1997 by yaofenjin


                  ANNUAL REPORT


   The Tioga County Probation Department provides the residents of this county with a variety
of services under the supervision of President Judge Robert E. Dalton Jr. The Probation
Department has used a consolidated model to provide both juvenile and adult services through
one department over the years. By operating a joint department the county has saved a
considerable amount of revenue by not duplicating many functions that are inherent in both adult
and juvenile probation. This annual report will give a brief statistical review of the services and
operations provided by the department during 2006.

Mission Statement:

   “The Tioga County Probation Department is established to provide the court and community
an effective and efficient delivery of correctional services involving the supervision of both adult
and juvenile offenders being especially concerned with public safety along with coordinating
activities designed to allow offenders to become productive members of society.”

Departmental Goals:

To provide a Balanced Approach of Community Protection, Offender Accountability for his or
her behavior and the Development of Competencies to allow the offender to become a better

   1. To provide individual justice on individual cases.

   2. To provide services to enhance the integrity and credibility of the judiciary.

   3. To provide effective community supervision and surveillance for offenders under
      the jurisdiction of the probation department.

   4. To provide programming, either directly or through community resources, to assist
      offenders in achieving a crime-free lifestyle.

   5. To provide the court with Pre-sentence or Pre-dispositional information which will allow
      for effective sentencing sanctions.


   The staff compliment for the Probation Department continued at 22 employees in 2006. The
department did see two professional staff resign in 2006. Internal posting of these positions
resulted in two new hires from already employed Tioga County employees. Attached to this
report is an organizational chart showing the breakdown of duties and percentages of time each
staff is assigned between the juvenile and/or adult segments of the Probation Department.

   The adult criminal court filings for 2006 saw a similar number of referrals as last year. Last
year there were 445 filings compared to 449 this year. These numbers still fall well below the
640 filings from the year 2000. Every year the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, who
manages grant monies allocated to county probation departments, request various statistics from
each county. These statistics take a snapshot of the department’s adult caseload as of December
31st of each year. Unfortunately, the amount of grant monies appropriated from the State to
maintain county adult personnel salaries has not changed much for over twenty years. We have
been lucky that our caseload numbers have not risen substantially over the years so we have been
able to maintain a favorable client to probation officer ratio. The adult probation section of the
department has taken advantage however of other funding sources to allow for the provision of
additional services to better serve the Tioga County community and offenders we serve.

    Each case is also classified according to supervision risk and need, which affects the amount
of time an officer must see and spend with his or her probationers. Therefore, the number of
court filings does not necessarily correspond to the actual workload of the Probation Department.

   The duties of all probation officers working for the Probation Department include: conducting
investigations, making arrests, client transportation, offender surveillance, office paperwork,
office coverage and courtroom security. Probation officers also make referrals for services along
with assisting other agencies with mutual cases, as well as providing educational activities within
the schools and community to get the message out of what services we offer. As one can see the
position of a probation officer can be a rather busy but a very fulfilling occupation for the
dedicated officer.

   The year ending 2006 caseload totals were 762 compared to 789 for 2005 and 1173 for the
year 2004. The individual breakdown of “type of case disposition” shows small increases in
probation sentences, regular ARD sentences and Intermediate Punishment sentences for 2006.

    The following is a three year comparison of the year end active adult caseload for the

                                                              2004         2005          2006

Regular Probation Cases                                         88            75           89
Parole                                                         127           129          123
ARD                                                             33            38           42
ARD-DUI                                                        111            95           95
Intermediate Punishment                                         37            16           29
Held Open for Payment                                          777           436          384

Totals                                                        1173           789          762

  The Held Open for Payment cases continue a downward trend due to a continued effort to get
probationers paid in full prior to their max date of supervision.

    Intermediate punishment continues to give the judge some sentencing options as alternatives
to total incarceration. The value of this diversion program is that the Court is diverting rather
minimal risk offenders into this program, leaving prison space for more serious offenders. Also,
the electronic monitoring sentenced offenders pay $400 for the 30 days they are on electronic
monitoring which is revenue for the counties general fund.

                                OTHER ADULT ACTIVITIES:

                                                              2004        2005         2006

Pre-sentence Investigations                                    132          166         128
Bail supervisions                                                0            0           0
Probation/ARD revocations                                       51           72          33
Parole/IP investigations                                        73           72          84

    As seen from the above statistics, this year’s activities saw a rather large drop in Pre-sentence
investigations and Probation/ARD revocations, however Parole/IP investigations were up
slightly in 2006.


    The referrals to the juvenile probation segment of the department for 2006 were down
somewhat from last year. This is the second straight year that juvenile referrals have seen a
slight decline. It appears that many of the delinquency prevention programs operating within the
Juvenile Probation Department and the Department of Human Services are paying dividends.

    Over the last several years the probation department has been drawing down federal monies
earmarked for the administration of Juvenile Probation Department. Unfortunately, a federal
audit found that Pennsylvania was receiving federal monies outside federal guidelines.
Therefore, the windfall to counties for delinquent administrative activities, not surprising, was
reduced approximately 90% in 2006. Our county, along with most of the counties in the
commonwealth, suffered this funding loss. As mentioned in the last two years annual reports,
this money was fine while it lasted and the loss was somewhat anticipated.

   As mentioned in previous annual reports, we are seeing a trend of youthful offenders
committing very serious offenses especially sex offenses. This year was a continuation of this
trend. This coupled with a few youth relocating to Tioga County from the urban areas of the
state and committing new offenses, made our placement days similar to last year with fewer
overall referrals. With resources being tight, we were lucky to end 2006 with sufficient
resources to keep the county out of an over match situation. We are fortunate to have a good
relationship with the key players of the juvenile justice system in an effort to keep everyone
appraised of prevention activities available to prevent, whenever possible, costly out of county

    It should be noted that the juvenile probation officers in Tioga County do all of the
transporting associated with arrest, detention, court hearings and placement of their juvenile
clients. This responsibility in many other counties is handled by the Sheriff’s Department,
therefore keeping overall county costs down.

   The juvenile segment of the department continues to provide the residents of Tioga County
with unparalleled service. These services come under the requirements of the Pennsylvania
Juvenile Act, which emphasizes balanced attention to community protection, the imposition of
accountability for offenses committed, and the development of competencies to enable children
to become responsible and productive members of the community.

   The following is a three-year comparison of the referrals to the juvenile segment of the
Probation Department.

                                                                 2004         2005            2006

 REFERRALS:                                                       165           113              97

 Males:                                                           122            95              83
 Females:                                                          43            18              18
 Delinquent:                                                      101           100              94
 Dependent:                                                         0             0               0
 Cost & Fine:                                                      64            13               3

 Probation:                                                         29           23              28
 Consent Decree:                                                    36           53              36
 Informal Adjustment:                                                0            0               0
 Warned/Counseled:                                                   0            0               1
 Public Service:                                                    32            4               1
 Paid fine or other sanctions                                       15            3               1
 Placement:      (3 youth)                                           3
                 (6 youth)                                                        6
                 (8 youth)                                                                        8
 Certified to Adult Court:                                           0            1               0
 Transferred to other court:                                        11            4               7
 Complaint Withdrawn:                                                9            4               0
 Dismissed:                                                          2            2               0
 Referred to other agency:                                           0            0               0
 Unable to locate:                                                   0            0               0
 Complaint refused:                                                  1            0               0
 No Action:                                                          1            0               2
 Pending:                                                           18           12              10
 Referred from other Agencies; accepted supervision                  6            3               3


   The school based probation program for Tioga County is a cooperative venture between the
County and the three school districts within the County. One probation officer is placed in each
district with the funding for this officer coming from the state, the county and each school
district. This program continues to be beneficial to all parties and has been instrumental in
addressing the supervision needs of both delinquent and dependent children. We are in the tenth
year of this very beneficial program.

   The following are some of the performance measures that we are seeing from the school-
based officers.

1. Unexcused and excused absences continue to be reduced.

2. Youth under supervision being tardy and receiving in or out of school
   suspensions continue to improve.

3. Grade point averages for probation youth have improved a letter grade on

4. Youth are held accountable for their behavior by completing thousands of
   community service hours and paid over 90% of their court ordered costs and
   restitution to crime victims.

5. Overall, the county saved thousands of dollars for placements by having school
   based services available.

   Because our officers have been involved with our school districts for over ten years, they are
looked upon as a trusted extension of the school faculty. Included below are some of the ways in
which our officers have made themselves available to the schools.

1. Each officer is an Ad Hoc member of each of his district school’s SAP team.

2. School based probation officers take many non-probation type referrals every
   year in a preventative effort between the Probation Department and the schools.

3. These officers are also counted on by the schools to speak to hundreds of students
   every year on topics such as Juvenile Law and Substance Abuse in social studies,
   history, Drivers Ed and psychology classes.

4. Officers have also been looked to for faculty trainings in areas of their expertise.

5. Because of their inroads as officers, they have been integrated as security team
   members, Saturday AM detention supervisors, coaches, chaperones, etc.


   The juvenile placement day totals for 2006 were down 60 days from last year; 4575 in 2006
compared to 4635 last year. Such programs as the Probation operated “SPOKE” and the Human
Services “SPARKS” prevention programs, as well as the new “STARS” program along with
School-based Probation, I believe have all contributed to this decline in placement days. These
programs have continually been well received and balance community protection with
accountability and competency development.

   The following represents a summary of the days in placement over a three-year period.

PLACEMENT DAYS:                                           2004         2005        2006

Out of County                                             3913         2436        3030
In County (residential)                                    125          632         165
           (group home)                                      0            0           0
           (detention)                                     820          574         403
           (foster care)                                     0            0           0
           (RTF)                                            11          356           0
State Placement:                                           964          637         977

TOTALS:                                                   5833         4635        4575


       In 2006, the Probation Department collaborated with several work groups, agencies, and
programs of Tioga County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Included in the work
groups of the Partnership of Community Health are, Communities That Care, Alcohol Tobacco
and other Drugs, and the Tobacco Coalition. The department worked with Tioga County Youth
Leadership Program, the Pennsylvania State Police Camp Cadet Program held at the Mansfield
University, and assisted the State Police in School Violence programs.

       The BARJ coordinator is a member of the County Board of the Communities That Care.
This group meets to update its Youth Development Planning Board on the data collected in the
youth survey’s conducted in all the school districts. Using this information, the board
recommends evidence based programs that address the needs of Tioga County youth.

       In 2006, the Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drugs program presented several programs
during Recovery Month and also participated with the Underage Drinking Reduction Program.
This program partnered with the Wellsboro Police Department to reduce underage drinking in
the borough of Wellsboro. Officers of the Probation Department participated in the “Cops in
Shops” program to enforce underage drinking laws.

        The Department continues to work with the Tobacco Coalition to educate young people
about the effects of smoking. This coalition works with the District Justice and area schools to
enforce tobacco sales and use laws.

        In 2006 the Camp Cadet Program had over ninety young people from the counties of
Cameron, Potter, and Tioga. Probation officers of Tioga County work along with members of
other county probation departments, Children and Youth Agencies, several other police agencies,
and the State Police to provide an experience for the young people of a mini police academy.
This is a five day program that covers various law enforcement agencies and functions. Cadets
stay on the campus of the Mansfield University and have activities from early morning until

         The Probation Department in cooperation with the Tioga County Youth Leadership
Program coordinated a mock trial where the students from the program could experience a
criminal trial. Students were given roles to play; two were police officers, one was the
defendant, and two were witnesses. The remaining twenty five students were divided into two
juries that listened to the trial and delivered a verdict. After the trial which included the
sentencing of the defendant, there was a tour of the County Prison. Prior to the trial the students
received a tour of selected county offices at the Court House.

         The BARJ coordinator is a member of the BARJ Implementation Committee of the
Juvenile Court Judges Commission. This group has completed a white paper titled; “Advancing
Accountability: Moving Toward Victim Restoration.” This group is also cooperating with
national organizations that present Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice System as a model for other
states to follow.

       The future of BARJ will be met with many challenges as the juvenile court addresses the
needs of the community, the victims, and the offenders.


   In 2001, the Juvenile Probation Department took over the coordination and services offered
for victims of juvenile crime through a grant offered to the county by the Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency.

    In 2006 the Tioga County Probation Department, in cooperation with a Juvenile Restitution
committee, continued for the second year in a row the payment in full of all juvenile crime
victims. The Juvenile Restitution Account was established by the Tioga County Probation
Department in hopes of facilitating victim restoration and is funded through juvenile offenders
paying various fines and court costs, the operation of a firewood supply operation and
miscellaneous revenue. The disbursement of these funds in no way alleviates the juvenile
offender from his/her financial responsibility. All offenders whose cases have been affected by
this disbursement will be required to reimburse the Juvenile Restitution Account accordingly.

     The Tioga County Probation Department is committed to insuring that the victims of juvenile
    crime are restored to their pre-crime financial status, whenever possible, in the hopes of
    promoting justice and healing for all victims of crime.

    The following services were provided to victims of juvenile offenders in 2006:

                                                                         Victims     Witnesses Significant
Early outreach                                                                 56                        2
Intake and assessment                                                          56
Courtroom orientation                                                            2
Courtroom accompaniment                                                          2
Information on Crime Victim Compensation                                       56
Assisted in filing for crime victims compensation                               0
Alternate resources for meeting victim’s needs                                   1
Opportunity for prior comment                                                  56
Employer/Creditor intervention
Restitution                                                                    17
Maintain witness management                                                      0
Victim communication with offender                                               0
Victim’s rights notifications                                                  56
Notification on dispositions and disposition reviews                           25
Opportunity for restorative justice                                              5
Collaboration with Human Service Agencies
Notification of adjudication hearing                                           19
Victims request NO service                                                      3

       There were 56 new victims, 2 significant others, and 0 witnesses served by the VOJO
    Program in 2006 for a total of 58 new clients. There were 5 cases from previous years that were
    paid in full restitution. This is the second year in a row that we have seen a reduction in juvenile
    crime victims.


       The Tioga County Public Service Program experienced another fine year in 2006.
    This program provides an opportunity for both adult and juvenile offenders to perform work that
    benefits the community in exchange for receiving credit toward their court ordered fines and
    costs. Offenders are referred to the program by the President Judge or one of the three District
    Justices in the County. The program also accepts referrals from other counties and other states.
    For every hour an offender works at a cooperating agency within the County, the minimum wage
    rate is credited toward his/her fines and/or costs that he/she owes the particular court. (i.e. $5.25

per hour X 40 hours = $210.00 credited toward fines and costs). Also certain offenders have
been ordered to do community service as a sanction to their probation or parole conditions.
There are currently over sixty-five cooperating agencies that utilize the program requiring our
workers to perform a variety of tasks. Typical work assignments include cleaning up trash along
the county’s roadways, building and grounds maintenance, wood splitting and deliveries and
general office work.

   The following is a comparison between the last two years of the overall community service
program. There will be a further breakdown of the special community service projects offered
by the public service program later in this report:

                                                                       2005           2006

Referrals Received                                                      342            324
Workers Scheduled                                                       342            324
Workers Completed                                                       291            292
Males (%)                                                              80%            80%
Females (%)                                                            20%            20%
Hours Worked                                                         22,618         21,558

Dollar Amount of Service
Provided to Tioga County                                          $116,481       $111,026


   A couple years ago the fine, cost and restitution function provided by the Probation
Department was converted over to a new statewide automated bookkeeping system. The
actual data entry and bookkeeping functions remained the responsibilities of the probation
staff, only that we had to use totally new software to manage the accounts.

    I must commend the staff of the Probation Department with their dedication and
professionalism shown throughout 2005 and 2006, especially Marty Kubas who had primary
responsibility with working out the bugs in converting and then learning this new system. In
all, over 2,500 collection cases were converted from our old financial software program to
this new statewide system.

   2006 saw a dramatic increase in overall collections by the probation department, setting
an all time high in accounts receivable. Of particular importance were the increases of costs
and fines paid directly to the county and disbursements to crime victims. Also of value to the
county, was an increase in supervision fees collected which offset many expenses in the
operation of the probation department.

  The following is the breakdown of collections for the last three years:

                                                      2004               2005               2006
Tioga County costs & fines                      139,032.57         124,784.34         149,483.47
State costs & fines                              10,993.21          11,774.57           9,405.41
Special costs to the State                       61,334.92          66,806.20          57,397.39
Tioga County Drivers Ed Program                  49,566.26          49,688.87          37,667.78
Municipality fines                               19,838.35          23,651.49          25,648.23
Total restitution paid to crime victims         112,576.30          94,789.43         134,221.16
Supervision fees                                169,229.27         130,724.05         158,842.60
Public Service insurance fees                       350.00             633.50             570.16
Overpayments returned                             2,330.84           2,355.33           1,927.44
Judgment fees paid                                7,671.81           7,145.39           5,859.89
(Pre-Paid Deposit)                                                   1,185.00           3,133.58
(Unapplied Escrow)                                                     609.03             125.10
Miscellaneous fees                                                                         2,850

Totals                                          572,902.13         519,427.20         586,132.17


    In November of 1997 Tioga County received startup grant monies for a program
encompassing the principles of Balanced and Restorative Justice. This program was called
“SPOKE” (Special Programs Offering Kids Encouragement). The program has been integrated
within the department’s community service program ever since but was expanded to include an
income-generating activity.

    A firewood-cutting business seemed logical with a ready supply of resource timber and local
gas bills ever rising. The “SPOKE” program was designed to provide a work experience for all
youth coming through the Tioga County court system by having all referrals complete 50 hours
of community service. Additional work hours are added for probation violations and sanctions
in lieu of revocation processing. The work hours are scheduled when the youth are out of
school, thus taking up some of the youths’ free time.

    Along with the firewood business activities, the youth continue to do regular community
service activities such as: cleaning up local cemeteries, restoring little league fields, assisting
townships and boroughs with cleanup work. This years activities also included snow removal
projects, July 4th set up for local celebrations, laurel festival cleanup, the creation of a new ball
field in Liberty and some church remodeling.

   This program teaches simple skills and fosters a sense of work ethic, moral/ethical values, and
respect. Individual and group activities including victim sensitivity, anger management, conflict
resolution, team building, etc., are also conducted.

   This program has been well received by the community and many positive articles have been
written about the benefits to the local residents as well as the youth participating in the program.
An important outcome of the program is that some of the income that is generated from firewood
sales is paid directly to victims of juvenile crime as previously mentioned.

The following is the breakdown of activities for the “SPOKE” program for the past two years.

                                                               2005               2006
Number of referrals to SPOKE                                    135                116
Number of pending referrals (DJ’s & Probation)                    0                  0
Number of successful completions for SPOKE                      114                108
Number of referrals still active                                 21                  8
Number of hours completed                                    10,572              9,298

Wages if paid at minimum wage                               $54,446            $47,887

Number of hours worked = to a 40 hr work week                   264                232

                                                               2005               2006

    Full cords of wood delivered                                653                564

   As one can see, 2006 was a very busy year.


   The 2006 Litter Brigade competed another very successful year, and for the seventh
consecutive year, maximized the PennDot allocation of $16,000 for the program. The program
worked 33 juveniles this summer, as compared to 47 last year. There were 2 crews per day
cleaning all the State owned highways within the county. Because we have used our allocation
in only 3 to 4 weeks of the summer work season the local PennDot maintenance district is trying
to get our program an increase of our allocation to provide for a longer cleanup season for next

 The following are statistics for the Litter Brigade program for the past four years:

                                                     2003         2004          2005          2006

   Total miles cleaned                               572          572            577            576
   Total bags of trash collected                     872          911           1069            692
   Number of crew workers                             40           52             47             33
   Number of crew supervisors                          4            4              4              4


    This program was again funded through the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency. “TRIP” stands for Treatment-based Restrictive Intermediate Punishment. This
program is a joint effort between the Court through the Probation Department and Harbor
Counseling which is a licensed drug and alcohol treatment provider. “ TRIP”offers a sentencing
alternative to the court, which is fully funded through this grant to provide treatment for certain
offenders that would likely receive a prison sentence. Our program includes a continuum of
supervision as well as treatment sanctions with an emphasis on swift violation procedures.

   The following is a report written by Doug Canderlario who is Director of Harbor Counseling
and the primary service provider for treatment services.

   The following serves as a summary of services and outcomes for the Treatment-based
Restrictive Intermediate Punishment (TRIP) Program from January 1, 2006 through December
31, 2006.

I.     Summary of Services Delivered:

Between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006 thirteen individuals were referred for clinical
assessments and PCPC recommendations through the TRIP program after having been
determined statutorily eligible by the Tioga County Probation Department. Six of these referrals
were sentenced to TRIP and admitted during this reporting period. A total of 19 clients were
served as active treatment clients in the 12-month reporting period (plus two “graduates” of the
program who continued in services). During the reporting period, four clients were successfully
discharged and two were revoked leaving 13 active clients in the program as of December 31,

Between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006, 19 of the clients served received
approximately 1,300 days of Partial Hospitalization/Intensive Outpatient treatment (averaging 68
days per client), which included group and individual therapy. One client received 2 outpatient
sessions at another facility. Additionally, 10 clients received approximately 1,600 days of
residential services (averaging 160 days per client, including inpatient treatment, retreats and
halfway/safe housing). Transportation to services was available for clients five days per week
throughout the entire course of the program. Eleven clients and 18 family members participated
in the weekly Family Therapy component; seven clients benefited from vocational
counseling/support services; and all clients benefited from Anger/Behavior Management
interventions that have been integrated into ongoing program services; and one client received
medical services.

The services delivered under this initiative have proven to be cost-effective. Between January 1,
2006 and December 31, 2006 the per client treatment cost was approximately $14,973 ($1248
per month or $42 per day). This includes all costs, including residential services, specialized
services, and transportation. If we factor in the additional 18 family members who were served
in the family treatment component, the daily per client cost of the program is considerably

reduced. As we continue our monitoring of client post-treatment progress and long-term
reduction in recidivism, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy should be even more pronounced
(other research demonstrate that tax-payers gain $5-$7 in savings for every $1 spent on substance
abuse treatment).

Assessments:                   13
Clients in Treatment:          19 (6 new admissions)
Partial Hospitalization/IOP:   1,300 days
Residential:                   1,600 days (10 clients)
Transportation:                260 days
Family Therapy:                27 individuals (11 clients, 18 family members)
Cost-effectiveness:            $42 per day, per client, not including family members

The treatment services delivered under this grant contract would certainly not have been
available to the participants if this program and funding did not exist. We have found it
appropriate to place an emphasis on long-term, community-based, intensive treatment - using a
variety of treatment modalities and strategies in a therapeutic community context - with services
tailored to the particular needs of this target population. This is the kind of intensive therapeutic
commitment which is clinically indicated for these clients but which would overwhelm existing
community resources and funding.

II.    Summary of Preliminary Treatment Outcomes:

All 19 clients who participated in the TRIP program this year were level three or level four
offenders at the time of referral, and were sentenced to TRIP in lieu of incarceration in the state
prison system. Only one of the clients self-diagnosed as substance dependent or verbalized a
need for chemical dependency treatment at the time of sentencing. Eighteen did not recognize
their substance use as a primary problem nor recognized a need for treatment.

All 19 were diagnosed as having a psychoactive substance dependency diagnosis. All 19 clients
had an alcohol dependence diagnosis, and 13 had additional substance dependence diagnoses.
Most of the clients had engaged in some drug usage within one week prior to entering treatment
or prior to incarceration. Only six of the clients were employed at the time of admission. All of
the above emphasizes that as a group, the TRIP client population is a particularly difficult client
population with serious and entrenched problems to address.

Of the 19 active clients who participated in the TRIP program during the 12-month reporting
period (January 2006 – December 2006), 13 were still engaged in treatment at the end of the
reporting period. Of the six clients discharged from the program during this period, four were
discharged for successfully completing the program. All four are currently employed full-time
and committed to maintaining recovery and abstinence from substance use. Two clients
discharged from the program were revoked because of new substance abuse-related criminal
charges and probation violations.

Excluding the two clients who were revoked, thirteen of seventeen active clients were employed
at the end of the reporting period. None of these clients was on public assistance, other than their
TRIP services, at the end of the reporting period. Seventeen of the active clients still in
treatment maintained abstinence throughout the entire reporting period and were abstinent as of
December 31, 2006; and sixteen of them were able to self-diagnose as substance dependent.
Only the two clients who were eventually revoked relapsed during the reporting period (although
their relapses alone were not the reason for their revocation). All but one of the seventeen clients
express and demonstrate a non-coerced commitment to recovery, including – for most of them -
A.A. and N.A. involvement. All clients have reported a marked decrease in obsession and
compulsion to use substances since beginning treatment. As a group, the pattern of substance
use and related problems is dramatically less than the pattern of use prior to treatment. Prior to
their TRIP involvement, all of the clients were chronic, daily users of high dosages of
substances, and chronic criminal offenders because of their substance use.

Besides evidence of ongoing abstinence from the use of psychoactive substances, as a group the
clients have demonstrated increased reality-based understanding of their substance abuse and
dependency, and increased internal motivations for and commitment to ongoing recovery and
sobriety. The clients have been developing identities and goals distinguished from the
substance-using criminal identities and lifestyles that characterized them prior to their sentencing
to TRIP; and are developing stable relationships with the local recovering community. It is
important to reiterate that prior to treatment all of these clients were characterized as long-term,
chronic and habitual substance abusers with extensive histories of chronic legal problems.

Eleven of the clients had family members actively involved in the family therapy component,
and all of these participants report a variety of positive benefits from their involvement. All
clients have demonstrated a marked decrease in anxiety, frustration and anger, and an increase in
impulse control. All of the clients have refrained from any violence during the course of
treatment. All of the clients benefited from Anger/Behavior Management interventions which
have been integrated into the Partial Hospitalization/Intensive Outpatient phase of treatment and
into the Family component.

We are particularly pleased to report that as a result of their involvement in the TRIP program
and the addition of vocational support services provided by our staff, three of the graduates of
the program are enrolled as students at Mansfield University, and are successfully completing
coursework towards undergraduate degrees. We expect to continue adding to the number of
clients enrolled in college in the future.

III.   Program Evaluation:

We believe that the therapeutic gains made with the TRIP clients justify the rationale for this
initiative, particularly its commitment to long-term, community-based substance abuse treatment.
The cost-effectiveness of the program further underscores its value and the wisdom of such
policy-making and funding decisions. The positive cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioral
changes in the clients are clearly evident to us and to the clients themselves. The changes are
particularly striking when one considers the extreme state of dysfunction these clients were
exhibiting prior to their sentencing to TRIP.

One of the most valuable components of the program has been the effective working relationship
that has been established and developed between our clinical staff and Tioga County Probation
Department staff. Regularly and consistently, this working relationship has resulted in helpful
interventions that have contributed to the clients’ progress in recovery and change, all while
maintaining adherence to legal confidentiality requirements.

The existence of the TRIP funding and the TRIP program has significantly strengthened the local
12-Step recovering community, and has made it possible for our agency to sustain itself and its


    As seen from the information provided above, the Probation Department completed another
very busy year in 2006. Every year more and more services are being provided to the residents
of the county. The mission statement for the Department is to provide the residents of the county
with effective and efficient services, to do individual justice in individual cases and to enhance
the integrity and credibility of the judiciary. I feel we have fulfilled this mission and will strive
to continue to accomplish our goals and objectives into the future.

     Another very positive aspect which the probation department has operated in the past several
years is the cooperative atmosphere between the Judicial and Executive branch of county
government. The commissioners have been supportive on many new court and probation
initiatives and the court has always been able to communicate with the Commissioners. From
conversations around the state most counties do not have the cooperative situation that we have
benefited from here in Tioga County.

   Several activities continued throughout 2006 with the probation departments involvement i.e.
the courthouse security team (key fob secure areas with centralized public entry with video
surveillance), a countywide law enforcement monthly meeting, membership on the North Central
PA Counter Terrorism Task Force to name a few.

   During the past two years, the Probation Department continued to expand technologically
through the access of several State provided programs and equipment such as the Justice
Network or “JNET”, the Commonwealth Photo Imaging Network or “CPIN”, the Juvenile case
management system or “PaJCMS”, the adult case management system or “Pa AdultPS”, the
Court Reporting Network or “CRN system”, the Automated Fingerprint capture booking center
“AFIS”, and finally a series of several video conferencing units located in the probation
department as well as several areas of the county to mention a few. These systems have been
integrated into the countywide computer network which has been upgraded and enhanced to
better serve the departments throughout the courthouse. This technology has greatly enhanced
the efficiency and effectiveness of the Probation Department. Of course the staff of the
Probation Department should be commended on their willingness to learn new systems and
integrate new technologies into the correctional system operating within the court of Tioga

   Finally, I wish to thank the entire Probation Department staff whose hard work and
professionalism have made this department a model for the State.

Respectfully Submitted:
David L. Stager, Chief Probation Officer

                                            David L. Stager
                                     Chief Adult / Chief Juvenile
           Rob Repard                       IP Coordinator
           100% Adult                                                                           Mary L. Jackson
    Adult Probation Supervisor                                                              Special Probation Services
                                                                                          Juvenile Probation Supervisor
                                                                                                 100% Juvenile
                                            Scott Clemens
     James Edgcomb                          100% Juvenile
       100% Adult                               JABG
Intermediate Punishment                   Community Services                                        James Weiskopff
                                               Laborer                                          Special Probation Services
                                                                                                   BARJ Coordinator
     Scott Ingerick                            Tom Jones                                             100% Juvenile
      100% Adult                           Community Service
    Drug & Alcohol                           100% Juvenile
                                                                                                        Rob Davis
   Steve Daugherty                                                                              Special Probation Services
75% Adult / 25% Juvenile                      Dave Kemp                                              100% Juvenile
                                             School Based                                        75% Community Liason
                                             100% Juvenile                                          25% Community
    Troy Freeman                                                                                       Supervision
75% Adult /25% Juvenile
                                                                                                     Thad Compton
                                             Luke Dunham                                        Special Probation Services
    Jason Chimics                            School Based                                            100% Juvenile
75% Adult / 25% Juvenile                     100% Juvenile                                       Community Supervision
                                                                                                     Model Position

     Mark Dutrow                            Linnea Repard
75% Adult / 25% Juvenile                   Officer Manager                                            Dee Paxson
                                        50% Adult/50% Juvenile                                   VOJO / Victim Witness
                                                                                                100% Juvenile (Part-time)
     Kellee Stilson
50% Adult / 50% Juvenile
                                     Marty Kubas                    Carla Jungquist                 Marti Shabolski
                                     Clerical Staff                  Clerical Staff                  Clerical Staff
                                 50% Adult/50% Juvenile          50% Adult/50% Juvenile          50% Adult/50% Juvenile

To top