1. Statutory authority:

Executive Law § 243 establishes that the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (OPCA) shall exercise general supervision over the administration of probation services throughout the State, and further establishes the authority of DCJS to promulgate rules regulating methods and procedures of the administration of probation services.

2. Legislative objectives:

DCJS is statutorily authorized to regulate methods and procedures in the administration of probation services to secure the most effective application of the probation system and the most efficient enforcement of probation related laws. The proposed amendments make necessary updates to modernize the Interstate and Intrastate Transfer of Probation Supervision for Adults and Juveniles.

3. Needs and benefits:

Amendments are necessary to reduce the number of days from 60 to 45 for receiving counties to timely investigate and respond to intrastate transfer requests to be consistent with the ICAOS (Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision) period for investigations, thus establishing a uniform standard. This new timeframe contemplates the automation of probation departments; authorizes receiving counties to temporarily supervise probationers who reside in their county until a full intrastate transfer can be completed; and establishes a protocol allowing supervision to occur by a contiguous county (with court approval) in cases where a conflict exists within the county of residence.

The proposed amendments are the culmination of the efforts of a statewide Probation Intrastate Transfer Rule Revision workgroup comprised of probation professionals from urban, rural, and suburban counties across New York State (NYS) and DCJS staff.

Prior drafts of the proposed amendments were shared with all probation directors in March 2021. Responses were received directly from a limited number of probation directors, as well as from the NYS Council of Probation Administrators. Feedback from these sources resulted in few changes being made to the proposed amendments. DCJS, however, did make additional minor changes to provide greater clarity and flexibility in language consistent with our agency intent.

4. Costs:

a. Local probation departments will not incur any additional expenses due to the proposed revisions. Any anticipated in-service costs of educating staff, DCJS believes orientation can be readily accomplished through memoranda and supervisory oversight without incurring any direct costs.

b. No additional costs are anticipated to be incurred by DCJS.

c. No additional costs are anticipated to be incurred by probation departments.

5. Local government mandates:

DCJS OPCA always had agency rules governing Intrastate Transfer. Upon the adoption of the proposed amendments, local probation departments will need to review local departmental policy and adjust as necessary to reflect such changes. This is a routine business function of local probation departments which will not result in administrative costs.

6. Paperwork:

DCJS does anticipate the need to amend existing Intrastate Transfer forms as well as the addition of one new Intrastate Transfer form. This requirement will not be required of local probation departments.

7. Duplication:

These amendments do not duplicate any other existing State or Federal requirements.

8. Alternatives:

The proposed amendments take into account the feedback received from the statewide Intrastate Transfer Rule Revision workgroup, and probation professional organizations and as a result, incorporated certain minor changes. The modifications to this rule ensure clarity for probation departments in handling of intrastate transfers. Examples of such feedback from the Council of Probation Administrators (COPA) can be found under Section 394.4, “(15) where applicable, the name of the qualified manufacturer of ignition interlock device, date of installation, removal and order to de-install.” and “After the receiving probation department receives the transfer application, and makes initial contact with the individual, the receiving probation department shall promptly notify the sending probation department of the receipt of the application and the initial contact”. An example of the input from the Probation Statewide Workgroup can be Section 349.1, the definition of “Temporary Supervision” and the workgroup’s input throughout the new Section 349.5 Requirements for Temporary Supervision.

9. Federal standards:

The proposed amendments do not exceed any minimum standards of the federal government.

10. Compliance schedule:

Through prompt dissemination of the new rule and its summary, local probation departments should be able to implement these amendments and comply with the provisions as soon as they are adopted.

1. Effect of rule:

The proposed amendments affect all local probation departments in New York State but will not have any impact on small businesses.

2. Compliance requirements:

While all probation departments will be subject to the requirements set forth in these proposed amendments, Part 349 of 9 NYCRR already provided for a system of Interstate and Intrastate transfer. It does not appear that probation departments will incur any additional costs by complying with these proposed amendments.

There are no small business compliance requirements imposed by these proposed amendments.

3. Professional services:

No professional services are required for probation departments to comply with the proposed amendments and small businesses are not affected by these proposed amendments.

4. Compliance cost:

These amendments do not impose any additional costs or require additional staffing above and beyond current needs.

5. Economic and technological feasibility:

There do not appear to be any economic or technological issues for probation departments, or small businesses, as a result of these amendments.

6. Minimizing adverse impact:

In the preparation and drafting of the proposed amendments, DCJS’ Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (OPCA) was diligent in engaging probation professionals from around the state: 1) In January 2020, OPCA commenced the aforementioned Intrastate Transfer Rule Revision workgroup with representatives from across the state representing small, medium, and large jurisdictions including urban and rural jurisdictions; 2) In March 2021, OPCA circulated a refined draft to all probation directors/commissioners; and 3) a specific committee (known as the Probation Administrators Research Committee, or PARC) of the NYS Council of Probation Administrators (COPA), reviewed the proposed amendments and provided feedback.

7. Small business and local government participation:

As noted earlier, OPCA previously sought to engage probation departments from across the State on the development of and refinement of the proposed regulatory amendments.

1. Types and estimated numbers of rural areas:

Forty-four local probation departments are located in rural areas and will be affected by the proposed rule amendments.

2. Reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements; and professional services:

The proposed amendments will not result in any additional reporting or record keeping beyond what is already required by current regulations. While all probation departments will be subject to the requirements set forth in these proposed amendments, Part 349 of 9 NYCRR already provided for a system of Interstate and Intrastate transfer. It does not appear that probation departments will incur any additional costs by complying with these proposed amendments. There are no professional services required by these proposed amendments.

3. Costs:

These amendments do not impose any additional costs or require additional staffing above and beyond current needs.

4. Minimizing adverse impact:

These regulatory amendments will have minimal, if any, adverse impact on rural areas.

In the preparation and drafting of the proposed amendments, DCJS’ Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (OPCA) was diligent in engaging probation professionals from around the State: 1) In January 2020, OPCA commenced the aforementioned Intrastate Transfer Rule Revision workgroup with representatives from across the state representing small, medium, and large jurisdictions including urban and rural jurisdictions; 2) In March 2021, OPCA circulated a refined draft to all probation directors/commissioners; and 3) a specific committee (known as the Probation Administrators Research Committee, or PARC) of the NYS Council of Probation Administrators (COPA), reviewed the proposed amendments and provided feedback.

5. Rural area participation:

The Intrastate Transfer Rule Revision workgroup consisted of representatives from across the state representing small, medium, and large jurisdictions including urban and rural jurisdictions. The proposed amendments were developed by the workgroup which included representatives from all geographic regions of the state, including rural areas. The proposed amendments incorporate verbal and written suggestions gathered from probation professionals, including rural entities, across the State.

Moreover, DCJS did not find significant differences among urban, rural, and suburban jurisdictions as to issues raised or suggestions for change in content in this amendment. DCJS is confident that these regulatory changes have the flexibility to accommodate rural jurisdictional needs.

A job impact statement is not being submitted with these proposed regulations because they will have no adverse effect on private or public jobs or employment opportunities.