public sector communitycase managementpresentence reportsprobation supervisionrisk assessment
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Outcomes that landed
30% weight
Ask about caseload size and composition (high risk, sex offence, domestic violence) and what changed: revocation rates, completion of Thinking for a Change, employment or treatment placements secured.
Evidence to listen for
Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
States their own role rather than the department's
Gives measured reach or impact
Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; describes intent and process only.
2
Needs Improvement
Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.
3
Satisfactory
Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.
4
Very Good
Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.
5
Excellent
Cites caseload numbers, risk mix, and concrete supervision outcomes such as reduced technical violations or sustained treatment and employment placements.
02
Evaluation factor
Stakeholder facilitation
25% weight
Probe how they work courts, treatment providers, law enforcement, victims and families; look for staffings, joint case plans, and handling a judge who rejected their recommendation.
Evidence to listen for
Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
Names the competing interests and the resolution method
Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
Treats every group as legitimate
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.
2
Needs Improvement
Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.
3
Satisfactory
Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.
4
Very Good
Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.
5
Excellent
Describes specific coordination with judges, counsellors and police, and holds a defensible position when a recommendation is challenged in court.
03
Evaluation factor
Regulatory and policy command
25% weight
Test command of conditions of supervision, revocation and violation procedure, victim notification, confidentiality rules, and validated instruments such as LSI-R, ORAS, OASys or Static-99R.
Evidence to listen for
Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
Knows where the discretion sits
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.
2
Needs Improvement
Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.
3
Satisfactory
Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.
4
Very Good
Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.
5
Excellent
Explains scoring and override of a named risk instrument, and states clearly when conduct warrants a warrant versus graduated sanction.
04
Evaluation factor
Evidence and reporting
20% weight
Check quality of presentence investigation reports, chronological case notes, drug screen and GPS monitoring records, and how their documentation held up under audit or defence scrutiny.
Evidence to listen for
Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
Tracks whether the intervention worked
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.
2
Needs Improvement
Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.
3
Satisfactory
Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.
4
Very Good
Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.
5
Excellent
Writes fact-based PSIs separating verified information from allegation, keeps contemporaneous case notes, and has survived audit or cross-examination on them.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
