By Matt Koesters
The Evening News and The Tribune
JEFFERSONVILLE — The consolidation of Clark County’s probation departments into one at the beginning of 2012 hasn’t saved the county on employee salaries, and one Circuit Court judge says the department’s $1.5 million personal services budget could be cut by at least 25 percent in 2015.
Circuit Court No. 1 Judge Dan Moore said in a June 20 letter to the Clark County Council that he is against “continued excessive spending” in the department, and criticized the performance of Chief Probation Officer Henry Ford, who was appointed to the new position when the department was consolidating the probation officers of four courts, for not taking action to streamline costs.
“‘Consolidation’ carries with it implications of making some things smaller,” Moore wrote. “The contrary appears to have been proven true under current management.”
But consolidation never came with the promise of cost savings, said Circuit Court Presiding Judge Vicki Carmichael.
“In fact, the county council was advised when the Supreme Court said that all counties need to consolidate their probation departments, the county council was advised, this is not going to save you any money in the short run,” Carmichael said. “It may save you money in the long run, but it’s not going to save you any money in the short run. In fact, it’s going to cost more, because we had to have one chief probation officer whose salary is higher than what he was being paid because of the new position and the new supervisory role.”
Carmichael sued the county council earlier this year to force them to authorize an additional appropriation for two new probation officers and incidental changes to the county’s salary ordinance, and was granted the two new officers after mediation. Carmichael pointed out that the mediation would have had a different outcome if the need hadn’t been legitimate.
FORD’S PERFORMANCE
Though Carmichael said Ford’s hiring to take on the role of chief probation officer had the support of all four judges at the time, Moore complained that Carmichael, Judge Joe Weber and Judge Jerry Jacobi already had their hearts set on hiring Ford before any interviews were conducted.
“Mr. Ford was hired because the other three judges knew him and wanted to hire him,” Moore said. “I wanted to have open interviews. We got some applications in, but there was pretty much a decision, 3-1, that it was going to be Henry Ford.”
Moore said that Ford was tasked with reassigning duties within the department and making other changes to make it more effective when he was first hired, but Ford has not done so.
“From where I sit as one of the major felony judges, he’s a very nice man,” Moore said. “I don’t understand, really, why I haven’t seen a series of recommendations for change. That’s the way I would sum it up.”
Ford has a difficult task to perform; in addition to running a department with a multi-million dollar budget, Ford is subject to the whims of four different judges, Carmichael said, creating a difficult situation for him. He’s done the best with the hand he’s been dealt, she said.
“Henry’s performance as chief probation officer has been to try to please four different judges with four different personalities with existing staff, none of whom are likely to agree with much change in the way they do business,” Carmichael said. “Henry’s performance as the chief probation officer has been exemplary in trying to work with all of those personalities and to keep all of the employees employed and doing their jobs, and he’s done it well. He has had criticism from staff, he’s had criticism from judges, and he accepts that criticism and tries to make changes.”
“It’s tough,” Ford said, “but I’m also honored that [the board of judges] allowed me to work in that position.”
DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE
In his letter, Moore stated that Ford has not generated any reports or data to demonstrate “how probation is working to change people’s behavior,” “how the variety of 1990-era money-generating mechanisms in the misdemeanor area might have run their course,” and “how family support can factor into a person’s rehabilitation efforts on probation.”
Without that kind of data, Moore said he wasn’t sure how the county council could have what it needs to set an appropriate budget for the department.
Carmichael acknowledged that the department’s effectiveness is judged by standards that are “anecdotal,” and because of the sheer volume of cases monitored by the department, tracking success is often a “moving target.”
“General recidivism numbers are tracked statewide and nationally,” Carmichael said. “We don’t track them individually in Clark County, that I’m aware of.”
But why not? Carmichael said that because the probation department has 2,000 people being monitored to varying degrees at any given time, manpower is the issue.
“It would take hours to do that, I would think,” she said.
MONEY MOTIVES?
Moore included several exhibits with his letter to the county council, one of which was a summary of “Tumey vs. Ohio,” a 1927 case in which a violation of the state’s prohibition act was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States because the defendant’s right to due process of law was violated when the defendant’s conviction was handed down by a court that “had a direct, personal, substantial and pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case.”
Some decisions regarding probation and sentencing seem to have been driven by the need to generate probation user fees, Moore said. Although the county’s financial situation is dire, Moore said that the county needs to be cautious when it comes to relying upon user fees to fund the probation department.
“I’m not sure — with all respect to everybody in the picture here, I’m not sure that anybody here, including this judge, is the expert on how to analyze an operation with so many people over there and the crime statistics we have in Clark County and how to best make it fit under our financial situation.”
Carmichael acknowledged that the probation department is reliant upon user fees to operate, but said that fees were often waived in cases where the probationers were indigent.
“We waive probation user fees in a good number of cases where people can’t pay,” Carmichael said. “I don’t know any of us who have violated someone’s probation because they haven’t paid if they didn’t have the ability to pay.”
Carmichael acknowledged that home incarceration administered through probation can be revoked by home incarceration program participants who fail to pay their fees, but said that’s different because HIP is a sentence.
“If they can’t pay their fees, then their sentence would be in the jail or the [Department of Correction],” Carmichael said.
Carmichael also acknowledged that the home incarceration program costs about $10 per participant per day, while jail operations cost about $50 per inmate per day.
“I would love to have a conversation with the county council about giving us the money to run that program without us having to worry about collecting fees all the time,” Carmichael said. “I can tell you this: Probation’s not in the business of making money. That is not our role. Probation’s role is to provide services to defendants to prepare them and rehabilitate them for a productive life in society.”