History 1974 to 1985 (Issue of Pretrial Services)

CHAPTER VIII

THE ISSUE OF PRETRIAL SERVICES

"Mr. Chairman, the Federal Judiciary has a completely trained, competent and well-organized U.S. Probation Service which is fully capable of performing the principal duties that would be assigned to separate pretrial services agencies. The Probation System is really the logical home for Pretrial Services."
From the Congressional testimony of Rowland F. Kirks, Director, Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, September 12, 1974

The Federal Probation Officers Association was in full agreement with Director Kirks' position on the method of management of the proposed pretrial services to defendants. Indeed, as indicated earlier in Chapter VI, the Association took the same position as the Administrative Office when S895, "The Speedy Trial Bill of 1971", was first introduced by Senator Samuel Irvin of North Carolina. Senator Irvin, however, believed that probation officers did not have the appropriate outlook to work with unconvicted defendants.[i] As a result, he introduced legislation each year for several years, until the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 (Title 18, U.S. Code §3152) was passed.
The legislative history leading up to the 1974 Act was clearly described by Supervising Pretrial Services Officer John W. Luymes (CA/C) writing in the May 1979 newsletter of the Association:
Through the years there has been much criticism of state and federal court systems. Part of this criticism focused on the length of time it takes to get a case to trial and the inadequacies of the bail system. Congress, in an attempt to respond to these problems on the federal level, adopted the Bail Reform Act of 1966 (18 USC 3146) and the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 (18 USC 3152). The Bail Reform Act was passed to revise existing bail practices in the U. S. Courts. A major purpose of the Act was to assure that all persons, regardless of their financial status, not needlessly be detained pending their appearance to answer to charges when detention served neither the ends of justice nor the public interest. The Speedy Trial Act complemented the Bail Reform Act by establishing an agency to collect and verify the information needed for the judicial officer making a decision under Title 18 USC 3146 and to provide supervision for defendants released under this section. This agency is the Federal Pretrial Services Agency.
Work on various bills by the Senate and the House over a period of several years resulted in a compromise over a major difference in the method of supervising the agencies. The Senate bill provided for the ten Pretrial Services Agencies to be supervised by a board of trustees. The House bill provided for the ten agencies to be divided between the Probation Division and a board of trustees. After stiff opposition to having the agencies divided between the Probation Division and the board of trustees, the Senate later agreed to the House argument that "....Given the experimental theme of the legislation .... H.R. 17409 organizes the service agencies under the Administrative Office, but vests local control in differing hands to establish a laboratory for later comparison in evaluating their success." Much of the opposition to having Probation Division involvement in supervising the agencies was the belief held by some that probation departments could not have an open mind on the issues of bail and that probation officers were so oriented to dealing with all defendants as convicted persons that they would hesitate to recommend bail in accordance with the Bail Reform Act.
The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 provided for a period of five years as the parameter for comparing the value of probation-operated pretrial services against the value of pretrial services conducted by separate agencies. Nevertheless, during the experimental period, bills were introduced in the Congress which had a direct relationship to the provision of those services. For example, the introduction of S1819 (the Deferred Prosecution Act of 1977) caused Legislative Chairman Tom Jones to speak with the deputy counsel of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Improvement in Judicial Machinery. The outcome was a change to permit each district, should the bill pass, to exercise a local option as to who would provide deferred prosecution supervision (Board of Trustees or Probation Department).
In 1978, as the evaluation period was in its late stage, there was a concern that the pretrial demonstration project leaders were going to recommend that pretrial services be provided solely by separate agencies. FPOA President Charles Mandsager (SD) wrote of this period:
A national Chief's meeting had been urged by FPOA for a number of years. Finally, this meeting was held in Kansas City in December 1978. The preference of the Director of the PSA project became convincingly clear to the attending FPOA members during and following his presentation. It was his hope that the Director of the AO would recommend against probation managing this program. A letter from the director of the PSA project to all Chief Probation Officers several weeks prior to the meeting which requested personnel projections without any guidelines or formulas and a two day turn around response also caused considerable suspicion. Our suspicions were not ill-founded as the figures submitted were to be used against us in congressional hearings to show that independent boards could provide the service with less personnel. It was decided at this meeting that FPOA should conduct an independent survey when a workload formula could be obtained. (When this was done, our manpower projections were reduced by two-thirds.)
During our Spring, (1979) board meeting, the Assistant and the Director of the AO, in response to our concerns relating to the conduct of the PSA managers and the Director's final recommendation, suggested that the Association submit a position paper and any other supporting data for his consideration. With this offer and a number of urgings from some Probation Division staff, FPOA prepared a questionnaire survey for Chief Judges and Chief Probation Officers to determine their preferences (probation run or independent agency operated) for PSA and based upon a formula the number of personnel projected. The responses from Judges and Probation Officers were nearly unanimously in favor of probation run PSA.[ii]
 
That survey reflected the following results:

Chief Judges
For probation run agencies	76
Against	2
Not available	16
	94
Chief Probation Officers
For probation run agencies	92
Against	1
Not available	1
	94

The survey results were forwarded to the Chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on Probation. They were also forwarded, with a copy of the Association's formal position paper on pretrial, to the Director of the Administrative Office. However, by that time, the final of the four annual reports to the Congress on pretrial services had been submitted (July 1, 1979) and transmitted to the respective Judiciary subcommittees in the Senate and House. It was the recommendation of the Administrative Office, based on the statistics included in the fourth report, that independent agencies be established. Those statistics, however, were seriously questioned by the Association and others and ultimately the Research Committee of the Federal Judicial Center was asked to examine the data. The committee's conclusion was that there was no significant difference in the success of either the board-governed agencies or those directed by probation. A report of the General Accounting Office reached the same conclusion.
During the balance of 1979 supporters of a separate pretrial agency were active in drafting legislation and in preparing for hearings before Representative John Conyers, Jr., (D-MI) of the House Subcommittee on Crime scheduled for February 1980. The Association, itself, issued a paper on the necessity for maintaining pretrial services within probation. That report follows in its entirety:
REPORT ON
IMPLEMENTATION OF PRETRIAL SERVICES
ON A NATIONWIDE BASIS
By
FEDERAL PROBATION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
SUBMITTED
July 12,1979
The Federal Probation Officers Association advocates that PRETRIAL SERVICES BE PROVIDED BY LOCAL PROBATION OFFICERS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF COURT SERVICES PRESENTLY SUPPLIED.
The recommendation is made after careful study of all available material concerning the operation of the experimental pretrial service program, supplemented by on-site observation of the operation in the ten experimental districts and a survey of the Chief Judges and Chief Probation Officers throughout the United States Court System.
The basic premise that pretrial services, if legislatively authorized, should be administered by the Courts within the probation service, was supported by 77 out of the 79 Chief Judges that were interviewed (15 were not available) and by 92 of the 94 Chief Probation Officers that were surveyed.
As to how these services should be provided, every factor studied leads to the inevitable conclusion that pretrial services belong in the Courts and that such pretrial services are best provided by existing Court personnel.
1.   At a meeting of all Chief U.S. Probation Officers in December 1978, a resolution was adopted that pretrial service functions should be assumed by the already functioning probation departments. The probation service can provide these services to the Court and wants the opportunity to do so.
2.   The allocation of pretrial services to a new agency means an enormous financial expenditure for the taxpayers. The present probation departments are set up, in place, and have the qualified personnel, both professional and clerical, to provide the service nationwide on 24 hours notice. There is no rational reason for creating a duplicate agency at great expense when an existing functioning organization can provide the same services at high professional standards with only a modest increase in personnel for the larger districts and none at all in the majority of the districts.
3.   Pretrial services provided by the probation department permits more expeditious service to the Courts from one department. The presentence process could begin at the earliest possible stage so that necessary information could be gathered for the sentencing court in the shortest possible time sequence. This consideration is of great importance as the demands of the Speedy Trial Act impinge more and more on Court practices.
4.   Pretrial services by the probation department provides for a continuity of services from the time of arrest and arraignment through sentencing and, ultimately, through probation and parole services. This can increase the impact upon law breakers and ultimately result in greater protection for the community.
5.   Lastly, but perhaps the most important of all considerations, the location of pretrial services within the probation service would contribute to the integration of the Criminal Justice System rather than promoting further fragmentation through the creation of a new and additional agency.

In summation, it is the position of the Federal Probation Officers Association that pretrial services are a necessary adjunct to the United States Court System. Further, such services are best implemented and most economically provided within the framework of existing court services rendered by the well structured and highly professional United States Probation Service.
Those individuals selected to testify before the House Subcommittee were heavily weighted in favor of those encouraging an independent agency.[iii]

Based upon the position of the Federal Probation Officers Association in contrast to that of the Chairman of the Probation Committee on the issue of pretrial services, President Mandsager recollected,

...it was concluded that FPOA should not request to offer testimony before the subcommittee. Instead, our former legislative chairman, [Thomas W. Jones] from Greensborough, NC, offered to contact Congressman [Lamar] Gudger from his district and was offered an opportunity to appear at his own expense. His testimony was excellent but, unfortunately, no Congressional members were present during his presentation. However, following this he did visit extensively with Congressman Gudger and his legislative aide and the groundwork he laid that day was perhaps the single most important thing that happened as we shall see later. We got our toe in the door for the first time.
Despite this positive note, chances for gaining compromise remained grim. While attending a probation officers training session in Albuquerque in late April, it was beginning to appear that we were losing the battle. During an FPOA membership meeting it was decided that the Association could not stand by, in spite of admonitions, and watch our convictions compromised. This was the first time in the Association's history that we would openly oppose legislation offered by the Administrative Office. I, as FPOA President, was directed to depart for Washington, DC, to personally contact all members of the House Judiciary Committee as soon as arrangements could be completed and materials prepared. Probation staff from districts these Congressmen represented were contacted to lay the groundwork for our forthcoming visit. This approach proved highly successful. A group from the greater New York/New Jersey area had contacted Congressman Rodino, the Judiciary Committee Chairman, in person the previous weekend.[iv] When I arrived in DC, he had cancelled staff conferences of the Committee and informed them there would be no further action on the bill until all the issues were heard.
With the assistance of [Ralph Ardito], I was guided to the Hill and to Congressman Gudger's office. Here the staff assistant, together with Congressman Rodino's staff assistant, arranged an early afternoon meeting with staff assistants from eleven members of the Committee. The response was beyond expectation and some members seemed incensed that important information had been withheld from them. Following several hours of discussion, we adjourned and began to personally, visit the offices of staff assistants that were unable to attend the meeting. Another day and a half was spent utilizing this approach where we were welcomed and invited to generous discussions of the issues. Because of the "back-home" contacts., we were expected in many quarters. Before we departed, we were offered a compromise of the House Bill that would allow Chief Probation Officers and their staffs to conduct PSA if that was their judge's preference.
In spite of this action, the Senate Judiciary Committee was not deterred. Hearings were held much in the same manner and preliminary contacts with Senate aides indicated there was no willingness to compromise in spite of the Association's efforts through the District offices where there were Senate Committee members. The South Carolina office was particularly very effective with Senator Thurmond.[v] The processes were slowed several times before considerable pressure started flowing. It was decided then to allow the Senate to make their decision without further intervention since the House was unable to move their bill. The Senate bill passed but the House was stalled. Because the Senate clearly indicated their unwillingness to compromise, the Association rejected the House's offer to endorse their compromised bill, since if it passed and went to Committee between Senate and House, the House bill could have easily been restored to the Senate version. As a result of the Association's unwillingness to offer support of the bill, it did not reach the House floor.[vi]

As the year 1980 ended, House bill HR7084 never passed. In speaking against HR7084, Congressman Frank J. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) evaluated the pretrial services bill up to that time.[vii] Essentially he asked that the bill be defeated unless pretrial could be assigned entirely to the Probation System for fiscal reasons.
As to S 2705, the Senate bill, it passed by a voice vote on September 30, 1980. Initially,   S2705, as drafted by the Biden committee, excluded probation personnel from directing pretrial services, and it required separate agencies. Just prior to reporting the bill out, Senator Thurmond delayed movement and negotiated with Senator Biden and others. Senator Thurmond was able to eliminate reference to a separate agency and he included a provision for probation-run agencies at the option of the District Courts. However, funding only seemed available for separate agencies.[viii] In summary, the resolution of pretrial services legislation for 1980 did not occur. As we shall see, the year 1981 would be no different.
The latter year witnessed the introduction of HR2841 and S923, companion bills for pretrial services. HR2841 was introduced first and FPOA President Robert Ault testified before the House Subcommittee on Crime on March 31, 1981.[ix] Essentially, he covered the position of the Association as described previously including the availability of probation officers nationwide to perform the required services, the cost-effectiveness if provided by probation officers, a review of the statistical work comparing the demonstration districts, refutation of the idea of a 'probation mentality' and inclusion of the survey of Chief Judges and Chief Probation Officers overwhelmingly supporting probation-administered pretrial services.
HR2841 soon passed through the mark up stage and was approved by the House Judiciary Committee. Before it was to be considered by the full House, however, it had to be presented to the Rules Committee. There, Chairman Richard W. Bolling (D-MO) studied it and felt that it did not represent bail reform. He, in turn, sent it to the subcommittee on crime for further debate (Rep. Bolling wanted the concept of a defendant's “threat to society" to be a factor in bail decision-making; Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL) desired an amendment to the bill which would assure that pretrial services were delivered by probation officers; and Rep. Sensenbrenner was opposed to any bill which, in his opinion, would expand bureaucracy or contribute to recidivism and criminal activity by defendants on bail).
In the Senate, S923 was introduced on April 8, 1981 by Senator Charles M. Mathias, Jr. (R-MD) and Senator Joseph Biden, Jr. (D-DE). Association President Ault requested to testify if there were hearings held. (He had previously responded by letter, at the invitation of Senators Mathias and Biden, as to the language of the earlier S2705, before the new bill was introduced). During May 1981, Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) pulled the Senate bill from his committee's calendar because he had understood that the FPOA was opposed to some of its contents. This created another tense situation which has been described by President Ault:

The Senate (had) passed their version of the pretrial services bill S-923. In the report that accompanied the bill, it was stated that the FPOA endorsed the bill as written and favored it being reported by the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate with no further amendments. This statement needs clarification because the report does not explain the circumstances under which FPOA gave its 'qualified' endorsement to the bill. For this reason, in my view, the report is misleading.
In early May, 1981, I was advised by Bill Cohan, Chief of the Probation Division, that S-923 had been “pulled" from the Judiciary Committee's calendar by Senator Strom Thurmond, Chairman, because of reports he had received that FPOA had problems with the bill and would not support it. This precipitated a crisis because the committee was not scheduled to meet again before the May 15th deadline; thus, the bill was destined to die in committee unless FPOA conveyed its support in writing before that date. Even with FPOA's support, the only way the bill could be reported out of committee was by another meeting before May 15th. This information was confirmed by another member of the FPOA Executive Board.
Prior to these developments, I had submitted in writing to both majority and minority counsel for the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws recommended versions of S-923. Copies of these recommendations were distributed to all Executive Board members. I had received verbal assurances in person by majority and minority counsel that these recommendations would be considered by the Judiciary Committee before the bill was reported to the full Senate. Since no hearings were scheduled, I was informed this was the best method to officially communicate FPOA's views on S-923. When the bill was threatened with "death" in the Judiciary Committee, our written endorsement was requested as the only means of saving it. Thus, I sent a letter to the majority and the minority counsel for the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws recommending that S-923 be polled out of the Judiciary Committee without further amendments. This was the only way to save the bill from the May 15th deadline since no time remained for further committee meetings. I was told that the written recommendations which I had previously submitted on behalf of FPOA would still be considered at the time of floor action by the full Senate. When S-923 was passed by the Senate, it did not contain the changes recommended by FPOA.
Nevertheless, FPOA is on record with the Senate in support of S-923. This fact, together with FPOA's record with the House Subcommittee on Crime (see May-June 1981 newsletter), should dispel further undeserved criticism of our association with respect to obstructing the passage of pretrial service legislation.[x]

In 1981, as in the earlier year, no pretrial legislation passed. Nineteen eighty two would be different.
By the time of the Spring Executive Board meeting of the FPOA in March 1982, the Senate had passed their version of a pretrial services bill, but the House of Representatives' version was still stalled over the issue of preventive detention. At the Spring Board meeting, Judge Gerald B. Tjoflat addressed the members and explained that his Judicial Conference Committee on Probation favored the House version of the bill which left the form of implementation of pretrial work up to the local district. The Senate version did not allow probation-administered services unless the respective Chief Judges or Chief Probation officers instituted probation-directed services within the first 18 months of passage of the legislation.
At mid-year 1982 the House and Senate passed their own versions of a pretrial bill, and subsequently they went into conference to resolve the differences. On September 27 the President signed into law the Pretrial Services Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-267). Essentially, the Act provided for several organizational alternatives for the provision of services: (1) establishment of pretrial within the probation office; (2) creation of a separate agency; or (3) use of contract services. A separate agency, under the new law, could not be created for 18 months. In the meantime, those districts electing to have probation-directed pretrial services could do so (with existing personnel). The new law also provided for funding for the original ten demonstration districts for eighteen months.
During the eighteen months following the passage of the Pretrial Services Act, the FPOA urged that Chief Probation Officers begin to establish pretrial services in their respective districts. Meanwhile, the Probation Division initiated a training program in policy and procedures for pretrial in the various districts. By August 1983 64 districts had received such training. On October 27 of the same year Judge Tjoflat circulated a memorandum to all Chief Judges of the Circuit and District Courts. He encouraged the districts to decide which method of implementation of pretrial they wanted but cautioned that there was strong opposition in the Congress to funding any additional probation officer positions for pretrial work:

You should also be advised that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime held hearings on June 1, 1983, on the implementation of the pretrial services program at which I testified that the statute clearly gives each district court the option of providing pretrial services either through its probation office or, with the approval of the circuit council, through a separate pretrial services unit. The subcommittee took exception to our stated intention to allocate additional staff to probation offices for the performance of pretrial services, citing the following language from the House-Senate Conference Report:
This (18-month) delay period (i.e., until March 27, 1984) is, in the opinion of the conference managers, sufficient for the district courts, circuit judicial council, and the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts to evaluate needs for pretrial services and the resources available in each district. This evaluation process . . . should begin immediately upon enactment of (the statute), and should permit the United States courts to identify those districts which are capable of providing pretrial services within existing (probation service) resources and those which will need additional resources and will therefore be required to establish a separate pretrial services unit under the supervision of a chief pretrial services officer. (Emphasis added).

By the end of 1983 the Probation Division had developed a factoring system of work measurement in order to make personnel requests for additional probation officers to perform pretrial services. The House of Representatives, however, was still not prepared to authorize such positions.
In February 1984 the Administrative Office submitted its Pretrial Assessment reports to the Probation Committee of the Judicial Conference. The Administrative Office recommended that 64 Courts operate as probation-administered pretrial services, that 17 establish separate agencies and that 11 make their own decision, without a recommendation, since it was felt that they could operate in either fashion. On April 25, 1984, the Pretrial Services Branch reported on its survey of districts and the form of organization that each district chose. Of 93 district courts, 84 selected probation-administered pretrial services, eight selected a separate agency and one was pending (but ultimately selected a separate agency).
 
At the Spring 1984 Executive Board meeting of the FPOA, Judge Tjoflat predicted continuing "stormy times" with the Congress as to the appropriation of probation officer positions in pretrial. Edward Garabedian, of the Administrative Office, noted that during pretrial's demonstration stages some probation offices were overstaffed. However, in 1982, when the Pretrial Services Act was passed, there was considerable understaffing. Thus, every Court would need additional personnel. (This reality, however, would not deter Congressman William J. Hughes (D-NJ), Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee from blocking any additional personnel lines).
The appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1985 provided only 53 of the 473 positions requested by the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts. In explaining its actions the House Appropriations Committee noted:

By the end of 1983 the Probation Division had developed a factoring system of work measurement in order to make personnel requests for additional probation officers to perform pretrial services. The House of Representatives, however, was still not prepared to authorize such positions. In February 1984 the Administrative Office submitted its Pretrial Assessment reports to the Probation Committee of the Judicial Conference. The Administrative Office recommended that 64 Courts operate as probation-administered pretrial services, that 17 establish separate agencies and that 11 make their own decision, without a recommendation, since it was felt that they could operate in either fashion. On April 25, 1984, the Pretrial Services Branch reported on its survey of districts and the form of organization that each district chose. Of 93 district courts, 84 selected probation-administered pretrial services, eight selected a separate agency and one was pending (but ultimately selected a separate agency). At the Spring 1984 Executive Board meeting of the FPOA, Judge Tjoflat predicted continuing "stormy times" with the Congress as to the appropriation of probation officer positions in pretrial. Edward Garabedian, of the Administrative Office, noted that during pretrial's demonstration stages some probation offices were overstaffed. However, in 1982, when the Pretrial Services Act was passed, there was considerable understaffing. Thus, every Court would need additional personnel. (This reality, however, would not deter Congressman William J. Hughes (D-NJ), Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee from blocking any additional personnel lines). The appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1985 provided only 53 of the 473 positions requested by the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts. In explaining its actions the House Appropriations Committee noted:

The remaining positions in the budget base will allow for the continuation of pretrial services in the demonstration districts as well as provide staffing for those districts where the courts have elected to establish separate agencies. There would appear to be a question as to whether the Pretrial Services Act authorizes the appointment of additional personnel in probation offices to perform pretrial services. Although the committee is not questioning the merits of the Pretrial Services program, the committee has not provided any funds or positions for additional personnel in probation offices to perform the pretrial services function until this ambiguity is resolved. In addition the committee believes the courts should utilize contract services as provided for in the Pretrial Services Act, especially in those areas where the workload is minimal. (H. Rep. 98-802 at 50) (footnote added).

On August 10, 1984 Congressman Hughes introduced HR6160 which would deprive the individual Courts and Circuit Councils of deciding which form pretrial services would take and would give that responsibility to the Director of the Administrative Office. Congressman Hughes' position and bitter invective against the judiciary is contained in his introductory remarks that day and is presented in Appendix O.
The Federal Probation Officers Association's response to the congressman, succinctly stated in the November 1984 newsletter was simply: "In reality, Mr. Hughes wants, for whatever reason, (Pretrial Services) to be independent whereas, the majority of districts prefer, which is provided by law, probation managed PSA. Congressman Hughes has tied up the purse strings and now blames the Judiciary for compromising the 'integrity and future of pretrial services."'
Judge Tjoflat, in a prepared statement sent to the House Subcommittee on Crime on September 6, 1984 stated that he believed more districts would select separate agencies in the future, but with respect to present needs, he pointed out:

In essence we have a situation in which many districts can only obtain the resources necessary to do the job if they agree to a structural and managerial arrangement which is inefficient, irrational, and a possible waste of taxpayer dollars ...
We would prefer an approach that would authorize the means - funds both for districts that elect to provide pretrial services through separate units and for those who choose to do so through probation offices. What is the point of conferring 'discretion" on a district court to choose what it believes is the best means - but funding only one approach?

Throughout 1985 Congressman Hughes refused to authorize positions for probation-administered pretrial services and the Senate would not authorize any positions as long as the Congressman insisted that pretrial be administered by an agency independent of probation - and there the matter rests at the conclusion of this history.
In summary, the Federal Probation Officers Association has always maintained the conviction that probation officers could manage pretrial services, from the time a bill was first introduced in 1971. It has always supported the concept of pretrial services itself but it was, in keeping with its own integrity, in conflict with others as to the method of carrying out such a service. The Association, in seeking to represent the interests of the Federal Probation System, had, for the first time, run counter to the positions of the Judicial Conference Committee on Probation and the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts. Nevertheless, the work of the Association prevailed. The overwhelming number of Chief Judges of the Districts and their Chief Probation Officers had the option to place pretrial services within their probation departments and did so. Were it not for the work of many in the FPOA, that option would never have been available.
The period of the development of pretrial services legislation was a stormy, heated time. It was a time of intense pressure, counter-measures, and even intimidation. That period is now, for the most part, over. While the lessons learned at that time should be retained, the rancor must be allowed to pass, for there is still much to be done in the federal criminal justice system, and it should be done, through unity, and in the spirit of cooperation.

---

[i] Not only are probation officers capable of working with unconvicted defendants, they had been doing so since 1937. In the latter year the Probation Department in the Eastern District of New York reached an agreement with the U. S. Attorney in which the 'Brooklyn Plan' for Deferred Prosecution was created. This diversion system involved the investigation and supervision of eligible juveniles and later, adults, who were charged with minor crimes but were not convicted. If a period of supervision was completed successfully, the charges would be dismissed. While the concept of deferred prosecution was created in one probation office, it gradually spread to many jurisdictions, both state and federal.

[ii] Letter of Charles Mandsager to William T. Woodard, February 3, 1983.

[iii] In support of the separate agency were Louis Frazier of Kansas City, Missouri and Morris Street of Baltimore, Maryland, each a Chief of a Board of Trustees agency; Honorable Gerald B. Tjoflat, Chairman of the Probation Committee of the Judicial Conference; Guy Willetts, Chief of the Pretrial Division and Roger Carroll of Dallas, Texas, one of only two Chief Probation Officers opposed to probation-operated agencies. Chief Probation Officer Robert Latta of Los Angeles, California, was the only person invited who supported the concept of probation-administered pretrial services.

[iv] Notably, the Congressman expressed his surprise when he told the FPOA members who met with him (Chief Probation Officers James Haran, John Costley and Morris Kuznesof and Deputy Chief Ralph Kistner) that he did not know there was any opposition to the current pretrial bill! He was informed that he was now meeting with representatives of that opposition.

[v] In a letter to the author, former Chief US Probation Officer Claude H. Huguley, Jr. recollected:

It is interesting to note that Senator Thurmond was listed as a co-sponsor of S.2705, the pretrial services bill which would have mandated separate pretrial agencies. Being convinced that Senator Thurmond was not fully informed on economic and other practical advantages of having pretrial services administered by probation, I presented the FPOA position to then Chief Judge Charles E. Simons, Jr. of the South Carolina District. Judge Simons agreed wholeheartedly with the FPOA position and immediately wrote to Senator Thurmond, his close friend and former law partner, making the case for Probation and sending data compiled by FPOA in support.

Senator Thurmond immediately began insisting on probation-administered pretrial services, finally compromising to allow each district to decide on how services were to be administered and compromising only after agreement to the compromise by Judge Simons who had received a personal phone call from Chief Justice Burger urging cooperation in getting the bill out. Judge Simons indicated that he was satisfied with the provision that each district could decide.

[vi] Letter of Charles Mandsager to William T. Woodard, February 3, 1983.

[vii] His comments can be found in Appendix M.

[viii] "The Committee determined that this bill should authorize funding only for the new independent pretrial services ... the bill as amended puts to rest (?) the concerns raised by the Federal Probation Officers Association by providing additional funds only when Circuit Judicial Councils determine that a new independent program is needed" - Senate Report 96-982, p. 7.

[ix] His complete testimony is reproduced in Appendix N.

[x] FPOA Newsletter, August/September 1981.