Objective

To determine whether the Division of Criminal Justice Services is overseeing probation services to adequately promote public safety and supervision. The audit covered the period from January 2019 through April 2026.

About the Program

Probation and community corrections professionals play a vital role in New York State’s criminal justice system. They supervise, support, and serve individuals on probation, helping them build productive, law-abiding lives within their communities while enhancing public safety. The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) is responsible for strengthening these efforts by promoting practices that improve public safety, hold probationers accountable, and reduce recidivism. DCJS oversees and funds 58 probation departments across the State, covering 57 counties and New York City. As of March 2025, DCJS reported that there were 2,628 peace (probation) officers in the State. At the end of 2025, DCJS reported 66,282 adults under probation supervision.

Key Findings

DCJS should increase its monitoring and oversight to enhance the probation supervision practices provided by counties and maximize public safety for all State residents, and provide guidance that establishes a balance between the counties’ expressed desire for standards and the need for flexibility from county to county. While DCJS has developed and implemented protocols to assist counties with their supervision responsibilities, we also found counties could use additional guidance and support from DCJS in areas such as training, caseload and review practices, drug and alcohol testing, completing required periodic probationer assessment reports (performed every 6 months on each probationer), sex offender supervision, and the management of ignition interlock devices, which measure the alcohol content in the breath of the operator of a vehicle and prevent the vehicle from being started until the operator provides an acceptable breath sample.

We found variations in how probationers are supervised throughout the State, as well as non-compliance with required contacts and court orders. For example:

• Across the six counties we visited, risk ratings, which determine the number of contacts (e.g., home or office visits) probation offices must have with supervised individuals, varied, including for supervised individuals with similar offenses. County officials and employees raised, and DCJS acknowledged, concerns about DCJS’ primary risk evaluation instrument accurately assessing certain probation populations related to specialized groups, including sex offenses, domestic violence, and driving under the influence. Additionally, we found risk ratings for specific offenses varied from county to county. For example, one county will not allow sex offenders to be rated below the high-risk level, some counties will not allow ratings below the medium-risk level, while in other counties, sex offenders can be rated low risk. Lower risk ratings mean less supervision and, by default, potentially a greater risk of probation violations not being identified. Further, for the six probation departments we visited, we reviewed 105 case files to determine if contacts were being made as required and found 20 (19%) cases that had an insufficient number of probationer contacts based on risk level.
• Lack of guidance for caseload sizes may have contributed to uneven and high workloads across counties. One of the six counties we visited had caseload sizes for individual probation officers ranging from 20 to 60 cases. Another had caseloads ranging from 80 to 90. DCJS agrees that high caseloads in community corrections limit probation officers’ ability to provide meaningful supervision of individuals on probation. When asked about their concerns in a survey we sent to counties, four specifically mentioned the desire for DCJS to establish a caseload standard.
• We reviewed 101 case files from the six counties we visited that had a court-ordered drug and/or alcohol condition, finding 27 (27%) supervised individuals with drug and alcohol conditions did not have any drug or alcohol tests administered. Additionally, we found testing that did occur ranged from one to 22 tests per individual. While court orders generally do not specify testing frequency, and DCJS stated that handling deficiencies in drug and alcohol testing is not part of its oversight role, there is nothing preventing DCJS from providing guidance on this issue in line with its mission to help with the supervision of individuals on probation.
• Of the 48 probation departments that responded to our survey, 41 (85%) reported that DCJS does not conduct monitoring visits to their counties on an annual or more frequent basis. Additionally, 13 of the probation departments (27%) that responded to the survey expressed a desire for DCJS to conduct additional monitoring visits to their respective departments. Of the six counties we examined through in-person visits, only one reported that DCJS conducted a monitoring visit. As these visits provide an opportunity for DCJS to review all aspects of counties’ probation supervision efforts, more consistent visits could help DCJS identify where counties could use additional help or guidance and allow them to identify issues before they have a chance to become serious problems.
• Seventeen of the 48 (35%) probation departments that responded to our survey stated that DCJS does not provide its county with in-person training. While DCJS has provided training opportunities, as the oversight agency for counties, it has a vital role in making sure all employees have the necessary skills, as well as in providing employees with appropriate supervision, monitoring, and training to reasonably ensure the counties have the capability to carry out their work.

Key Recommendations

• Evaluate monitoring practices to ensure counties are receiving guidance as needed to improve public safety and to promote consistency with how individuals are supervised across the State. Practices to evaluate may include, but are not limited to, in-person site visits, training, drug and alcohol testing, caseload size, ignition interlock device management, and polygraph testing for sex offenders.
• Review and amend (as appropriate) current drug and alcohol testing requirements for adults under supervision to ensure court-ordered conditions are complied with.