Organizational Commitment
i. Staff turnover
3. Provide evidence based practices training for all staff in the
organization and including those under contract with Community
Corrections. This two day training consists of an overview of effective
correctional practices aimed at risk reduction and provides staff with
knowledge and an introduction to necessary skills to affect long term
behavioral change. Actual skill-based training would follow (see Phase
Three). It is recommended that the administration, management, and line
supervisor training receive a one-day training before the two day training
is provided to the direct service staff. Additional stakeholder training is
recommended at a later point.
4. Complete a final review and determination of the mission and vision
statement begun by the Advisory Board at the recent retreat. Once the
revised mission and vision statement is ready for distribution, hold
educational sessions on the changes with all levels of the organization.
On a yearly basis, review the mission statement with all staff and solicit
input.

Phase Two: Data and Information Collection
1. Complete a workload analysis (i.e., time study) of the offender
supervision positions. A workload analysis will determine what the proper
caseload size is for each of the major supervision positions and will help

NIC TA No. 07C2029

14

ensure quality of service, accountability measures, and funding
requirements for the agency. This analysis requires a quantifiable process
that examines the specific duties expected to be performed and time
allotted for each duty.
2. Conduct staff interviews in order to determine what are the existing
contributors to a positive, effective work environment and detractors. It is
recommended that these interviews be done after the two staff surveys
are completed and communicated.
3. Conduct the CPAI (Correctional Program Assessment Inventory) on
the primary programs in Community Corrections that seek to change
offender behavior. The CPAI is an internationally recognized process to
determine to degree to which an existing programs are implementing the
practices that will result in reduced recidivism.
4. Conduct exit interviews of staff that leave the agency. These
interviews are designed to ascertain the real, practical reasons why staff
are leaving. They need to be conducted in a specific environment (done
by someone not in the chain of command who will provide neutral
feedback).
5. Develop a governance structure plan. Review the existing Advisory
Board structure to determine what method of governance the Board
should adopt. It is currently operating in an advisory capacity. However,
issues with Community Corrections may be addressed more quickly and
readily with an alternative structure. If it is determined that the Advisory
Board structure should remain as is, then an alternative system should be
put in place to ensure that some entity beyond just the Community
Corrections Director is aware of communication and performance issues.
6. Develop intermediate outcome measures and targets. Specific critical
success factors should be adopted. These evidence-based success
factors should be closely aligned with the mission of the agency.
Administration and supervisors should be using these measures and
targets to closely manage the operations. Measures are critical to
determine the effectiveness of program delivery and utilization of funds.
7. Conduct job shadowing and direct service observation to determine
the level of staff skills, workload, and day-to-day pressures. This
observation by a consultant will provide the Director with outside expertise
on the efficacy of existing staff interventions and possible solutions to any
problem areas.

NIC TA No. 07C2029

15

Phase Three: Planning and Policy Implementation
1. Complete a two year action plan around evidence based practices.
This action plan should include specific, concrete steps to move the
agency closer to those interventions that reduce recidivism. This plan
should include skill based training around the delivery of the mission.
2. Develop a one-year plan around the topics of:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Organizational development
Communication (internal and with stakeholders)
Training
Staff accountability structure
Staff retention

3. Establish workload (and to the degree possible, caseload) caps and a
process to control the amount of intake for which services are provided.
Professional standards and capacity targets need to be established for
each primary service area.
4. Make a final decision on whether Community Corrections should
continue to operate the Community Corrections Center. This is
recommended in Phase Three because there are a number of data
collection and training efforts that need to be put in place.
5. Complete and implement a fidelity and quality assurance plan so that
the risk/need assessment, motivation interviewing, cognitive behavioral
programs, case planning, and other key areas of intervention are being
delivered in the manner required to be effective.

NIC TA No. 07C2029

16

Attachment A – List of Justice Systems Stakeholders Interviewed

Robert
Brian
Robert

Name
Altice
Barton
Bingham

Tim
Stephanie
David

Campbell
Carroway
Cook

Emil
Bill

Daggy
Dishman

Chuck

Eid

Jack
Matthew

Geilker
Gerber

Aaron

Haith

Angie

Hensley

Glenn
Bruce

Lawrence
Lemmon

Linda
Jerry

Major
McCrory

Deana

McMurray

Marilyn

Moores

Mary

Moriarity Adams

William

Nelson

Catherine

Parker

NIC TA No. 07C2029

Position
Judge, Marion Superior Court
Director, Marion County Community Corrections
Chief Probation Officer, Marion County Superior
Courts
President, Volunteers of America (VOA) Indiana
Deputy Prosecutor, Prosecutor’s Office
Chief Public Defender, Chair of the Community
Corrections Advisory Board, Criminal Justice
Planning council member
Captain, Marion County Sheriff’s Department
Deputy Director, Marion County Community
Corrections
Deputy Director, Marion County Community
Corrections
Justice Agency, FTA Officer
Marion County Public Defender, D Felony
Division Leader
General Counsel, The Council, City of
Indianapolis – Marion County
Program Manager, Community Corrections,
Indiana Department of Correction
Court Administrator, Marion Superior Court
Deputy Commissioner, Division of Re-entry and
Community Programs, Indiana Department of
Correction
Deputy Prosecutor, Prosecutor’s Office
Executive Director, Marion County Justice
Agency
Director, Community Corrections, Indiana
Department of Correction
Judge, Marion County Superior Court,
Community Corrections Advisory Board member
City of Indianapolis and Marion County CityCounty Council, Chair of the Public Safety
Committee
Judge, Marion Superior Court, Community
Corrections Board member
Grants Director, City Controller’s Office, City of
Indianapolis
17

Becky
Kelly
Mark

Name
Pierson-Tracy
Roth
Smith

Mark

Smith

Gary

Tingle

D. Michael Wallman
Sam
Heather
Molly

Walton
Welch
Wright

James

Wyatt

David

Wyser

NIC TA No. 07C2029

Position
Judge, Marion Superior Court
Deputy Prosecutor, Prosecutor’s Office
Deputy Director, Marion County Community
Corrections
Deputy Director, Marion County Community
Corrections
Deputy Chief, Commander Marion County Jail,
Marion County Sheriff’s Department
Board Member, Marion County Community
Corrections Board
Justice Agency, FTA Officer
Judge, Marion Superior Court
Marion County Public Defender, Misdemeanor
and Domestic Violence Supervisor
Indianapolis-Marion County Police Department
(IMPD)
Prosecutor’s Office, Advisory Board member

18

Attachment B – Interview Questions – On Site July 2-3, 2007

1. From the perspective of your organization, what is the primary role that
Community Corrections plays in Marion County?
2. What is Community Corrections doing exceptionally well? How do you
know that?
3. What is Community Corrections doing not so well? How do you know
that?
4. If you could change one thing about Community corrections, what would it
be? How important is that? How urgent is it?
5. How well does Community Corrections coordinate and communicate with
the rest of the criminal justice system? How well does the rest of the
system coordinate and communicate with Community Corrections?
6. Anything else you’d like us to know?

NIC TA No. 07C2029

19

Attachment C – Staffing and Client Population by Major Programs
Lowest Intensity

Daily
Reporting

Home
Detention

Highest Intensity

Day Reporting Work
Release

Correctional
Center

Daily Reporting Home Detention Day Reporting Work Release Jail Overcrowding
Riverside
Relief
Kiosk
GPS, SCRAM, Work Release
RF,
Lite/Home
115 males
Community
2 FTE
Home Reward
Detention
post trial
Corrections
170 capacity
101 census
Center
198 census
53-53 FTE
2 FTE
1799 clients
50 capacity
8 FTE
1532 census
50 census
210 capacity
152 census
Work Release
Independent
Craine
Residential
6 females
3 census

Blue Triangle

Work Release
DuVall (not yet
opened)

20 males &
females
17 census

Potential + 15
FTE
350 capacity
Work Release
VOA
4 FTE for all
Work Release
25 females
26 census
Mental Health Programming
1.5 FTE
50 census
Census figures as of August 7, 2007

NIC TA No. 07C2029

20

Attachment D – Case File Review
Conducted July 3, 2007

Review Sample -- 8 files
Case
type

Chronos?
+ detailed
- cursory

Risk/need
PSI/psych
Assessment?
eval?

Case plan
Notes
with
criminogenic
needs
addressed?
CC
Y+
N
N
Y
Treatment
progress
notes
CC
YN
N
N
CC
YN
N
Y
DR
Y+
N
Y (no crim. N
References
needs)
treatment
classes
DR
Y+
N
Y (PSI and N
References
psych)
treatment
classes
WR
na
N
Y
N
WR
Na
N
Y
N
WR
N
Y-LSI-R
Y
Y
Treatment
progress
notes
Corrections Center has an alcohol/drug addiction program and the service
provider has their own case file which was not reviewed

Attachment E – Components of Community Corrections

Community Corrections Mission
Diversion from DOC:
1.

Ensure the right offenders
are placed in the programs

2. Ensure that there are few
violations resulting in return
to incarceration

Accountability:
1. Ensure that the offender is
controlled while under supervision
2. Ensure that all violations are
responded to effectively

Behavioral Change:
1. Ensure that the offender does
not come back on a new offense
years after discharge

NIC TA No. 07C2029

22