State failing to keep tabs on parolees

Thursday, Sept. 8, 2005 | 11:17 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Officers in the state Division of Parole and Probation are failing to adequately supervise potentially dangerous criminals, an executive audit says.

The examination by the state Division of Internal Audits said that in 70 percent of the 61 cases reviewed, there was no evidence that officers fully performed several duties regarding "high-risk offenders."

"If officers do not perform these duties, the offender poses an increased risk to the community," the auditors noted.

The report, presented Wednesday to the Executive Branch Audit Committee noted that parole and probation officers apparently were failing to properly check up on all high-risk offenders and were failing to notify people to whom parolees and probationers might pose a danger. They were also apparently failing to properly notify police departments whose officers might encounter high-risk parolees and probationers during traffic stops or in other situations.

The audit said officers must conduct home visits to confirm where the probationer or parolee lives and identify if there are any weapons or liquor that are violations. The examination found there was no evidence that the officer completed the duties of a home visit in 26 percent or 16 of the 61 cases sampled.

One duty of parole and probation officers is to warn individuals who might be targets of parolees or probationers. The examination found that these duties were not completed in 41 percent of the cases sampled.

Parole and probation officers are also required to warn law enforcement officers of the risk of dealing with certain offenders in situations such as traffic stops. This was not done in 15 percent of the cases sampled.

The audit also noted that in 10 percent of the cases sampled parole and probation officers failed to make a numerical ranking of the risk that various offenders posed to the community.

This is an important step because "officers use this ranking to determine the appropriate level of supervision, including the number of contacts necessary to monitor offenders," the report noted.

Auditors also found that 13 percent of the cases the officers did not fully assess changes in the risk level of the offender every six months.

The Executive Branch Audit Committee, led by Gov. Kenny Guinn, said the management of the division is taking steps to correct the deficiencies.

The agency, in a response by Division Chief Amy Wright, agreed lieutenants and sergeants must make sure that officers "are consistently executing the duties identified as the most significant and high risk."

Wright, in her response, said it has a team doing an "extensive review" of the internal processes of the division. And it will develop a performance management system that "is front-line driven."

She said the division has already started improving officers' "performance of high-risk duties" and focusing on the handling of the most high-risk parolees and probationers.

"The division recognizes that emphasis needs to be placed on specific high-risk duties," she said.

But Wright also said many the changes won't be in place until July 2006.

"The division will also be planning for any programming changes that may be necessary in our case management system for capturing data not already available in our system, such as duty to warn, which is currently recorded in free-text form as a chronological case not, data that is not available to track and report on," Wright said.

The audit also estimated that in fiscal year 2005 the division stopped collections on about $21 million due to victims of crimes and $700,000 fees that were supposed to be paid by those on probation who were discharged.

The audit suggested that the collections efforts be turned over to the state controller's office that tries to collect the debts owed the state. It estimated that a 6 percent recovery could mean $1.3 million in victims' restitution and $40,000 in supervision fees annually.

Wright said she is willing to transfer to the controller's office the responsibiity for pursuing uncollected money from probationers and parolees.

The division now charges those on parole or probation a supervision fee of $30 per month. The audit recommends increasing the fee for offenders with higher incomes. That could mean an additional $500,000 annually.

Wright said the division will submit a full report by July 1, 2006, on changing the system for charging supervision fees.

The audit division also found in other examinations:

Division Administrator Charles Duarte, in his response, said he supports the recommendation. He said recipients suffer now from fragmented and uncoordinated health care. He said there may not be immediate cost savings but "that in the long run we can achieve a reduction in the rate of expenditure for this high cost population."