PROGRAMS

Deferred Prosecution.-Since June 1971, in the Western District of Kentucky, an expanded program of deferred prosecution has been in effect. The judges of the district authorized the chief probation officer to participate with the United States attorney in an effort to divert selected offenders to probation supervision and community programs without formal court appearances. Since then over 200 offenders of all ages have been placed under deferred prosecution, and only two persons have failed to complete their periods of supervision. Sixteen percent of all individuals under supervision in the district are on deferred prosecution.

It was important that community programs be developed prior to the acceleration of the deferred prosecution procedure. For this reason, diverse community resources were made available in an organized, coordinated manner through the establishment of a clearinghouse for offenders. This clearinghouse facilitated the delivery of such services as vocational counseling, job placement, training, bonding, emergency funding, medical treatment, and the provision of work clothes. Seven Federal, State, county, and municipal agencies merged their employment programs under one roof. Specially trained personnel from the State Employment Office, Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation, and the State Bureau of Corrections, among others, make up the staff and serve offenders from all jurisdictions.

Supervision Guidelines.-With increases in staff many districts have completely implemented the parole supervision guidelines specified by the U.S. Board of Parole and other districts have achieved partial implementation. Guidelines have also been set for classification of probation cases. These guidelines set standards both for the classification of persons under supervision and prescribe frequency of contact for categories of maximum, medium, and minimum supervision. The goal of the probation system for 1975 is implementation of supervision guidelines for all persons on probation and parole.

Contract Community Care for Drug Dependent Persons.-Drug dependent persons on probation and parole are eligible for an expanded range of contract serv ices designed to combat drug abuse in the community. The Federal Bureau of Prisons administers these contracts through community program officers. U.S. probation officers are responsible for supervision of the terms of release.

In two districts, the Eastern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia, specialized contract agencies have been created to serve only Federal offenders under the supervision of the respective probation offices. This eliminates the need for offenders to compete for needed services in agencies with priorities favoring nonoffenders.

The specific advantage is the close working relationship between the contract facility, the Bureau of Prisons, and the probation office. Services offered include individual and group counseling, educational and vocational evaluation, crisis intervention and family casework, prerelease planning for parole, employment placement, remedial tutouring, emergency clothing, financial assistance, and housing. Also available are psychiatric and psychological evaluation and treatment, therapeutic community placement, urine surveillance, and narcotic detoxification. It is noteworthy that these programs operate with a minimum of persons on methadone maintenance.

Officers experienced with these programs report since they became available the courts have placed on probation drug dependent offenders that otherwise would have been sent to jail.

Probation Team Concept.-The personalized structure of an organization can help fulfill basic human needs, and motivate people to be professionally responsible and more productive. Based on this premise, the probation office in the Northern District of Georgia was restructured, and a team system established: Two probation officers and one clerk-stenographer form a team; teams function

as backup units for each other. The probation officers know their team partner's caseloads almost as well as their own, thus covering for each other on their partner's field days and eliminating the need for an "Officer of the Day." Backup teams have their own telephone system and are located close to each other to ease contact within the unit and to expedite the flow of work. Case management decisions at the team level come naturally, and a healthy professional independence is stimulated. Training is simplified by teaming a new officer with a veteran. The clerk-stenographer plays an integral role and is, to a large degree, the key to a team's success. She handles all clerical work for the team and routinely prepares case delinquent and expiration lists which include the status of fine and restitution payments. All incoming correspondence for the team crosses her desk first. The clerk-stenographer is thereby aware of all the work performed by the team. She also monitors a small, low risk caseload selected through a system of case classification. Because of her active participation as a team member she performs with greater efficiency and better morale.

Supervisor's Development Program.-In the Central District of California a supervisor's development program has been designed to combine practice as an acting supervisor with formal training. Group and individual exercises give the acting supervisors practice in identifying their skills and testing them in a closely supervised setting. At the conclusion of the development course officers will be selected for permanent assignment to supervisory positions.

Commitment Alternatives.-Recognizing that the problems of most offenders must ultimately be resolved in the community the District of Oregon has pioneered in the use of available community resources as alternatives to jail or prison sentences. Offenders have been placed in a State forestry camp, county work release centers, and a State community treatment center. Private residential and treatment care have been arranged for male youths in programs sponsored by nonprofit organizations and men have been placed in a private residential center for drug abusers. Training.

The Probation Division continues to work closely with the Federal Judicial Center in the design and conduct of training programs. A record 333 new officers attended 1-week orientation courses. An additional 197 officers attended 1-week refresher courses and 224 attended regional or circuit inservice training. One management training institute for new chief probation officers and supervising probation officers was held at the University of Maryland. Specialized courses also were conducted for chief clerks and for probation officer assistants.

The orientation courses rely on a faculty of experienced probation officers for the majority of the training. A total of 43 officers left their home districts to lend assistance to the Judicial Center and Probation Division in accomplishing the largest training task ever undertaken. The entire system owes a debt to these men and women who have devoted such effort to see that new officers receive proper orientation into the system.

LOOKING FORWARD

It is possible that even the expanding resources of the Federal Probation System will not keep pace with the work demands. The growing range of correctional treatment alternatives will result in ever greater demands for service and coordination. A few examples include community treatment centers or contract halfway houses in every large city, drug treatment programs of increasing sophistication, diversion or deferred prosecution programs to keep persons out of the criminal justice system, and contract services to meet specific needs of offenders. The job of U.S. probation officer will grow to meet these work demands. Officers will spend more and more time coordinating their own activities and other treatment resources to focus these forces for change on the offender.

While the job grows rapidly so does the system. Nearly one-half of all probation officers currently on duty have been appointed within the last 2 years. This leaves the system with two major challenges: (1) how to use these new resources wisely and in imaginative new ways that allow all staff the opportunity to move Federal Probation forward with the times, and (2) how to integrate these new personnel into a suddenly larger organization in such a way that they can both share the same sense of accomplishment in achieving the goals of Federal Probation and maintain the same high standards of quality service that characterize the system.

Respectfully submitted.

WAYNE P. JACKSON, Chief Division of Probation.

AS A MATTER OF FACT...

AN INTRODUCTION TO FEDERAL PROBATION

(By Merrill A. Smith, Formerly Chief, Federal Probation System)

PREFACE

The purpose of this handbook is to answer common questions likely to be in the minds of newly appointed probation officers. It is intended also to give the new officer a common base of information prior to their attending one of the formal orientation schools conducted by the Federal Judicial Center. The handbook endeavors to present some of the basic information which otherwise would be covered in the orientation programs thus making available additional time during the classes to cope with the more complex issues.

The handbook will serve also as an outline for chief probation officers in their initial orientation discussions with new staff and may be valuable to measure the new officer's grasp of the federal probation scene.

The handbook is not intended to replace the Probation Officers Manual or other basic documents with which the probation officer must become familiar, but rather to put under one cover the information most helpful to the new appointee.

The author has drawn heavily on earlier publications of the Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, particularly the Circuit Executive Guide and the Guide to the Administrative Organization of the United States Courts. In some instances entire sections are reproduced almost verbatim. Other chapters reflect the contributions of Mr. Norman A. Carlson, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; Mr. Maurice H. Sigler, Chairman of the U.S. Board of Parole; Mr. Carl H. Imlay, General Counsel of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; and Messrs. H. Kent Presson and Peter G. McCabe, assistant chiefs respectively of the Divisions of Bankruptcy and Magistrates.

The author is indebted to Probation Officers Ivan T. Green and Stuart A. Makagon, for assistance in the initial drafting of several chapters, to Mrs. Becky Baumgardner and Mrs. Diana Harner for typing the manuscript, and to Chief Probation Officer Robert M. Latta for making available the facilities of his office and the assistance of the above members of his staff.

Credit is due also to Chief Judge Albert Lee Stephens, Jr., Central District of California, for proposing that such a handbook be compiled, and to the staff of the Division of Probation for their insight, guidance, and helpful criticism. M. A. S.

FOREWORD

The Probation System is the largest of the services within the Federal Judiciary in terms of number of members, and is one of the most senior in terms of receiving professional education and training. It is time that a handbook be compiled and published as a reference guide for those worthy men and women who join this dedicated group and desire to be more effective and professional in their chosen careers. Indeed, the material collected herein provides informative reading for all members of the court family, and I heartily recommend it. This handbook-guide represents our first effort in this direction, and I feel that it is well done and has achieved its objective. As times change and the courts change, this publication will be updated as necessary to keep abreast and reflect those current developments. ALFRED P. MURRAH,

Director,

The Federal Judicial Center.

CHAPTER I-INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBATION SYSTEM

Welcome to the Federal Probation System. As a federal probation officer you occupy a key position in government. The daily exercise of your judgment and skills will have a profound effect on the lives and futures of countless people not only those who are the immediate subjects of your work but all those whom their behavior ultimately affects.

Your position is unique. Fundamentally your job is to help people-people with deep hurts, people in need of understanding, people in need of guidance,

people who need to know that someone cares. But also basic to your job is your unwaivering dedication to upholding the law and making your community a safer place to live. The uniqueness of your work is that through your humanitarian efforts and the impact of your life, you will achieve the ultimate goal of corrections. You will help draw people out of crime and thereby afford the only real and lasting protection to all citizens.

Helping people is what probation is all about, but within a legal structure whose requirements though sometimes restrictive cannot be brushed aside. Organizational framework, agency policies and prescribed procedures although essential can seem rather sterile unless seen in perspective as means to an end.

There is reason-in law, in regulation, in rule or in experience for all that is required of probation officers or recommended for their guidance. The Division of Probation holds firmly the view that whenever a particular policy or procedure ceases to make good sense, it should be modified or abolished. The Division looks to the field probation officers for continuing feedback to keep policy, practice and procedure in line with reality.

Purpose. Both the purpose and philosophy of the Probation System are revealed to a degree in the foregoing. The purpose is stated more concisely however in the following definition :

"The central goal of the Probation System is to enhance the safety of the community by reducing the incidence of criminal acts by persons previously convicted. The goal is achieved through the counseling, guidance, assistance, surveillance and restraint of offenders to enable their reintegration into society as law abiding and productive members."

Philosophy. An excellent statement of probation philosophy is found in the introduction to Standards Relating to Probation. The document, authored by the American Bar Association which holds the copyright, is one of a series on Standards for Criminal Justice. The statement of probation philosophy follows: "The basic idea underlying a sentence to probation is very simple. Sentencing is in large part concerned with avoiding future crimes by helping the defendant learn to live productively in the community which he has offended against. Probation proceeds on the theory that the best way to pursue this goal is to orient the criminal sanction toward the community setting in those cases where it is compatible with the other objectives of sentencing. Other things being equal, the odds are that a given defendant will learn how to live successfully in the general community if he is dealt with in that community rather than shipped off to the artificial and atypical environment of an institution of confinement. Banishment from society, in a word, is not the way to integrate someone into society. Yet imprisonment involves just such banishment-albeit for a temporary sojourn in most cases.

"This is of course not to say that probation should be used in all cases, or that it will always produce better results. There are many goals of sentencing, some of which in a given case may require the imposition of a sentence to imprisonment even in the face of a conclusion that probation is more likely to assure the public that the particular defendant will not offend again. And there are defendants as to whom forced removal from the environment which may in some part have contributed to their offense may be the best beginning to a constructive and useful life.

"By the same token, however, it is to say that probation is a good bit more than the 'matter of grace' or 'leniency' which characterizes the philosophy of the general public and of many judges and legislatures on the subject. Probation is an affirmative correctional tool, a tool which is used not because it is of maximum benefit to the defendant (though, of course, this is an important side product), but because it is of maximum benefit to the society which is sought to be served by the sentencing of criminals. The automatic response of many in the criminal justice system that imprisonment is the best sentence for crime unless particular reasons exist for "mitigating" the sentence is not a sound starting point in the framing of criminal sanctions. The premise of this report is that quite the opposite ought to be the case that the automatic response in a sentencing situation ought to be probation, unless particular aggravating factors emerge in the case at hand. At least if such aggravating factors cannot be advanced as the basis for a more repressive sentence, probation offers more hope than a sentence to prison that the defendant will not become part of the depressing cycle which makes the gates of our prisons resemble a revolving door rather than a barrier to crime.

"It must of course also be realized that this thesis cannot be practiced in a vacuum. Too often a sentencing judge is faced with the Hobson's choice of a