CJS-49-10-00004-P Preliminary Procedure for Article 3 Juvenile Delinquency Intake; Intake

12/8/10 N.Y. St. Reg. CJS-49-10-00004-P

NEW YORK STATE REGISTER

VOLUME XXXII, ISSUE 49

December 08, 2010

RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES

DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES

PROPOSED RULE MAKING

NO HEARING(S) SCHEDULED

 

I.D No. CJS-49-10-00004-P

Preliminary Procedure for Article 3 Juvenile Delinquency Intake; Intake

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:

Proposed Action:

Addition of Part 356 and amendment of Part 354 of Title 9 NYCRR.

Statutory authority:

Executive Law, section 243(1)

Subject:

Preliminary Procedure for Article 3 Juvenile Delinquency Intake; Intake.

Purpose:

Establishes new procedures for Article 3 Juvenile Delinquency Intake to promote consistent application of law and best practices.

Substance of proposed rule (Full text is posted at the following State website:www.dcjs.state.ny.us):

Pursuant to Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2010, the Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (DPCA) was renamed the Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (OPCA) and was merged with the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). All DPCA rules and regulations were transferred to DCJS and are to continue in full force and effect until duly modified or abrogated by the Commissioner of DCJS. These regulatory amendments would delete past references as to Article 3 cases in Part 354 and add a new Part 356 so that there will be one rule related to Juvenile Delinquency (JD) Intake services. The new Part 356 was developed by an OPCA working committee comprised of OPCA staff and local probation department representation across the state of all Council of Probation Administrators (COPA) regions, and including all levels of probation staff, including director, deputy director, supervisor, senior probation officer, and probation officer. The existing regulations regarding JD intake provisions were last amended in 1982. In drafting new rule language, the committee's primary objectives have been to: 1) reflect best practice as it has evolved over the past 20 years; 2) incorporate evidence-based practice that has come to the forefront of probation practices in recent years; and 3) integrate statute and best probation practice into a single document organized according to the flow of cases through preliminary procedure similar to what OPCA adopted in 2008 with respect to probation intake services surrounding Persons In Need of Supervision (PINS). In this way, both populations of youth will benefit from state of the art probation services and increase effective diversion of such youth from Family Court.

Section 356.1 Definitions.

These regulatory amendments define numerous terms not previously defined under the old JD Intake rule. Some of these terms have come into widespread use in probation practice over the past 20 years, others are anchored in the 2008 OPCA PINS Intake Rule revision, and others originate from evidence-based practice. To improve the system's ability to communicate about and distinguish among different types of services, the new Part 356 rule contains new definitions for intervention service, accountability measure, and control measure. Other new definitions have been developed for: actuarial risk, case plan, conference, evidence-based practice, potential respondent, referred for petition, risk assessment, and successfully adjusted.

Section 356.2 Objective.

This section has been strengthened to encourage successful adjustment of alleged JD youth and for probation services to be more reflective of evidence-based practices.

Section 356.3 and 356.4 Applicability and Jurisdiction.

These rule sections reaffirm all probation departments' statutory duty to provide JD intake services and provide guidance regarding cases where the child lives in one county but the JD act occurred in a different county, and provides a mechanism in such instances in order to address provision of services for moderate and high risk youth by ensuring access to such services in the county of residence.

Section 356.5 General Requirements for JD Preliminary Procedure.

This rule section reinforces the importance and necessity of establishing, maintaining, and disseminating written policies and procedures for the uniform provision of preliminary procedure services for JD matters and addressing particular areas. It further sets forth key statutory and Uniform Rules for the Family Court requirements regarding eligibility, suitability and parameters relative to timeframes to promote probation compliance. Additional provisions relate to screening and assessment utilizing validated actuarial tools approved by the Commissioner of DCJS and is consistent with OPCA's aforementioned recently adopted PINS Intake Rule.

Section 356.6 Probation Intake.

This rule section sets forth eligibility and exclusionary criteria and establishes minimum suitability criteria. It further clarifies that the Family Court Act allows probation to provide JD intake services to eligible and suitable youth in pre-petition detention.

Section 356.7 Adjustment Services.

This rule section identifies minimum salient provisions with respect to adjustment services based in large part upon best practices and reaffirms a key statutory requirement that the inability to make restitution cannot be a factor in determining eligibility of services.

Section 356.8 Assessment, Case Planning, and Reassessment.

This rule section sets forth key provisions with respect to assessment, case planning, and reassessment. It requires an initial case plan to be developed within 30 calendar days of case initiation, and periodic reassessments during the adjustment period, including at case closure. Case plans must be based initially on assessment results, updated periodically in accordance with reassessment results, and focus on the priority areas for intervention to resolve the presenting problem. Further, these amendments require that referrals for service incorporate the results of the actuarial risk assessment to target the specific underlying dynamic risk factors related to the JD complaint. They also clarify that in addition to intervention services, accountability and control measures may be applied as part of adjustment services and that electronic monitoring may be used only with director consent and upon specific court order.

Similar to OPCA's PINS Intake Rule, this section emphasizes the importance for actuarial risk screening at intake in order to triage cases, and consideration for prompt termination of adjustment efforts with minimal probation intervention services where youth present as low risk for re-offending. Consistent with the actuarial screening and triage functions at intake, the rule language requires as part of adjustment services a full assessment of all youth who are at moderate or high risk for continued JD behavior, and directs that adjustment services be prioritized to higher risk youth.

Section 356.9 Referral To Presentment Agency.

This rule section in general delineates statutory responsibilities with respect to probation referral to presentment agencies when adjustment services are not appropriate or successful in order to promote compliance. Additionally, it reinforces the option that probation can recommend a referral back to probation for adjustment services in appropriate cases. This clarification will allow greater prosecutorial and judicial consideration of adjustment services for suitable cases.

Section 356.10 Return From Court.

This rule section outlines particular probation duties with respect to cases returned from the court for adjustment services.

Sections 356.11 and 356.12 Case Closing Requirements, and Case Record Keeping Requirements.

These rule sections clarify the three case closing options with respect to JD adjustment services and situations where probation may discontinue the adjustment process, and, in the interest of consistency, outlines case record keeping requirements based in large part on OPCA's PINS Intake Rule. However, it does reflect specific case record keeping distinctions for excluded or sealed cases.

Part 354.

Necessary amendments have been made to Part 354 to delete reference to Article 3 cases or JD language since there is now one new proposed rule (Part 356) governing these matters. Other minor technical amendments are further made as necessitated by removal of such language.

Text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:

Linda J. Valenti, Esq., NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, 4 Tower Place, Third Floor, Albany, New York 12203, [phone], email: [e-mail]

Data, views or arguments may be submitted to:

Same as above.

Public comment will be received until:

45 days after publication of this notice.

Regulatory Impact Statement

1. Statutory authority:

Pursuant to Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2010, the former Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (DPCA) was merged within the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and is now the Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (OPCA); hereinafter, all reference will be to OPCA. Section 8 of Part A of this Chapter specifically transferred all rules and regulations of OPCA to DCJS and provided that such shall continue in full force and effect until duly modified or abrogated by the Commissioner of DCJS. Additionally, section 17 of Part A of this Chapter amended Executive Law § 243(1) to make conforming changes and establish in pertinent part that the Commissioner of DCJS has authority to adopt "general rules which shall regulate methods and procedure in the administration of probation services, including investigation of … children prior to adjudication, supervision, casework, recordkeeping…program planning and research so as to secure the most effective application of the probation system and the most effective enforcement of the probation laws throughout the state." Such rules are binding with the force and effect of law. Further, Article 12-A of such law, specifically section 256(1) and (6)(a), requires probation agencies to perform intake services pursuant to law.

2. Legislative objectives:

These regulatory amendments are consistent with legislative intent regarding critical probation functions and the promotion of professional standards which govern administration and delivery of probation services in the area of intake (preliminary procedure) for family court involving any alleged Juvenile Delinquent (JD) matter. The overarching goal of these amendments is to reduce unnecessary and costly reliance on detention and residential placement with local commissioners of departments of social services or the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS). By vesting the Commissioner of DCJS with rule-making authority, the Legislature authorized DCJS to set minimum standards in this area.

These amendments are necessary to: 1) recognize good probation practice in the area of preliminary probation procedures involving youth; 2) incorporate contemporary evidence-based (research-supported) practice principles for effective interventions; 3) ensure consistent statewide application of such key intervention strategies to any youth regardless of receiving JD or Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) intake services.

3. Needs and benefits:

In accordance with Family Court Act (FCA) article 3, probation is responsible for conducting JD preliminary procedures. OPCA has always had rules and regulations governing JD intake; however, there have not been significant revisions since statutory laws in this area have remained the same. However, as practice has nationally evolved in this area with emphasis on evidence-based principles, regulatory amendments are appropriate at this time.

The amendments clarify JD eligibility requirements, exclusionary and suitability criteria pursuant to FCA article 3. They promote consistent application of statutory requirements through statewide standardization of terms by eliminating obsolete terminology, updating, and adding definitions that: 1) reflect model probation practices, including evidence-based (research-supported) practices; and are 2) consistent with the OPCA's recently adopted PINS Intake rule, specifically Part 357.

To promote consistent application of law and best practices, these amendments address issues and confusion related to applicability, jurisdiction, and legal concerns. For example, where JD behavior occurs in a county other than where the youth resides, a mechanism is provided to ensure access to needed services in the county of residence. In keeping with the aforementioned PINS Intake rule, it is clarified that electronic monitoring may be used only as part of adjustment services where there is director consent and a specific court order.

Consistent with good practice and/or certain legal provisions, these amendments reaffirm probation's need to notify the court of the status at case closing for cases returned from court for adjustment services. The amendments specify documents and other information to be included in case records and provided to the court to satisfy legal filing requirements.

Model probation practices have been incorporated. While some are prescriptive, there is flexibility for jurisdictions to develop policies and procedures that meet local needs and resources. These amendments incorporate nationally recognized evidence-based practice principles demonstrated in research to reduce risk of recidivism (continuing in a JD pattern of behavior), by addressing needs underlying the JD behaviors. These principles include actuarial risk and needs screening and assessment; prompt termination of adjustment efforts with minimal intervention services where youth present as low risk for continuing in JD behaviors; and full assessments for all JD youth at moderate or high risk for continued JD behavior. Adjustment services are to be prioritized for moderate and high risk youth, with a focus on addressing youth criminogenic needs in the community to reduce costly detention and placement outside the home and improve long term outcomes for youth and their families.

4. Costs:

DCJS believes more effective JD adjustment services can reduce long-term state and local governmental costs for youth at risk of continued involvement with the juvenile justice or criminal justice system. We anticipate no additional costs in adhering to these amendments beyond what is currently required in law and regulation. Rather, initial triage at intake and sharing resources, wherever appropriate and feasible, with other agencies and services providers is designed to produce cost savings in the short-term, as well as generate longer-term savings by increasing youth capacity to lead productive, law-abiding lives.

Further, DCJS has made available, at no cost to jurisdictions, the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI) tools and software for youth intake, investigation and supervision services. Fifty-seven counties currently use YASI. Consistent application and sharing of screening, assessment, and case planning protocols and results will further add savings by avoiding duplication of efforts within and across probation departments.

As part of the State's efforts to streamline recordkeeping, avoid duplication, and achieve cost savings, OPCA supported the deployment of web-based case management software, known as Caseload Explorer. Currently, 37 departments participate, four additional departments are in the process of implementation, and it is anticipated that several other departments will participate in the near future. As of March 31, 2010, 17 other probation departments use similar software to achieve record-keeping cost efficiencies.

As to any anticipated in-service costs of educating staff, DCJS believes orientation can be readily accomplished through memoranda and supervisory oversight without incurring any direct costs. Any minimal costs are outweighed by significant benefits of meeting the intent of current law and regulatory provisions to serve the best interests of JD youth and their families, and in turn, will reduce monetary costs associated with court processing, detention, and placement.

5. Local government mandates:

OPCA always had agency rules governing JD preliminary procedure, and therefore DCJS does not anticipate that these new requirements will be burdensome. While this regulatory reform requires specific attention to key areas, establishing provisions for effective preliminary procedure consistent with traditional and emerging probation practices, it also provides flexibility and recognizes differences among jurisdictional policies and resources. DCJS requires actuarial risk and needs assessments along with case planning tools and protocols approved by the Commissioner. DCJS has made YASI software available to all jurisdictions free of charge. As the state oversight agency, and consistent with our supervision rule classification process (9 NYCRR section 351.3), our approval of any assessment tool is appropriate.

6. Paperwork:

The State has provided leadership in the development and deployment of Caseload Explorer case management software which is streamlining paper requirements by avoiding duplication of efforts. The status of such implementation and of similar software being utilized is earlier noted.

7. Duplication:

These amendments do not duplicate any State or Federal law or regulation. They clarify and reinforce certain laws regarding provision of preliminary procedure for youth engaged in JD behaviors.

8. Alternatives:

These amendments integrate law, research, and model probation practices to establish specific minimum standards for probation's provision of adjustment services to JD youth and their families. Strengthening and supporting consistent application of preliminary procedures is essential to ensure effective adjustment of youth, wherever appropriate, and diversion from the Family Court. By addressing youth needs within the context of their families and communities, the State and local government can realize savings in detention, placement, legal and social costs. Accordingly, it is not a viable alternative to have a seriously outdated probation rule in this area, or no rule, governing preliminary procedure for the JD population.

In the preparation and drafting of the proposed amendments, OPCA was diligent in engaging probation professionals from around the state: 1) In July 2007, OPCA constituted the aforementioned JD rule working committee with representatives across the state from small, medium, and large jurisdictions representing urban and rural jurisdictions; 2) In February 2009, OPCA circulated a refined draft to all probation directors/commissioners; 3) In June 2009, OPCA and the aforementioned Workgroup met with a specific committee (known as the Probation Administrators Research Committee, or PARC) of the Council of Probation Administrators (COPA) for their professional association's feedback which has rural county participation; 4) in July 2009, OPCA communicated again with PARC as to content; and 5) subsequently, in August 2009, OPCA circulated a final draft for probation comment.

Most of the feedback indicated that these amendments reflect current model best probation practices. Some feedback sought clarification of language, alternate language, or increased flexibility. The majority of substantive suggestions for change were incorporated, and the workgroup clarified issues raised, and increased flexibility in certain instances. Overall, OPCA received favorable support from probation agencies that these amendments are manageable and consistent with good professional practice. For reasons stated throughout this document relative to approval and use of actuarial tools, and while NYC Probation is the sole remaining non-YASI jurisdiction and has in the past objected to State approval of their assessment tools, it is essential that DCJS ensure departments are using fully validated instruments. Flexibility in policy allows for New York City to choose another validated assessment tool, approved by DCJS, other than utilizing YASI at no cost. Importantly, the OPCA approved the use of NYC's Probation Assessment Tool (PAT) instrument and there has been in the past several months a change in Executive leadership within NYC's probation department. The Director of OPCA recently communicated with the new Probation Commissioner, forwarding the proposed regulations in this area, reaffirming State approval of PAT, soliciting their utilization of YASI and its benefits, and requesting feedback on content of the proposed regulatory reform in this area. At this time, OPCA has not received any renewed NYC objection as to this measure.

9. Federal standards:

There are no federal standards governing the probation intake/preliminary procedure process.

10. Compliance schedule:

Through prompt dissemination to staff of the new rule and its summary, local departments should be able to implement these amendments and comply with the provisions as soon as they are adopted.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. Effect of Rule:

This proposed rule revises existing regulatory procedures in the area of Juvenile Delinquent (JD) adjustment services and will impact local probation departments which are responsible for the delivery of such services to alleged JD youth.

The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) does not anticipate that these new requirements will be burdensome upon probation departments. While this regulatory reform requires specific attention to key areas, establishing provisions for effective preliminary procedure consistent with traditional and emerging probation practices, it also provides certain flexibility in recognition of differences among jurisdictional policies and resources.

These amendments integrate law, research and model probation practices to establish specific minimum standards for probation's provision of adjustment services to JD youth and their families. Strengthening and supporting consistent application of preliminary procedures is essential to ensure effective diversion of youth, wherever appropriate. By addressing youth needs within the context of their families and communities, the State and local governments can realize savings in detention, placement, legal and social costs. Accordingly, it is not a viable alternative to have a seriously outdated probation rule, or no rule, governing preliminary procedure for the JD population.

No small businesses are impacted by these proposed regulatory amendments.

2. Compliance Requirements:

While DCJS will require actuarial risk and needs assessments along with case planning tools and protocols approved by the Commissioner of the Division of Criminal Justice Services and consistent with OPCA's PINS Intake and Supervision Rules requiring a classification process to identify risks and needs (9 NYCRR §§ 357.8(a); 351.3), State agency approval of the assessment tools is appropriate.

This rule does not change the monthly workload reporting requirements to DCJS. There are no small business compliance requirements imposed by these proposed rule amendments.

3. Professional Services:

No professional services are required for probation departments to comply with the proposed rule changes. There are no professional services required of small business associated with these proposed rule amendments.

4. Compliance Cost:

DCJS does not foresee these reforms leading to significant additional costs, and does not anticipate that these new requirements will be burdensome or require additional staffing above and beyond current needs. Initial triage at intake and utilizing other community-based resources, wherever appropriate and feasible, with other agencies and services providers should produce cost savings.

Additionally, the Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (OPCA) within DCJS provided leadership in the development and deployment of Caseload Explorer case management software, which is streamlining paper requirements by avoiding duplication of effort. Currently, 37 probation departments currently participate, an additional four departments are in the process of implementation, and it is anticipated that several other departments will participate in the near future. As of March 31, 2010, 17 other probation departments use similar software to achieve record-keeping cost efficiencies.

5. Economic and Technological Feasibility:

Local probation departments should have no problem in complying with this rule as DCJS is providing the YASI software free of charge for 57 participating jurisdictions which enables them to have a validated DCJS approved risk and needs assessment tool and DCJS has supported the development and deployment of Caseload Explorer case management software for interested probation departments. DCJS does not anticipate any economic problems experienced by probation departments as a result of these rule changes. There are no economic or technological issues faced by small businesses as these proposed rules do not affect them.

6. Minimizing Adverse Impacts:

In the preparation and drafting of the proposed amendments, OPCA was diligent in engaging probation professionals from around the state: 1) In July 2007, OPCA constituted the aforementioned JD rule working committee with representatives across the state from small, medium, and large jurisdictions representing urban and rural jurisdictions; 2) In February 2009, OPCA circulated a refined draft to all probation directors/commissioners; 3) In June 2009, OPCA and the aforementioned Workgroup met with a specific committee (known as the Probation Administrators Research Committee, or PARC) of the Council of Probation Administrators (COPA) for their professional association's feedback which has rural county participation; and 4) in July 2009, OPCA communicated again with PARC as to content; and 5) subsequently, in August 2009, OPCA circulated a final draft for probation comment.

Most of the feedback indicated that these amendments reflect current model best probation practices. Some feedback sought clarification of language, alternate language, or increased flexibility. The majority of substantive suggestions for change were incorporated, and the workgroup clarified issues raised, and increased flexibility in certain instances. Overall, OPCA received favorable support from probation agencies that these amendments are manageable and consistent with good professional practice. For reasons stated throughout this document relative to approval and use of actuarial tools, and while New York City, the sole non-YASI jurisdiction, in the past has objected to State approval of its assessment tools, it is essential that DCJS ensure departments are using fully validated instruments. Flexibility in policy allows for New York City to choose another validated assessment tool, approved by DCJS, other than utilizing YASI at no cost. Importantly, OPCA approved the use of NYC's Probation Assessment Tool (PAT) instrument and there has been, in the past few months, a change in Executive leadership within NYC's probation department. The Director of OPCA has recently communicated with the new Probation Commissioner, forwarding the proposed regulations in this area, reaffirming OPCA approval of PAT, soliciting their utilization of YASI and its benefits, and requesting feedback on content of the proposed regulatory reform in this area. At this time, OPCA has not received any renewed NYC objection as to this measure.

These proposed regulatory reforms require specific attention to key areas, establishing provisions for effective preliminary procedure consistent with traditional and emerging probation practices, yet provides flexibility and recognizes differences among jurisdictional policies and resources.

7. Small Business and Local Government Participation:

As noted earlier, OPCA previously sought to engage probation departments from across the State on the development of and refinement of the proposed regulatory changes.

Rural Area Flexibility Analysis

1. Types and estimated number of rural areas:

Forty-four local probation departments are located in rural areas and will be affected by the proposed rule amendments.

2. Reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements, and professional services:

The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) continues the existing regulatory requirement previously adopted by the former Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (DPCA), which has been renamed the Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (OPCA) and merged with DCJS pursuant to Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2010, that probation directors maintain local written policies and procedures governing preliminary procedure (intake) for juvenile delinquency (JD), and specifies key areas to be covered regarding timeframes, adjustment services, and case record documentation. These key areas for local policy development are consistent with best professional practices surrounding delivery of juvenile services and grant certain flexibility that takes into account local needs and resources.

There are no additional professional services necessitated in any rural area to comply with this rule. DCJS does not believe that these regulatory changes will prove difficult to achieve. Through prompt dissemination to staff of this new rule and its summary, local probation departments should be able to implement these amendments and comply with the provisions as soon as they are adopted.

This rule does not change the monthly workload reporting requirements to our state agency, DCJS.

3. Costs:

Fifty-seven counties currently use, at no cost, the DCJS approved actuarial Youth Assessment Screening Instrument (YASI) which promotes consistent application of screening assessment and case planning protocols for youth intake, investigation, and supervision services.

DCJS believes that more effective JD adjustment services can reduce long term state and local governmental costs for those youth who are at risk of continued involvement with the juvenile justice or criminal justice system. DCJS anticipates no additional costs in adhering to these regulatory amendments beyond what is currently required in law and regulation. Initial triage at intake and sharing resources, wherever appropriate and feasible, with other agencies and services providers will produce cost savings. Consistent application and sharing of screening, assessment, and case planning protocols and results will further add savings by avoiding duplication of efforts within and across probation departments.

As part of the State's efforts to streamline recordkeeping, avoid duplication and achieve cost savings, OPCA supported the deployment of a web-based case management software, known as Caseload Explorer. Currently, 37 probation departments currently utilize and an additional four departments are in the process of implementation of this software, and many rural counties benefit from this software. As of March 31, 2010, 17 other probation departments use similar software to achieve record-keeping cost efficiencies. Many rural counties are and will continue to benefit from this deployment.

Any anticipated in-service costs of educating staff, can be readily accomplished through memoranda and supervisory oversight without incurring any direct costs. Any minimal costs are outweighed by significant benefits of meeting the intent of current law and regulatory provisions to serve the best interests of JD youth and their families, and in turn will reduce monetary costs associated with court processing, detention, and placement.

4. Minimizing adverse impact:

DCJS foresees that these regulatory amendments will have no adverse impact on rural areas. As noted in more detail below, OPCA collaborated with jurisdictions across the state, including rural areas, and probation professional associations with rural membership in developing the proposed rule and incorporated numerous suggestions to clarify or address issues raised and to reflect good probation practice across the state. To OPCA's knowledge, no adverse impact on rural areas were identified, and DCJS embraced flexibility where it was found to be consistent with good probation practice.

5. Rural area participation:

These revisions were developed by an OPCA working committee comprised of OPCA staff and several local probation departments representing all geographic regions of the state, including rural, and involving all levels of probation staff, including director, deputy director, supervisor, senior probation officer, and probation officer. Additionally, the Office of Children and Family Services and the Council on Children and Families services were represented. OPCA circulated initial and final drafts to all probation directors/commissioners, the Council of Probation Administrators or COPA (the statewide professional association of probation administrators), which assigned it to a specific committee for review, with rural representation. After the initial draft comment period ended, OPCA convened the Workgroup with COPA's representatives to address feedback. The proposed regulatory amendments incorporate verbal and written suggestions gathered from probation professionals, including rural entities, across the state to address problems which probation departments have experienced in the area of JD preliminary procedure.

In the preparation and drafting of the proposed amendments, OPCA was diligent in engaging probation professionals from around the state: 1) In July 2007, OPCA constituted the aforementioned JD rule working committee with representatives across the state from small, medium, and large jurisdictions representing urban and rural jurisdictions; 2) In February 2009, OPCA circulated a refined draft to all probation directors/commissioners; 3) In June 2009, OPCA and the aforementioned Workgroup met with a specific committee (known as the Probation Administrators Research Committee, or PARC) of COPA for their professional association's feedback which has rural county participation; 4) in July 2009, OPCA communicated again with PARC as to content; and 5) subsequently, in August 2009, OPCA circulated a final draft for probation comment.

Moreover, DCJS did not find significant differences among urban, rural, and suburban jurisdictions as to issues raised or suggestions for change. DCJS is confident that these regulatory changes have the flexibility to accommodate rural jurisdictional needs.

Job Impact Statement

A job impact statement is not being submitted with these proposed regulations because the amendments will have no adverse effect on private or public jobs or employment opportunities. While these regulatory changes address out-of-date requirements and reflect up-to-date best practices in the area of probation services, these changes are not onerous and can be implemented through correspondence and in-service training of probation staff.