History Appendix N: Congressional Testimony of Assn on Pretrial Services

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Robert B. Ault, President of the Federal Probation Officers Association. On behalf of our Board and the members of our association, I want to thank you for giving us this opportunity to address you on the issue of pretrial services. Our association consists of 1,350 members including federal probation officers, pretrial services officers and probation officer assistants. We have been in existence for more than 26 years during which time our membership has steadily increased. We are the only professional organization whose purpose and activities are concerned exclusively with the federal probation system and its multiple responsibilities. As such, we seek to develop and improve the services rendered by our members to the United States Court, the U.S. Parole Commission, the U.S, Bureau of prisons, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and other agencies comprising the federal criminal justice system. To achieve these goals, we advocate continuing professional development through education, training, and related activities on the part of our members.

Just last week at our National Board meeting here in Washington, DC we discussed pretrial services with representatives of the Administrative Office. We also heard from a delegation of pretrial services officers representing one of the probation operated pretrial demonstration districts. We feel that there is a commonality of purpose and intent by all concerned parties. The Federal Probation Officers Association strongly favors the implementation by all federal judicial districts as well as a pretrial diversion program.
 

The Federal Probation Officers Association believes that the overall administrative responsibilities should be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The Federal Probation Officers Association believes that rights of the accused must be protected and to unnecessarily detain these individuals is economically unwise and morally unjust. We also maintain that in supporting the rights of the accused we must also be cognizant of the right of the community to be protected from the violent and repeat offender.

1. The U.S. Probation Offices nationwide (94 districts with 300 different locations) are prepared to deliver the services required by the Pretrial Services Act of 1981. The United States Probation Officer has a wealth of community resources as well as contractual resources for those released in bail status who are in need of assistance.
2. Last year this Committee was presented with budget proposals by both the Administrative Office and the Federal Probation Officers Association. Rather than argue the merits of either proposal, the Association relies on simple logic to conclude that with 94 districts and approximately 300 offices already staffed nationwide, the federal probation system can implement pretrial services immediately at a very limited expense.
3. Research was presented to this Committee by the Administrative Office that supported the idea that the five independent demonstration districts were more effective in administering pretrial services than the five U.S. Probation based demonstration districts. The report that accompanied the Pretrial Services Act of 1980 suggested that although both types (independent v. probation) showed improvement for the six categories measured, the probation districts showed greater reduction in two important categories, rearrest and failure to appear for trial. In fact, the only independent study completed on the Pretrial Services Agency by the Federal Judicial Center determined that there was no difference in effectiveness between the independent and probation districts.
4. A position has been previously raised that the probation officers have a prejudicial attitude toward the accused as these officers only work with people in convicted status. The Federal Probation Officers Association believes that the reverse of this position is true. First, federal probation officers are encouraged to obtain higher degrees in the fields of sociology and psychology. They have entered their chosen careers because they believe there is an inherent good in all people. U.S. Probation Officers do work with those in pre-adjudication status, and they deliver the same service without prejudice. Second, although the “probation mentality innuendo” had been raised, hard evidence was never submitted to the Subcommittee during last year’s hearings. In fact, Congressman Sensenbrenner in his dissenting view believed that this opinion was fallacious.
5. The Federal Probation Officers Association did take the initiative to survey all Chief Judges and chief U.S. Probation Officers. The results determined that 76 of 94 Chief Judges responded in favor of the Pretrial Services Agency being administered by the Probation Office. We note that two Chief Judges favored the independent agency, and 16 did not respond. Out of 94 Chief Probation Officers, 92 favor the Pretrial Services Agency as a probation function with one Chief Probation Officer opposed and one who did not respond. The Federal Probation Officers Association has concluded from the survey that the Pretrial Services Agency is a wanted and necessary function with the majority believing that it should be administered by U.S. Probation.