About Denton County CSCD

Denton County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) supervises adults who have been sentenced by the courts to community supervision, instead of jail or prison, for committing a felony or misdemeanor offenses. As well as adults who have been placed on a pretrial diversion through a written agreement between the defendant, defense attorney, and the District Attorney.

Supervision officers assess the needs of the probationers and the risks to the community. This is in an effort to provide services that will protect the community, restore victims of crime, and facilitate positive behavioral changes in the probationers.


16th Judicial District Judge WC Boyd appointed Charlie J. Cole, Jr. as the first probation officer for Denton and Cooke Counties in October 1968. Cole developed adult and juvenile probation services for both counties and as the populations grew, four separate departments were established. The Denton County Adult Probation Department was established as a separate entity in 1978 and became Denton County CSCD due to legislative action in 1990.

Numbers of Adults Supervised

As of January 2015, Denton County CSCD supervised approximately 5,500 adults on community supervision who live and/or work in Denton County. And, monitored approximately 4,600 adults who were sentenced by Denton County Courts, but live and work in other counties or states. Additionally, the CSCD monitors compliance with special Conditions of Bond of approximately 850 defendants.


Statutes governing Community Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCDs) can be found in Chapter 76 of the Government Code. Statutes that define Community Supervision can be found in Chapter 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Open Records Act: Freedom of Information Act

Records of Community Supervision and Corrections departments (probation departments) are considered judicial records. As such, they do not fall under the records described in the Open Records and Freedom of Information Acts. (Ref. Attorney General’s Open Records decision Number 236)