The mission of the Northampton County Adult Probation Department is to provide the highest quality of protection to the community, while supervising offenders on probation and parole.  The department provides sufficient services to clientele to assist in community adjustment, while being sensitive to the safety and expectations of the community.  The main goal is to produce law abiding and productive citizens within the community. 

Since December of 1998, the department has been under the direction of Mark A. Mazziotta, Chief Adult Probation Officer.  Since early 2001, the office has been located at the Criminal Administration Building at 105 South Union Street, Easton, PA 18042. 

The 2006 calendar year saw the global position program that monitors offenders 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, grow under the direction of Marie Bartosh.  The computer monitoring program, which supervises an offender’s computer activity was also fully implemented in 2006.  Another nuance is the start of in-house violation hearings.  This is designed to be a last effort to encourage defendants to comply with court conditions, and try to ease the number of hearings on the court calendar.  In November of 2006, Northampton County Council approved two new Probation Officer I positions for 2007.  It is anticipated that these positions will be filled by early January of 2007. 

As of December 31, 2005, the Northampton County Adult Probation Department staff included: 

Mark A. Mazziotta, Chief

Stephen L. Tone, Deputy Chief

Marie D. Bartosh, Probation Officer II (GPS Program Coordinator)

Francis D. Toto, Probation Officer II (ARD & PSIs)

Christopher W. Davis, Probation Officer II (Parole Liaison)

Paul L. Singley, Probation Officer II (Intensive Officer)

Terry L. Langen, Probation Officer II (Community Work Service Coordinator)

Arthur H. Frye, Jr., Probation Officer II (Intense Officer)

Elizabeth A. Fox, Probation Officer I

Jason D. Gerstner, Probation Officer I

Joseph L. Beiner, Probation Officer I

Amy L. Hornbaker, Probation Officer I

Bernard J. Mikulski, Probation Officer I

Keri S. Harris, Probation Officer I

Robert M. Kemmerer, Probation Officer I

Domenica C. Galati, Probation Officer I

Cynthia Greene-Wimmer, Probation Officer I

Thurman A. D’Argenio, Probation Officer I

Daniel R. Lasko, Aide

Dr. Robert Wisser, Clinical Psychologist

Six of the above-listed officers are involved in specialized programs, including:  two Intensive Officers supervising caseloads of high risk offenders; one officer processing ARD cases and completing presentence investigation reports; one officer handling all parole plans at the Northampton County Prison; one officer coordinating the community work service program; and one officer who handles the GPS program.  These officers have received Probation Officer II status for their specialization skills.  The Deputy Chief helps with administrative duties and supervises all Probation Officer I’s.  The Chief oversees all office activities, while assigning all cases within the department.

Looking ahead in 2007, with the anticipated addition of two new Probation Officer I’s, it is felt that caseloads will be much more manageable, and probation officers will be able to afford much more time to clients in need.  Also, the GPS program, which completed its fourth year of full operation in 2006, will continue to be instrumental in helping the court sentence offenders to alternate programming. 

The Global Positioning System will not only serve to help the adult probation department scrutinize the whereabouts of its most serious offenders, but it will also help keep the number of incarcerated offenders at a lower level.  This, in turn, places cost of monitoring these offenders on the clients themselves and not the taxpayers.  Adult probation has also received approval to utilize the Internet Probation and Parole Control software, which will assist probation officers in supervising clients, especially sex offenders, while on the Internet.  This type of program will continue to grow in the future as technology improves and expands its monitoring abilities.

Workload Statistics
As of December 31, 2006, fourteen probation officers handled the supervision of 2,219 cases.  This equates to an average caseload number of 139 clients per probation officer.  These clients are classified into five major groups of supervision:

A.	Intense Supervision - client seen at least one to two times a week.
B.	Maximum Supervision - client seen at least one time every two weeks.
C.	Medium Supervision - client seen at least one time every month.
D.	Minimum Supervision - client seen at least one time every six weeks.
E.	Nominal Supervision - client reports by phone periodically, but no face-to-face contact needed.

The noted addition of two probation officers anticipated in 2007 will help decrease average caseloads by approximately 20 clients per probation officer.  The increase in staff was both needed and appreciated. 

Presentence Investigations
Presentence investigations are reports done for the Court, upon request, after any individual has either been found guilty by a jury of his/her peers or after they have entered a plea of guilty to one or more criminal charges before the Court.  The report itself consists of a variety of information concerning the defendant.  This information includes, but is not limited to, the following:  a sentencing guideline form (to help aid the Court in sentencing); a presentence investigation coversheet with various statistical information (name, age, charge, etc.); an official version of the instant offense; a victim'’ statement, which would include any restitution owed by the defendant (when applicable); prior criminal history (both juvenile and adult); educational history; employment history; military history; drug and alcohol history; mental health history; an evaluative summary which includes other pertinent information such as the defendant’s family history, dependents, etc.  A presentence investigation can also have various evaluations included, such as psychological reports, drug and alcohol reports, or sexual offender assessments  whenever it is felt to be relevant.  The completed report is then forwarded to the Court prior to the defendant’s sentencing.  With this social/legal history, the Court has a better understanding of the individual and facts of the case.  This information allows the Court to sentence appropriately.

In 2006, 211 presentence investigations were completed by the Northampton County Adult Probation Department.  This averages out to approximately 18 presentence investigations per month, ordered by the court.  An increase of six presentence investigations per month in 2006.

Probation and Parole Revocations/A.R.D. Review Hearings
During the 2006 calendar year the Northampton County Adult Probation Department conducted 717 Gagnon II violation hearings.  The majority of these hearings were for technical violations, a total of 589 hearings or 82%, where the client failed to comply with court ordered requirements such as: drug and alcohol treatment, missed appointments, or other overt behaviors. The remaining violations were for obtaining new charges while on supervision, totaling 128 hearings or 18%.  As a result of these hearings, 225 clients remained under court supervision and were directed into strict compliance while 462 individuals had their supervision revoked and were returned to prison to serve additional time on their sentences. Based on the entire caseload supervised by the Probation Department, approximately 2219 clients, about 21 percent are returned to prison for revocations.

Institutional Parole Officer
Christopher W. Davis served as the liaison officer at the Northampton County Prison.  This job entails verification of parole plans and coordination and expedition of drug and alcohol assessment/conduct reports for presentence investigations.  This position provides one source for sharing information between the prison and the paroling authorities.  The process drastically improves accountability by having parolees assigned a parole officer prior to being released from the prison.  These parolees report to the Adult Probation Department within a 72-hour period of release from prison.

The year 2006 marked the 11th full year in which the Adult Probation Department eased the prison’s financial burden and over crowded population by paroling inmates early.  Among those eligible for early parole include inmates who have been transferred to drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities or to other institutions of confinement.  In 2006, 11 inmates were granted early parole by the courts.  The 11 inmates accounted for approximately 599 bed days at the estimated savings of $70.00 per day, amounting to the savings of $41,930.00.

Paroled Inmates
In 2006, 700 inmates were paroled from the Northampton County Prison and surrounding facilities.  On average, 58 inmates were released per month, with October being the largest month having 73 inmates released during that month. 

Statistical Analysis 2006
The statistical breakdown shows the type of crime committed by each parolee, and the results were as follows:

Parole Set-Backs
During 2006, the Adult Probation Department requested that the Court examine the institutional conduct of 3 inmates to determine whether they were qualified candidates for parole.  The three major areas cited as cause for the denial parole at the inmate’s minimum date are positive test results for the use of alcohol or controlled substances, escape from Northampton County Prison Work Release Facility and/or assaultive behavior toward prison staff or other inmates.

In each sentence, the Court denied the inmate’s initial parole and ordered setbacks ranging from fourteen days to serving the entire maximum period of their sentence in prison.

Prison Reports for Presentence Investigations
During 2006, well over 100 conduct reports were submitted to the probation office to be used in the writing of presentence investigation reports.  These reports focused on the institutional conduct of the inmate during his/her stay at the prison, ranging from misconducts to any rehabilitative programming in which the inmate may have participated.  Also incorporated are any known gang affiliations.  These reports aid the Court in determining the likelihood of rehabilitation at the time of sentencing. 

Intensive Supervision Program
Arthur H. Frye, Jr. and Paul Singley both supervise intense caseloads and work closely together as the intensive unit.  These probation officer II’s are responsible for, but not limited to, sex offenders and mental health cases. 

Intensive supervision offers the highest degree of monitoring to a defendant in the community.  Offenders are placed under intensive supervision by the Court.  Many of these offenders are convicted of sexual crimes, offenses that are assaultive in nature or may display mental health or mental retardation issues.  This may also include those offenders with severe drug and alcohol issues.  These clients are held to a very high level of accountability and are placed into treatment specific programs to assist in their problems while attempting to reside in the community.  This type of supervision benefits the county in providing security for the community while simultaneously saving the costs of incarceration.  The overall outcome of intensive supervision is an increase in community safety, client accountability and rehabilitation of a high risk population.

Intensive supervision has grown throughout the recent years.  Both officers carry an average caseload of 40 clients.  These clients are sentenced directly to the program by the Court.  There are occasions where cases are upgraded from the line officers, however, this has been through the use of violation hearings, hence Court orders are completed. 

With a growing number of sexual offenses, the intensive unit has developed a variety of tools to enhance supervision and treatment.  The use of the polygraph is now a standard part of treatment.  Polygraph testing assures honesty in treatment and in supervision.  It serves to break down denial quickly, allowing counselors to expedite the progress in treatment.  This also provides a check and balance system to assure that the offender, the treatment personnel and the probation officer are working from the same set of facts.  Reading Specialists and Carol Herzon-Loney utilize this tool regularly.  These programs are all acceptable sex offender treatment programs. 

The intensive supervision unit also focuses on sex offenses that are Internet related, such as child pornography and child luring through chat rooms. Officers have been attending training sessions using software to search an offender’s computer, as well as “real-time” Internet monitoring through Internet Probation and Parole Control, Inc.

Intensive supervision clients sign rules that are sex offender specific. The rules limit their daily activities and set forth the required programs and level of participation that will be expected of them.  As these clients can often times be manipulative, the use of specific rules which outline what is acceptable and what is not, provides these offenders with a set of absolute limits and requirements.  These rules are very definitive, thereby preventing any chance for confusion as to what is expected of them.  Again, this offers safety to the community, in that any breech of these rules may result in immediate incarceration and removal from the community.

Concerning mental health cases, the Intensive Unit utilizes the Adult Transitional Program through Northampton County Mental Health on a regular basis.  Mike Gorzelic, who oversees the program, implements services such as medical assistance and makes immediate referrals for intensive case management within the mental health system.  This has been a vital tool in the successful re-entry of mental health clients, in a sense, “bridging the gap” of an offenders’ release on parole and connection of services. 

Community Work Service
The community work service program is currently headed by Probation Officer II Terry Langen.  Terry has been instrumental in the continued expansion of community work service operations.  The following chart indicates Community Work Service hours completed for the year, by month:

Total completed hours = 15,991 hours worked for the year of 2006.

As required under the guidelines for the ARD/DUI program, first offenders accepted into this program must complete 25 hours of Community Work service within a period of six months.  The Fast Track ARD/DUI program had twelve court lists last year, with each court list ranging from 37 to 112 individuals.  For the year, a total of 844 individuals were accepted into this program.  A total of 600 individuals successfully completed this requirement through agency or project placement.  A total of 104 individuals failed to complete this requirement by failing to attend various assignments, at which time this officer notified the DUI office for enforcement accordingly.  Based on these numbers, the ARD/DUI offenders had a success rate of 85% for their Community Work Service requirement.  Currently, 266 individuals remain active under the ARD/DUI Community Work Service Program.  A regional breakdown for these offenders are listed in the chart to the right.

The Northampton County Court of Common Pleas will regularly direct an individual to complete community work service hours as part of his/her special conditions at the time of sentencing.  Also, local district magistrates as well as other court agencies notify this office to enforce other sentences that require hours to be worked.  For the year of 2006, 175 individuals have been ordered to complete community work service hours as part of their special conditions.  A total of 84 individuals on probation, parole, or intermediate punishment have successfully completed this requirement and 58 individuals were unsuccessfully discharged from this program for their non-compliance.  Therefore, the success rate for individuals sentenced by the Court have produced a success rate of 59%.  Individuals are removed from this program for receiving new charges, becoming incarcerated, or by failing to appear for programs or agency assignments as directed.  Currently, 97 individuals remain active on this portion of the community work service caseload.

The Northampton County Adult Probation Department continues to offer individuals the opportunity to perform community work service hours in lieu of payment of costs and fines.  Should an individual complete the required amount of hours as calculated by this office, monies are deducted at a rate of $8.00 for every hour worked on the defendant’s balance.  As a condition of this program, all hours must be completed or no credit is given on the account balance.  For the year of 2006, 3 defendants completed community work service hours in lieu of costs and fines, totaling $2,391.30.  An additional 7 workers attempted to work off a total account balance of $11,357.50, however, these individuals were removed from the program either voluntarily, or for failing to complete assigned projects.  Currently, 7 individuals are attempting to work off costs and fines, totaling $15,200.75.

ARD
The ARD Program was established for first time offenders of primarily misdemeanor type crimes, where upon successful completion of the program will result in the expungement of the criminal record.  By placing these clients on the ARD Program, they can ultimately avoid a permanent criminal record, thus, avoid any further entrance into the criminal justice system.    Many of these clients are placed into programs that are designed to correct any negative behavior.  Some of the programming utilized by ARD offenders include:  drug and alcohol counseling, random urine screens, anger management counseling, retail theft programming, parent counseling, community work service, marijuana awareness program (MAP), and domestic abuse/batterer’s counseling. 

During the year 2006, 411 clients were placed on the ARD Program with 356 individuals successfully completing ARD Probation.  Over $264,560.00 in court costs and restitution was collected in 2006 for the ARD Program.  All clients involved in the ARD Program realize that this probation is a one time opportunity, and that should there be any subsequent offenses committed, ARD will not be an option.  The program is well manned by Francis D. Toto,  Probation Officer II. 

Global Positioning System
The year 2006 was a busy year of utilizing the Global Positioning System (GPS) form of house arrest.  This is a grant funded position, which was filled by Marie D. Bartosh in July 2002.  The addition of this program has offered the Court one more option during sentencing. 

The utilization of a Global Positioning System for the purpose of house arrest is one of the most technologically advanced systems available.  This form of house arrest goes beyond knowing
when a person is home, to where a person is 24 hours a day.  Through the use of a Portable Tracking Device (PTD), an offender can be tracked throughout the day, anywhere in the country.  Offenders are required to carry the tracking device and wear an ankle bracelet.  These devices, utilized together, communicate to three satellites, which calculate an offender’s location, accurate to within 18 feet.  These measures are downloaded to a monitoring center, which then allows the probation officer to monitor the offender’s movements, constantly and in real time. 

The greatest benefit to this form of technology, is the ability to establish “hot zones” in the community.  These “hot zones” are designated areas in the community, such as a victim’s home or place of employment, from which the offender has been restricted.  These areas are noted in the computer mapping system with distinct boundaries.  Should an offender enter those boundaries an immediate notification is sent from the PTD to the monitoring center and to the probation officer.  Police can be made aware of the situation and if warranted, the offender can be immediately incarcerated.

The cost of this program is $10.00 per day, paid by the offender.  This assists the County by offering the Court a secure option to incarceration, lightening the burden of the prison and the cost of incarceration.

In 2006, 38 offenders were placed on this program.  The offenses for which these defendants were sentenced were as follows:

sexual offenses

domestic violence offenses

drug offenses

arsons

other (i.e. property crimes)

It is anticipated that the number of offenders placed on this system will continue to grow. It offers a secure alternative to incarceration while placing costs on the offender, thereby saving the county housing and program costs.

House Arrest
In 2004, the house arrest program encountered a new provider to monitor offenders in this system.  Pro-Tech replaced Tracking Systems in monitoring clients placed on house arrest.    Pro-Tech also is the provider for the Global Positioning Systems (GPS) program, which thus far has shown outstanding results.  House arrest was instituted in Northampton County in 1996.  Thus far, the program has been very successful, with only a handful of clients needing to be incarcerated for failing to comply with all house arrest rules.  Our office attributes several factors to that success, not the least of which is the selective nature of the court.  It is believed that this program is appropriate for certain offenders and the court has been quite insightful in selecting those who warrant this type of sentence.

The house arrest program continues to save Northampton County Prison numerous bed dates and costs for this program lie on the defendants.  Thousands of dollars each year are saved, on these defendants that normally would be incarcerated. 

Psychological Consultation
Two times per week, the Northampton County Adult Probation Department makes available to clients a Clinical Psychologist. This psychologist is Dr. Robert Wisser. Dr. Wisser is a very valued component of the adult staff. The contribution made by Dr. Wisser ranges from psychological evaluations to treatment. He has conducted anger management programs and parenting classes, as well as offered consultation with staff regarding defendants they supervise. His expertise is invaluable in detecting and treating mental health problems. He is expected to continue in such a capacity in the 2007 calendar year. In all of 2006, Dr. Wisser has been conducting psychological evaluations for presentence investigations and other court proceedings. He is now more involved in the criminal justice process, and is certainly a positive for all involved.

In-House Hearings
For the first time the Northampton County Adult Probation Department conducted in-house violation hearings in 2006.  There were 21 such hearings from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006.  These hearings include the defendant, the defendant’s probation officer, and either the Deputy Chief or Chief Adult Probation Officer.  This is to act as a final deterrent so that the defendant doesn’t have to face an actual court date, and the possibility of incarceration for their violations.  The results thus far have been favorable and it’s hoped that further hearings of this nature will continue to deter defendants. 

Intermediate Punishment Program
The Intermediate Punishment Program completed its eleventh year of implementation with the Northampton County Court system in October of 2006.  This program continues to offer the Courts an alternative to incarceration.  At sentencing, the defendant is placed under the supervision of the Northampton County Adult Probation Department and can be subjected to special conditions while on that supervision.  These conditions may include electronic monitoring, GPS, work release, intensive supervision, drug testing, and community work service as mandated by the Court.  At year’s end, there were over 200 offenders that were active in the Intermediate Punishment Program.  This program has proved to be a much-needed tool for the Court.  It has also help save thousands of dollars for the county that would have been spent on incarceration time for many of these defendants.

Court Divisions & Operations