Skip navigation.
Home | About Us | Contact Us
Rick Scott, Governor
Florida Department of Corrections, Secretary Michael D. Crews

Florida Department of Corrections
Michael D. Crews, Secretary

Community Supervision

Futch Act

Florida Statute 948.10 (12) states: “In its annual report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, under s. 20.315 (5), the department shall include a detailed analysis of community control programs and the department’s specific efforts to protect the public from offenders placed on community control. The analysis must include but need not be limited to, specific information on the department’s ability to meet minimum officer-to-offender contact standards, the number of crimes committed by offenders on community control, and the level of community supervision provided.”

The Department’s Ability to Meet Minimum Officer to Offender Contact Standards

In order to ensure community control contact standards are met, with virtually no exceptions, contact requirements are reviewed on a weekly basis. Since implementation of this policy, community control officers are now meeting contact requirements on 99.1% of the community control supervised population. The Offender-Based Information System (OBIS) generated report is utilized by officers and supervisors to ensure contact standard compliance is achieved.

Number of Crimes Committed by Offenders on Community Control

The Department’s database reflects that 893 community control offenders committed a new crime while on supervision. Of those, 206 were for misdemeanor offenses. Among the 687 felony offenses remaining, 91 were for driving while license suspended/revoked, 75 were for cocaine possession, and 33 were for grand theft less than $5,000. The offenses remaining included resisting an officer without violence, burglary of an unoccupied structure or conveyance, sale of cocaine, and others.

Level of Supervision Provided

Supervision levels are derived from a risk assessment system, which is similar to the probation risk assessment instrument established by the National Institute of Justice. The system assigns a supervision level based on the offender’s probability of re-offending, committing a technical violation, or absconding. This distinction assists the community control officer in identifying which offenders require the highest level of monitoring and surveillance. In the three risk categories established within community control, as of June 30, 2007, 1.7% were in the Lunsford community control supervision level, 9.3% were in the higher community control supervision level, and 89.0% were in the lower community control supervision level.

Quality Assurance Contacts

In order to monitor the quality of contacts being made with community control offenders, each month supervisors randomly contact community control offenders (5% of the community control caseload), discuss the quality and level of their supervision, and document these responses.

Ineligible Community Control Sentences

The Department determines ineligible community control placements based on the forcible felony criteria and the current offense. Officers review the complete criminal history of these identified offenders for a prior forcible felony, and if the offender is determined to be ineligible for community control, the sentencing judge is notified via letter for further review of the sentence. Of the 10,850 offenders placed on community control, 1.3% were ineligible placements, compared to 1.2% last year. Of those determined to be ineligible placements (145), no action was taken on 101 and of the 44 remaining, 6 were placed on Sex Offender Probation, 5 were placed on Drug Offender Probation and 33 were placed on regular probation.

Planned Compliance Initiatives

In order to enhance public safety and to enforce conditions of community supervision, the Department conducts planned compliance initiatives in all 20 judicial circuits. These are unannounced searches of an offender’s residence. All offenders on community supervision may be subject to these events; however, those on supervision for or with a prior violent offense and those with a special condition of random searches are emphasized.