Learn how data and continuous quality improvement positively impacts outcomes in counties of all sizes.
When data is the basis for policy discussions and decisions, jurisdictions of all sizes are better able to develop and implement practices that ensure improved outcomes. This month, we are focusing on data, quality assurance and assessment results. We’ll also spotlight two counties that have used evidence-based practices to demonstrate that positive outcomes are possible in large and small counties.
Data Collection, Analysis, and Sharing for Improved Outcomes
The way we collect, analyze, and share data matters. To ensure the data we’re collecting will provide actionable results, it is important for agencies to develop performance measures to help evaluate effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction and quality, and timeliness. Performance measures should be:
Related to goals and objectives
Quantifiable and measurable
Defined with specific performance targets
Shared with stakeholders and others
Monitored regularly
Through regular monitoring of data and procedures, agencies are able to determine whether practices are being delivered as intended. Additionally, accurate assessment of the results and utilization of feedback are integral to making incremental and ongoing improvements to the processes.
Leaders are a key part of the process. It is important that they take the time to ensure their assessment tools are working as intended (predictive validity) and to ensure their team employees complete and interpret the assessment tools accurately (interrater validity).
EBP Spotlight: Improved Outcomes in Jurisdictions Large and Small
From limited resources and staff to complex systems and large numbers of staff, there are often varying challenges that jurisdictions face when working with justice-involved individuals. Evidence-based practices have shown that, despite the county size, positive change is possible. This month, we feature two counties—small and large—that have experienced positive outcomes as a result of evidence-based practices.
Indiana County is a small (Class 6) county in western Pennsylvania. Over the course of two years (2021–2023) the probation department experienced several positive outcomes because of evidence-based practices, including:
Decreased supervision caseloads (from 170/per officer to 90/per officer)
79% increase in field-based supervision contacts
The decrease in supervision caseloads is attributed to a County policy that requires an assessment at intake, which resulted in the creation of an intake unit. Indiana County restructured the office and created two administrative/intake officer roles to conduct assessments and to properly classify people on supervision. This action allowed the department to move people who are low risk to less intensive caseloads, granting the other officers time to focus on people at moderate and high risk.
York County is a somewhat larger (Class 3) county that is located in southern Pennsylvania. They have actively engaged in evidence-based practices since 2016. To free up officers’ time, they created an intake unit staffed by paraprofessionals who conduct assessments. Other improvements they’ve experienced include:
Increased motivational interviewing competency (83% of staff score competent or higher)
Decreased arrests (750 arrests in 2015, 97 in 2022) because of a focus on behavior change interventions
Significant reduction in rearrests (only 5%) within two years
Combined, these results are decreasing costs and, most importantly, improving community well-being and safety.
Compliance Officer Jim Decker, Indiana County Probation Department
Pro Tip:
The importance of data collection and analysis should be paramount to defining procedures, implementing policy decisions, allocating work to officers, and when considering budgetary requests to address fiscal concerns. In Indiana County, we have used data tracking for all these functions. Of these functions, budgetary requests are the one area where our departments could increase our use of data to drive submissions.
Indiana County uses a tracking method in every sentence of misdemeanor or above from Court of Common Pleas and District Courts to track all sentencing levels and sentences. Through analysis of these sentences, we use a cost analysis to back our requests for extended funds. Examples of what we have been able to accomplish through proven, data-based funding diversions over the past five years includes:
Purchase of mobile technology to provide officers with a mobile platform for work in the field.
Complete new gearing for all officers.
In-house self-defense training and equipment, including own full RedMan suit.
Purchase additional cars, for a fleet of seven SUVs, for officers’ use.
Evidence-based training and training officers to become trainers.
The cost analysis of the data collected provided indisputable evidence for the changes that Indiana County has undertaken. Changes such as moving supervision from incarceration based to restrictive conditions and increasing house arrest options has created a savings to the county, as well as provided an opportunity for the local facility to rent out bed space to offset their costs.
Without data tracking and analysis, and the ability to provide stakeholders with these evidence-based details, Indiana County would continue to utilize out-of-date practices that are not cost effective and do not result in positive change.
Next Month:Stages of Implementation
Positive change is possible for everyone in Pennsylvania. We look forward to continuing to enhance your EBP knowledge and invite you to submit education/resource requests to askppcji@gmail.com.