Abstract
This study identifies and describes various probation classification systems utilized nation-wide and proposes a probation classification model (PWAMS), developed for the State of South Dakota, but also designed to serve as a model to other judicial systems. This study used descriptive research, on a sample and population of all fifty-seven probation officers from South Dakota's judicial jurisdictions. Instrumentation and measurement procedures utilized were archival data, phone interviews and questionnaires. Components 1 and 2 of PWAMS were primarily designed through external sources such as a literature review of books, journals and unpublished dissertations, and by interviews with approximately twenty-six sources to further discern information sources applicable and unrelated to the State of South Dakota Components 3 and 4 of PWAMS were primarily designed through internal sources, such as coordinating and compiling all South Dakota Department of Probation-related data, and by administering a questionnaire designed and distributed to all South Dakota probation officers. The examination of data and findings section of this study consisted of the presentation of PWAMS, components 1-4. An offender risk and service needs assessment, component 1, establishes the objectives and also presents the instruments and instructions utilized in such an assessment. Component 2, the probation management case service plan, was presented as a format and process to develop a structured case service plan, contingent upon the risk and service needs results. The requirements and necessity for a management information system was described as component 3. An activities allocation system, component 4, which affords a means to evaluate the cost effectiveness and equitable staffing standards to conduct or meet the needs established in the previous components, and the necessity for program/model evaluation conclude the findings section. (1) a thorough analysis and evaluation of PWAMS, contingent upon a decision to adopt the system; (2) a thorough analysis of the results of component 4, (time and costs utilized per probation activity) so that standards of work units per month may be assigned to three levels of adult and juvenile risk and service needs; (3) based upon a decision to implement PWAMS, an in-service training and transitional period must be expected; and (4) a one-year time frame in which to re-evaluate and re-assess each component of PWAMS and PWAMS as a whole, must be established, including evaluation criteria such as that recommended as CIPP, staff meetings, open discussions and interviews, and continued correspondence with other states using classification systems. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.).