Timothy P. Cadigan, Guest Editor
Chief, Data and Analysis Branch
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
THIS SEPTEMBER'S ISSUE of Federal Probation is a celebration of the 25th Anniversary of passage of the Pretrial Services Act of 1982. It is a subject I feel passionately about and I knew instantly that I needed to be Guest Editor. The Act began the process of installing pretrial services in all 94 federal districts. As a direct result of its passage, a pretrial services office was opened in the District of New Jersey in 1987; I was one of the first five officers hired in January 1988. For those who were not in the system “back in the day,” pretrial services was not welcomed in many districts. Even the Federal Probation Officers Association testified before Congress against the implementation of pretrial services as a separate entity in the federal system. In the District of New Jersey, we were known derisively as the “Rapid Response Team.” Essentially, staff from the established entities (Probation, Marshals, etc.) openly challenged the five of us to prove our worth in the federal system. As I look at where Chiefs Dozier and Henry have taken that New Jersey pretrial services office, I feel great pride in having been even a small part of that history and the humble beginnings from which pretrial services sprang.
The goals of this issue are many, but they coalesce around three major themes. First, we want to look at and learn from the rich history of pretrial services in the federal system. We enjoy many benefits in the federal system, including a highly educated and motivated staff, some of the most complete and thorough training programs ever provided to pretrial services professionals, and a level of funding for treatment, staffing, and other program needs that is the envy of many organizations. This anniversary presents an opportunity to reflect on where we are and how we have gotten here. Second, what are the current pressing issues? William Henry’s article on consolidation confronts directly what is arguably the most contentious issue of the day: consolidation of pretrial services into probation. Finally (and most important), where are we going in the federal pretrial services system? Where will we, the staff and leaders of today, take federal pretrial services?
We are fortunate to have a number of authors who have been a part of the system since the beginning to provide insight into the early days and the ramifications of that history for the officers of today. Retired Chief Pretrial Services Officer Thomas Henry and Chief Pretrial Services Officer Donna Makowiecki, and Retired Senior Pretrial Services Supervisor Thomas Wolf provide two excellent articles with perspectives on those early days and how we got to where we are.
As the “data” guy in the federal system, I sought in my article to use “the numbers” or trends to see if we had achieved the various missions Congress had hoped would be achieved when it enacted the Pretrial Services Act of 1982. After researching the legislative history of the Act and examining the num- bers, I conclude that we have accomplished much of what Congress hoped we would 25 years ago. However, the remaining unfulfilled promise of the Act, reduction of unnecessary pretrial detention, still challenges us.
Chief Pretrial Services Officer William Henry provides a unique perspective from the District of Maryland, since Maryland was one of the original separate pretrial services offices in the country and went on to consolidate probation and pretrial services early in this decade. It’s an excellent piece that somewhat demystifies the dreaded “consolidation” and demonstrates that quality pretrial services work can continue after consolidation. Chief Pretrial Services Officer George Walker provides an “outsider’s view” of the federal pretrial services system. George Walker entered the federal system as Chief after working many years in state and local pretrial services systems and his article reflects those experiences.
The cornerstone of our look at the future is “Our Journey toward Pretrial Justice” by Marie VanNostrand and Geena Keebler, which begins reviewing where we came from, then proceeds to where we are, and ultimately presents the authors’ ideas of how best we can move forward in the federal pretrial services system. It is an excellent and thought-provoking piece that should motivate all of us to move further along in our journey toward “pretrial justice” in the federal system.
Baber, Mowry, and Cadigan present a look at the future from inside the system in “Pretrial Services Outcome Measurement Plan in the Federal System: Step One, Improve Data Quality.” The federal probation and pretrial services system is developing a results-based management framework that will, in the future, allow it to better assess performance—and make programming and resourcing decisions—based on what the program accomplishes rather than solely on what it does. The article discusses the steps involved in developing the new framework, and highlights where we are in the process.
Byrne and Stowell, of University of Massachusetts, Lowell, look specifically at pretrial services supervision and its evolution from demonstration project in ten districts to nationwide implementation. In doing so they have identified considerable inter-district variation in use of detention, restrictive conditions, and treatment funding. They conclude that recent technological innovations provide an opportunity for more defendants to be released on supervision with little or no corresponding increase in negative outcomes (failure-to-appear or rearrest).
After reading this special issue I hope you will agree that we have assembled a valuable contribution that should enable readers to better understand the federal pretrial services system and provide its practitioners and managers with some food for thought on how we might continue to improve what Congress started 25 years ago. In addition to being Guest Editor of this special issue, I serve as Executive Editor of the publication year round and must take this opportunity to thank our Editor Ellen Fielding for the endless hours she exerts to make Federal Probation something we are very proud of. While those that have published here understand Ellen’s many contributions to the periodical, I fear our readers can’t fully grasp how much work Ellen puts in. Therefore, this issue is dedicated to Ellen Fielding as a small way of saying thanks for those many contributions to this publication.