effective

practices

series

Pretrial Services

Communications

Court Education Division

Federal Judicial Center

1995

This guide is a compilation of practices that chief probation officers and line staff consider

effective and of possible interest to other districts. Participants at a Federal Judicial Center

symposium selected which practices should be included in this publication. The guide was

undertaken in furtherance of the Center’s statutory mission to develop and conduct programs

of continuing education and training for personnel of the federal judicial system. The views

expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center.

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................... v

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

Evolution of Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 3 ...............

How to Use the Effective Practices ................................................................ 5

Additional Resources....................................................................................... 6

II. The Role of the Chief............................................................................................... 7

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 9

Responsibilities................................................................................................. 9

III. Working with People............................................................................................. 13

Meetings with the Chief Judge....................................................................... 15

Meetings with District Court Judges............................................................. 17

Meetings with Magistrate Judges .................................................................. 19

Meetings with Liaison Judges ........................................................................ 21

Use of Deputy Chiefs....................................................................................... 23

Use of Supervisors and Officers-In-Charge.................................................. 25

Use of Specialist (JSP-13) Officers .................................................................. 27

Use of Alliances ................................................................................................ 29

Social Interactions ............................................................................................ 31

Presentations and Demonstrations................................................................ 33

Working Meals ................................................................................................. 35

Training ............................................................................................................. 37

IV. Working with Written Materials ......................................................................... 39

Annual Reports................................................................................................. 41

Progress Reports............................................................................................... 43

Use of Statistical Data ...................................................................................... 45

Use of Literature............................................................................................... 49

Written Correspondence ................................................................................. 51

v

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of the members of the advisory

committee for Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications and to express

our thanks and appreciation for their work and commitment to this project.

The following are the committee members:

Wilma McNeese, Chief U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, Western District of

Pennsylvania

Donald S. Miller, Pretrial Services Administrator, Probation and Pretrial

Services Division, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

George F. Moriarty, Chief U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, District of

Massachusetts

Thomas F. Primosch, Chief U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, Middle District of

Florida

Daniel B. Ryan, Operations Branch Chief, Probation and Pretrial Services

Division, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

William R. Sayes, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Western District of Louisiana

I. Introduction

Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 3

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Evolution of Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

This publication discusses the role of chief pretrial services officers and chief

probation officers who have pretrial services responsibilities (referred to as chiefs

throughout this publication) and describes seventeen practices proven to be

effective in communicating with judicial officers.

In May 1993, the Federal Magistrate Judges Association passed a resolution

which recognized the value of pretrial services to the judiciary and expressed

continuing support. Office reviews and technical assistance visits conducted by

personnel of the Probation and Pretrial Services Division of the Administrative

Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) revealed that many members of the judiciary and

court-related agencies view pretrial services as an important entity in the federal

criminal justice system.

Probation and pretrial services chiefs at the June 1993 Chiefs Conference, held in

Baltimore, Maryland, discussed the status of pretrial services in the federal

system. They recognized that, notwithstanding the evidence of approval of the

pretrial services effort, many judicial officers are unaware of the merits of pretrial

services. This lack of awareness, in turn, the chiefs felt, hinders full

implementation of the Pretrial Services Act. The chiefs felt that there was a need

to better inform judicial officers and employees of the courts as well as other

agencies about pretrial services.

Two initiatives emerged from the discussions at the conference. One initiative

was to seek methods of communicating the functions and activities of pretrial

services to a wider audience, including employees of the court and other

agencies. Seven probation and pretrial services chiefs volunteered to serve on a

public relations committee chaired by William R. Sayes, Chief U.S. Probation

Officer, Western District of Louisiana. The work of that committee is ongoing.

The second initiative focused on improving chiefs’ communications with judicial

officers in their districts. This publication is the product of that initiative. The

Federal Judicial Center (FJC) agreed to sponsor an educational project that would

identify and disseminate to all chiefs those communication practices that

individual chiefs with pretrial services responsibilities had found to be effective

in communicating with judicial officers in their districts. The FJC consulted with

the AO and the Chiefs Advisory Council throughout the course of the project.

A planning committee was formed in February 1994. The committee’s purpose

was to identify questions to be included in a survey that would ask chiefs to

describe practices they had used to effectively communicate with judicial officers

in their districts.
4 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

In May 1994, all chief pretrial services officers and chief probation officers with

pretrial services responsibilities were surveyed about their communication

practices with judicial officers concerning matters of policy and procedure.

Questions about communications concerning individual defendants were

excluded from the survey. Ninety-two percent of chiefs responded to the survey.

Participants at the FJC’s Pretrial Services Symposium that was held at the

Probation and Pretrial Services Academy on July 5–8, 1994, in Baltimore,

Maryland, used the survey results to prepare this publication. The following are

the participants:

Jeanne Arnold, U.S. Probation Officer, Eastern District of Kentucky

John T. Babi, Deputy Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Western District of New

York

Nancy Beatty, Probation and Pretrial Services Administrator, Probation and

Pretrial Services Division, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Jeffrey L. Burkholder, Chief U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, Southern District of

Ohio

Tim Cadigan, Program Administrator, Probation and Pretrial Services Division,

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Grace S. Chavez, U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, District of Colorado

Marion Gutmann, Supervising U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, Southern District

of New York

Pamela Hogue, Clerk-in-Charge, Western District of Louisiana

Joan C. Lloyd, former Chief U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, District of Arizona

Patrick J. Lynch, U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, District of Nevada

Wilma McNeese, Chief U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, Western District of

Pennsylvania

George F. Moriarty, Chief U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, District of

Massachusetts

Laura O’Connor, Secretary, Probation and Pretrial Services Division,

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

James Provence, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Eastern District of Kentucky

Daniel B. Ryan, Operations Branch Chief, Probation and Pretrial Services

Division, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 5

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Sharon A. Savinski, Pretrial Services Administrator, Probation and Pretrial

Services Division, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

William R. Sayes, Chief U.S. Probation Officer, Western District of Louisiana

N. Alan Weibel, Supervising U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, Southern District of

Texas

Hence Williams, Chief U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, District of Oregon

Three people gave participants information on judicial officers’ expectations of

chiefs. They are Charles R. Butler, U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of Alabama; Barry Mahoney, President, Justice Management

Institute, Denver, Colorado; and David D. Noce, U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Philip M. Pro, U.S. District

Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, reviewed and commented

on an earlier draft of this publication.

How to Use the Effective Practices

Eight responsibilities for chiefs are described in section II. A consensus of the

symposium participants determined that these responsibilities are vital to

effective execution of pretrial services functions now and in the foreseeable

future. Below the description of each responsibility, we list those communication

practices symposium participants considered appropriate for fulfilling the

responsibility. Practices derived from both the survey and participants’

experiences are included. Meetings with judicial officers, drawn from the survey,

were seen as an effective communication practice in each area of responsibility.

To avoid repetition, we do not mention meetings as a communication practice in

the eight responsibility areas.

Seventeen communication practices are presented in sections III and IV. A

Description segment is included only for those practices whose description is not

readily apparent. A Suggestions for Implementation segment advises chiefs on

how to successfully use the practice. A Survey Results segment includes

information on the number of chiefs who reported using the practice and the

issues most often addressed by that practice. Under Use of the Practice is a list of

all districts whose chief cited a specific instance of using the practice and the

issues addressed by that practice. More chiefs said they used the practice than

cited specific instances. Therefore, not all issues mentioned in Survey Results will

be listed under Use of Practice. The practices are divided into two sections:

Working with People and Working with Written Materials.
6 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Try whatever practices are appealing to you and adapt them to conditions in

your district. Share your experiences with your colleagues in your district and

from other districts.

The AO retained a copy of each completed survey to assist chiefs if additional

information or clarification of a response was needed. Anecdotal or explanatory

documents provided by some chiefs could not be included in this publication but

are available from the AO.

Additional Resources

The FJC recently completed Effective Practices: Enhanced Supervision and

distributed copies of it to all probation and pretrial services chiefs. This

publication describes Enhanced Supervision practices that probation chiefs have

found to work well in their districts.

The FJC offers a number of programs devoted completely or partially to

communication skills training. The programs are described in a catalog

distributed to all chiefs, Programs and Services for Federal Court Personnel Available

from the Court Education Division. Some of the programs are Negotiation Skills,

Presentation Skills, Facilitating Successful Meetings, FrontLine Leadership, and

Put It in Writing. Names and phone numbers of FJC contact persons are listed in

the catalog. The FJC also has a collection of educational programs on videotape

that includes programs on communication skills. These videotapes are available

for loan to federal judicial employees through the Media Library of the FJC’s

Information Services Office. A catalog describing the collection is available from

the Information Services Office, phone: (202) 273-4153.
II. The Role of the Chief

Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 9

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Introduction

All of the material in this section was developed by participants at the FJC’s

Pretrial Services Symposium held in July 1994 and endorsed by the Chiefs

Advisory Council.

This is a challenging time for pretrial services. Since the passage of the Speedy

Trial Act of 1974 and the Pretrial Services Act of 1982, the full potential of pretrial

services has not been realized. In an era of diminished resources, a lack of judicial

officer awareness of the value of pretrial services could not only impede pretrial

services’ further progress, but jeopardize its very existence. The future of pretrial

services in the federal criminal justice system can be made more secure through

better communication between pretrial services officers and judicial officers and

members of other court-related agencies.

The Pretrial Services Act in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3154(9) and 3155 creates the statutory

foundation for chiefs’ communications with judicial officers and policy makers

regarding the policies and procedures of pretrial services. The chief must take the

lead in opening and maintaining communications with judicial officers and

court-related agencies. Acceptance of this responsibility will ensure the full

realization of the potential of pretrial services. While sound management

practices are still required of a chief, the chief’s emerging role of program

advocate requires the demonstration of greater leadership qualities. A chief must

be proactive, assertive, diplomatic, visible, and resilient. An effective pretrial

services office cannot exist without the full support of the courts. The support of

judicial officers is best acquired through the exchange of information between

pretrial services and the judiciary at a local level. Gaining this support is the job

of the chief.

Responsibilities

Both the statute and the position description of the chief delineate certain

responsibilities which require good communication. A chief has the following

responsibilities:

• A chief should educate judicial officers, employees of the court and court-related

agencies, and the public about the need for, and value of, pretrial services. Results of

the survey of chiefs show that 97% of respondents consider public relations to

be an important function of the chief. Effective practices that promote public

relations are training, the use of alliances, progress reports, the use of

literature, annual reports, staff awards for achievement (five-year, ten-year,

and fifteen-year service recognition pins), publications by pretrial staff

(district newspapers and Federal Probation), and public service activities.
10 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

• A chief should maintain liaison on a regular basis with judicial officers. This liaison

is essential to ensure that policies, procedures, and programs meet the needs

of the court and reflect mutually agreed on policies. The chief is in a unique

position to make specific recommendations regarding court-related criminal

justice issues. Results of the survey show that 100% of respondents consider

recommending policies and procedures and long-range planning to be

important functions of the chief. Effective practices that support this liaison

are progress reports, annual reports, social interactions, and the use of

statistical data.

• A chief should maintain a system of communication through which pertinent

information is provided to court personnel at all levels, from the line officer to the

chief judge. Effective practices that support such communications are progress

reports, the use of literature, annual reports, the use of office staff, and written

correspondence. The chief can also encourage staff to further their education

and take advantage of in-district training.

• A chief should establish and maintain cooperative relationships with all members of

the criminal justice system. Results of the survey show that 99% of respondents

consider attending in-district events to be an important function of the chief.

Effective practices that promote cooperative relationships are the use of office

staff, the use of alliances, and training.

• A chief should advise the court of the eligibility, availability, and capacity of local

agencies to provide employment, medical, legal, and social services, or to serve as

third-party custodians. Effective practices that support this communication are

the use of office staff, presentations and demonstrations, and open houses at

halfway houses.

• A chief should develop, implement, and maintain a system for monitoring and

evaluating pretrial release programs. Results of the survey show that 100% of

respondents consider evaluating programs to be an important function of the

chief. In evaluating programs, chiefs provided information to the court on

results of pretrial release decisions, prepared periodic reports to assist in the

improvement of the process, and used Probation and Pretrial Automated

Case Tracking System (PACTS) data to demonstrate district trends. Other

effective practices are progress reports, annual reports, the use of statistical

data, and written correspondence.

• A chief should work with court executives and support agencies in analyzing and

facilitating court-wide operational effectiveness. Results of the survey show that

99% of respondents consider this to be an important function of the chief.

Supporting effective practices are the use of alliances and training.
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 11

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

• A chief should keep the court apprised of new developments in the areas of pretrial

release, treatment, supervision, and alternatives to prosecution. In doing so, chiefs

have served on court and national committees, increased publishing efforts

by pretrial services staff, and encouraged staff to further their education and

take advantage of in-district training. Other effective practices are the use of

literature, presentations and demonstrations, and training.

III. Working with People

Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 15

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Meetings with the Chief Judge

Suggestions for implementation

• Find out the preferences of the judge regarding meetings, for example, does

he or she prefer planned or spontaneous meetings?

• Schedule and conduct meetings in accordance with those preferences.

• Develop an agenda.

• Prepare written material that is consistent with the meeting’s purpose and the

judge’s preferences.

• Gather statistical data or other information pertinent to the issues to be

discussed.

• Invite other pretrial services staff members to attend the meetings, with the

judge’s approval.

• Keep a record of each meeting, noting issues discussed, decisions made, and

requests made for additional information.

• Inform the judge when required follow-up action has been taken.

Survey results

Of the responding chiefs, 86% reported having had either a single meeting or a

series of meetings with the chief judge. Seventy-five percent stated that the use of

a meeting to provide the chief judge with information resulted in a change in

policy. Chiefs held 408 meetings with chief judges; 72% were planned and 28%

were unplanned. The chiefs requested 78% of the planned meetings. Chiefs used

meetings with chief judges to discuss supervision, Release Status Reports,

pretrial diversion, initial appearance hearings, release on appeal, and electronic

monitoring.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Supervision OR, RI, ILS, ID

Written pretrial services report WY

Routine imposition of travel conditions MD

Release Status Reports HI, LAE
16 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Issue addressed District

Post-conviction release TXE

Appeal bond cases GAN

Implementation of new form MOE

Pretrial services report on all defendants TNM

Disclosure of recommendations in pretrial

services report to counsel

FLS

Court policy on defendants’ co-payment for

services

TNE

Investigation of third-party custodians AK

Confidential informants CAN

Electronic monitoring GAS

Interviewing of defendant appearing by

information, not indictment

NV
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 17

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Meetings with District Court Judges

Suggestions for implementation

See suggestions under Meetings with the Chief Judge.

Survey results

Fifty-three chiefs reported meeting regularly with district court judges. These

chiefs held a total of 271 meetings, of which 67% were planned and 33% were

unplanned. Chiefs requested 72% of the planned meetings. Of the seventy-eight

chiefs who responded to the survey, forty-one reported a change in a policy or

procedure because of a meeting with a district court judge.

Issues discussed included timely interviewing of defendants, use of conditions of

release, community corrections center placement, violation of release conditions,

supervision, budget, and modification of officer duties.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Adequate notification KYW

Routine use of release conditions ILC, ALS

Reports on preindictment cases VAE

Rules regarding co-payment by defendants TNE, NJ, OR

Interviewing of defendants who appear via

an information

NV

Supervision PAE

Drug testing on-site ILN

Status reports on defendants in

halfway houses

AZ

Use of Personal Recognizance Bonds CT

Passport surrender PAW

Updating of arrest records WIE
18 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Issue addressed District

Release Status Reports FLM

Electronic monitoring GAS

Reporting violations DE
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 19

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Meetings with Magistrate Judges

Suggestions for implementation

See suggestions under Meetings with the Chief Judge.

Survey results

Seventy-two of seventy-eight responding chiefs reported that they regularly meet

with magistrate judges. Not surprisingly, chiefs reported that they meet with

magistrate judges more frequently than they meet with other judicial officers. Of

the 619 meetings chiefs had with magistrate judges, 59% were planned and 41%

were spontaneous. Chiefs requested 69% of the planned meetings.

Meetings with magistrate judges focused on such issues as third-party custody,

supervision, residential placements, surveillance safeguards, passport issues,

electronic monitoring, time from arrest to appearance, and status reports.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Supervision OR, RI, ID

Adequate time to prepare written status report OHS, NE, MIW, NYW, CO

After-hours hearings MA

Establishing set hearing times NYS, OKW

Electronic monitoring GAS, INN, VI, UT, NYS

Drug testing on-site ILN

Adequate notification KYW

Routine use of release ALS, VT

Disclosing record of pretrial services report FLS

Rules regarding co-payment by defendant TNE, NJ, OR

Updating of arrest records WIE

Implementation of supervision PAE, MIE, OKN, SD,

ARW, UT, TXW
20 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Issue addressed District

Report on all defendants TNM

Uniform language release condition IAS

Investigation of third party WIW

Interviewing of defendants about prior

criminal records

NYE

U.S. attorney’s production of computer disk

with conditions of release

ME

Use of Personal Recognizance Bonds CT

Passport surrender/residential placement MOW, CAE

Probation officers performing pretrial services ALN

Reducing the number of defendants on

supervision

NH, LAM

Reporting violations DE
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 21

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Meetings with Liaison Judges

Description

A liaison judge is a district court judge or magistrate judge designated by the

court to oversee the operation of pretrial services. The liaison judge can be an

excellent communications bridge between pretrial services and the entire court,

as well as a problem solver. He or she often reports to the entire court about

issues of concern to the chief or the court. This position is used most often in

large districts.

Suggestions for implementation

See suggestions under Meetings with the Chief Judge.

Survey results

Only twenty-one chiefs reported the use of the liaison judge position in their

districts. Not surprisingly, therefore, only 122 meetings with liaison judges were

held. Of those meetings, 70% were planned and 30% were unplanned. Chiefs

requested 69% of the planned meetings.

Meetings with liaison judges focused on status reports, pretrial diversion

policies, U.S. Pretrial Services Supervision Publication 111, on-site drug testing,

supervision of confidential informants, and officers on twenty-four-hour call.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Release Status Reports at plea and sentencing LAE

Diversion policy PAM

Supervision ILN

Drug testing on-site ILN

U.S. Pretrial Services Supervision Publication 111 MIE

Supervision of confidential informants CAN

Officers on twenty-four-hour call PR

Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 23

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Use of Deputy Chiefs

Suggestions for implementation

Have deputy chiefs

• meet with judicial officers;

• conduct telephone conversations;

• conduct presentations or demonstrations;

• write memoranda and progress reports; and

• hold training sessions.

Survey results

In seventeen districts, deputy chiefs informed judicial officers about pretrial

services practices. In seven districts, deputy chiefs communicated with judicial

officers about supervision, electronic monitoring, search and seizure, and pretrial

services reports. In two districts, the deputy chief provided an orientation on

pretrial services to newly appointed judges.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Acquainting chief judge with Pretrial Services

Supervision Manual

GAM

Orientation for newly appointed judges WVN, KS

Search and seizure drug policy MIW

Electronic monitoring programs INN

Supervision noncompliance INN

Oral reports NYW

U.S. Pretrial Services Supervision Publication 111 NYW

District goals for pretrial services in 1994 FLS

Pretrial services reports FLS

Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 25

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Use of Supervisors and Officers-In-Charge

Suggestions for implementation

See suggestions under Use of Deputy Chiefs.

Survey results

Twenty-six chiefs reported using the supervisor or officer-in-charge (OIC) to

communicate with or inform judicial officers about pretrial services issues. Of the

nineteen issues identified, most were related to supervision and alternatives to

detention.

The survey results show that supervisors’ and OICs’ communications with

judicial officers resulted in the implementation of new policies and procedures

and more manageable conditions of release. Chiefs noted that judicial officers

were more receptive to the use of detention alternatives than they had been in the

past. Overall, judicial officers more efficiently processed cases and demonstrated

a clearer understanding and increased awareness of the responsibilities of

pretrial services.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Magistrate judge ordering presentence

report for district judge

RI

Temporary use of halfway house WIW

Oral reports ILC, NYW

Supervision OKW, SD, SC, TXS,

NYW, ME

Electronic monitoring LAE, SC, PAE, ILS,

IAN, VT

Halfway house funding CAE, OHN

Drug abuse and mental health counseling MSS, GAN

Urine testing policy AK, NYS

On-site drug testing SC

Release Status Reports SC
26 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Issue addressed District

Orientation for magistrate judges KS

Form CJA 23 (Financial Affidavit) CO

Adequate interview time WIE

Violation reports FLM

Funding shortages OKW

Standard conditions of release NCE

Community corrections center placement ILS

Processing of large multidefendant arrests NJ

Funding for client services CAN
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 27

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Use of Specialist (JSP-13) Officers

Description

Specialist officers, Judiciary Salary Plan (JSP) Grade 13, have expertise in drug

and alcohol abuse treatment, home confinement, mental health, special offenders,

and program development coordination. Specialists usually perform

investigations and supervise defendants in addition to providing technical

assistance and guidance in their area of expertise to other officers.

Suggestions for implementation

See suggestions under Use of Deputy Chiefs.

Survey results

Thirty-eight chiefs stated that they use specialists to communicate with judicial

officers. Chiefs in thirteen districts provided specific examples of how specialists

are used. Six chiefs noted that they use specialists to inform judicial officers about

electronic monitoring procedures. Information related to drug testing is provided

by specialists in three districts. Supervision issues are communicated by a

specialist in one district. Funding for alternatives to detention, the use of student

interns, and available defendant services were also issues discussed.

All the chiefs who reported a specific example of the use of specialists to

communicate with judicial officers about policy and procedure reported a

favorable result.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Schedule of defendant on electronic monitoring LAE

Drug testing procedure NYN, SC, MIE

Supervision SC

Electronic monitoring SC, ILN, MIE, MA,

PAE, OHS

Release Status Reports SC

Student interns UT
28 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Issue addressed District

Funding for alternatives to detention OKW

Available defendant services CAN

Pretrial services policies CAN
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 29

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Use of Alliances

Description

An alliance is a joining together of agencies for a common purpose, such as

implementation of a change in policy. Probation and pretrial services form

alliances most frequently with U.S. attorneys’ offices, the U.S. Marshals Service,

other law enforcement agencies, and federal public defenders’ offices.

Suggestions for implementation

• Develop an action plan for the proposed policy either before contacting other

agencies or in consultation with the other agencies.

• Describe the need for the proposed policy, how the change will occur

(including time frames), and the benefit to the operation of the court.

• Use historical information and statistical data to support the proposed policy.

• Inform the court regarding the proposed policy through various practices,

ranging from a memorandum signed by all agencies in the alliance to a

formal presentation before the court by members of the alliance.

Survey results

Of the chiefs reporting the use of alliances, 85% found them to be successful.

Alliances were used most often to address the interviewing process and

supervision. Other issues addressed were electronic monitoring, violations,

detention, pretrial diversion, interagency cooperation, and confidentiality.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Court to process drug cases only MOW

Federal Public Defender Model Guide ILS

Immediate arrest of electronic monitoring violator ID

Supervision training WAE

Informant policy CAC, NE, PAE

Treatment place AZ

Consulting with counsel prior to interview WIW
30 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Issue addressed District

Lack of an interview room NV

General policy PR

Infectious diseases CT

Electronic monitoring PAW

Search and seizure KS

Supervision AK

Release conditions ILC

Reducing the number of oral reports NH, MIW, OKW

Adequate notice to pretrial services NH, CO, CAN, NCM
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 31

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Social Interactions

Description

Chiefs noted several social interactions that were an effective means of

communicating with judicial officers. These interactions included telephone

conversations and conversations at social events, such as sporting events (e.g.,

softball games), Christmas parties, and open houses.

Suggestions for implementation

• Find out what the judicial officer thinks of the usefulness of these interactions.

• Have a specific goal in mind.

• Provide information in a clear, organized, and concise manner.

• Follow up the interaction a few days later to determine if the judicial officer

has any questions or needs additional information.

• Do not assume that the judicial officer will not appreciate work-related

conversation during social activities.

Survey results

Nine chiefs provided examples of the use of social interactions for

communicating with judicial officers. Thirty-six chiefs reported on the survey

that the use of this practice resulted in a change in policy or procedure.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Supervision NH, IAS, NYS

Electronic monitoring UT, RI

Detention rates RI

Class A misdemeanors “fast track” procedures DE

Appointment of counsel WIE

Firearms policy PAE
32 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Issue addressed District

Scheduling of initial appearance TNE

Third-party custody RI

Home confinement RI
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 33

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Presentations and Demonstrations

Suggestions for implementation

• Conduct meetings, including open houses, in-chambers meetings, and

magistrate judge orientation programs, for the purpose of making a

presentation or giving a demonstration of a policy, a procedure, or

equipment.

• Distribute handouts, memoranda, letters, and reports.

Survey results

Twelve chiefs reported instances in which they were able to communicate

effectively with judicial officers by making a presentation on or giving a

demonstration on a policy, a procedure, or equipment. The issues most often

addressed were alternatives to detention, supervision, and drug testing.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Alternatives to detention VAE, OHN

Supervision CO, ND

Drug testing MOW, OHS

Electronic monitoring UT

Diversion PAM

Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 35

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Working Meals

Description

Chiefs reported effectively communicating with judicial officers about pretrial

services issues during breakfast and lunch meetings. Breakfast meetings can

range from coffee and doughnuts in the office to a meal in the building cafeteria

or in a restaurant away from the courthouse. Similarly, a lunch meeting can be a

“brown bag” lunch in the office or a meal at a favorite restaurant of the judicial

officer or chief. On rare occasions, meals are catered.

Suggestions for implementation

• Ask judicial officers whether they are interested in a working meal.

• Plan to discuss one to two issues and focus the discussion on those issues.

• Follow up the meeting with written correspondence stating any decisions

reached and providing any information the judicial officer requested.

Survey results

Of the ten chiefs who found working meals an effective communication practice,

three said they discussed unnecessary conditions for release during the meetings,

and two said they discussed supervision. Another chief used this forum to

acquire additional office space. In one district, the practice improved the image

and credibility of pretrial services, resulting in the release of defendants who

would have previously been detained by the magistrate judge.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Educating the court OKN

Supervision PAE, NCE

Unnecessary conditions for release SC, GAM, GAN

Out-of-custody transportation AK

More office space TXE

Removal of conditions of release ALS

Improved credibility OR

Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 37

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Training

Description

Training, for the purposes of this publication, is defined as the assembly of

probation or pretrial services staff for the purpose of gaining knowledge about

pretrial services policies or procedures. Training becomes an effective practice for

pretrial services communications when judicial officers are included in the

training as trainers, participants, or observers.

Suggestions for implementation

• Find out how the judicial officer feels about attending training.

• Schedule the training sufficiently in advance so that the judicial officer can

arrange the workload to be able to attend.

• Provide the judicial officer with an agenda and a participant list before the

training.

• Have a pretrial services staff member available to brief the judicial officer and

respond to any questions or concerns the judicial officer may have both before

and after the training.

Survey results

Of the eight chiefs reporting the use of training, three used training to

communicate with judicial officers about the use of electronic monitoring. Two

chiefs used training to inform judicial officers about supervision issues, and one

provided information on HIV testing and hepatitis testing.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Implementation of pretrial services ILC

Pretrial services training ALN

Electronic monitoring NE, INN, NYN

Supervision OHS, NYN

HIV testing and hepatitis testing ILN

Officer safety CAN

IV. Working with

Written Materials

Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 41

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Annual Reports

Description

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3155 requires that a chief with pretrial services responsibilities

prepare an annual report for the chief judge of the district court and the director

of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) about the operation and

administration of pretrial services in his or her district. Reports are due February

1 of each year and cover the previous fiscal year (October 1 through September

30).

Each report must include information about staffing, training, space and

equipment, policies and procedures, detention plans, coordination with other

court personnel, and treatment services. Statistical data, a summary of problems

encountered during the reporting period, and plans for the upcoming year must

also be included. In addition, chiefs often add information intended to give the

court and the director of the AO a fuller understanding of the office’s operation

and the circumstances peculiar to the district.

Suggestions for implementation

• Personally deliver or mail the annual report to all judicial officers in the

district.

• Include an executive summary highlighting the most significant

accomplishments, issues, goals, and problems.

• After the report has been distributed, contact judicial officers to discuss or

clarify the information provided in it.

Survey results

Of the sixty-seven chiefs who responded to the question whether the annual

report is an effective tool for communicating with judicial officers about pretrial

services, forty-seven (70%) said it was effective. Many chiefs said that the annual

report increases awareness of pretrial services or increases appreciation of the

service the office provides the court. Thirty chiefs disseminated the report to all

judicial officers, and forty-nine chiefs provided the report to the chief judge and

at least one other judicial officer, for example, a magistrate judge or a liaison

judge. Seven chiefs also provided the report to other unit executives, such as a

U.S. attorney, a U.S. marshal, or a federal public defender.
42 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Issues addressed in the annual report were alternatives to detention; procedures

regarding access to defendants and preparation of a written report; supervision,

including implementation of Pretrial Services Supervision; Release Status

Reports; third-party custody; and reduction of detention. Also mentioned were

training, space, staffing, and adoption of national policy.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Warrant process (summons) NV

Training NCM

Pretrial diversion PAM

Supervision NYW, CO, OHN

Adoption of national policy NCE

Space CAC, GAN

Electronic monitoring RI, PAW, NYW, TNE, INS

Adequate time to interview WIW

Reduction of detention VAE, MOW

Release Status Reports ALS

Third-party custody ALS

Bail decision reviews NYS

Drug aftercare TNE

Co-payment by defendants for treatment CAN

Staffing increase RI

Access to defendants WIW, WY

Alternatives to detention VAE, MOW, CAN

Adequate time to prepare written reports WIW, WY, UT
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 43

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Progress Reports

Description

A progress report, for the purposes of this publication, is a written

correspondence intended to provide information to a judicial officer or request

action or a decision by a judicial officer. Progress reports address policies and

procedures; they do not address individual defendants. A progress report can be

submitted once, or progress reports can be submitted periodically.

Suggestions for implementation

• Establish a set format, including an introduction, which tells what the report

is about and the purpose of the report; a body, which identifies the issue or

issues and how the policy or procedure operates; and a conclusion, which

discusses the results of the procedure or policy being tested, the advantages

and disadvantages, and the costs and benefits.

• Be specific in your recommendations or requests for action by the judicial

officer.

• Write concisely.

• Attach explanatory materials, for example, a brochure on electronic

monitoring.

• Use progress reports only for the most important policies or procedures.

• Deliver the report by hand or mail it to the judicial officer.

• Follow up the report with a telephone call.

Survey results

Thirty-two chiefs said that they use progress reports. Progress reports were used

most often to communicate with judicial officers about electronic monitoring,

interviewing, investigation procedures, supervision (including violation issues),

failure to appear and detention rates, property bonds, substance abuse testing,

infectious diseases, pretrial diversion, and use of firearms or Cap-Stun.

Chief judges and magistrate judges were most likely to receive progress reports;

121 reports were submitted to chief judges and 103 reports were submitted to

magistrate judges. Chiefs also reported sending eighty-two progress reports to

district court judges and forty-nine progress reports to liaison judges. Judicial

officers adopted the recommendations in 83% of progress reports submitted.
44 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Adequate time to prepare pretrial services report ME, MIW

Removal of condition of supervision ID

Review of detained cases ND

Budget CAE

Selective use of electronic monitoring NYE, OKW

Failure to appear AZ, NV

Standardized violation report MOW

Pretrial services supervision/violation issues INN

Hearing times CO

Use of property bonds HI

Urine testing program NYS
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 45

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Use of Statistical Data

Description

Statistical data are classified as administrative data or pretrial services policies

and procedures data. Administrative data are obtained from central accounting

systems, manual and automated in-district systems, the court financial system

(CFS), the personnel payroll system (PPS), and other sources. Policy and

procedure data include H-Table data, PACTS data, in-district system data, indistrict manual data, Form 5 data, and ICMS criminal data.

Suggestions for implementation

• Use statistical data in progress reports and annual reports.

• Present statistical data in graph form to make the data easier to understand.

• Determine the judicial officer’s view of the use of statistics. Some judicial

officers find statistical data useful; others do not.

• Provide statistical information in a way that does not publicly identify

individual judicial officers.

• Provide judicial officers with an explanation of the data or a context in which

to interpret the data.

Survey results

The survey revealed that chiefs used statistical data most frequently when

communicating about detention, supervision, and elimination of routine

conditions of release. Data were also used to inform judicial officers about copayment for services, increasing time to interview defendants, electronic

monitoring, drug testing, diversion, Cap-Stun, reduction of oral reports, and

violations.

Of the seventy-eight chiefs responding to the survey, thirty-one regularly

provided statistical information to judicial officers regarding pretrial services

policies or procedures (see Use I). Of the forty-seven chiefs who did not regularly

report statistical data to judicial officers, sixteen included statistical data in their

annual reports.

Eighteen chiefs identified recent instances in which a judicial officer relied on

statistical information in deciding to change or not change a policy (see Use II).
46 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Use of the practice

Use I

Below is a list of the districts that regularly provide administrative statistical data

on pretrial services policies and procedures to judicial officers.

Issue addressed District

Home confinement VI, RI, NYW, CT, OHS

Release and detention MN

Risk of nonappearance ID

PACTS data MA

Interviewing of defendants MIW

Detention GAM

Services WY, MA

Supervision H-Tables WIW, MIE, AK, MSS,

MT, CAN

Workload data ME, WAE, ND, VAE,

MIW, PAM, CAC, OHN,

NCM, INN, TXS, NE

Use II

Below is a list of the districts that reported using policy and procedure statistical

data in support of a specific request on one or more occasions. The type of data

used and the result of providing that information to judicial officers are noted.

Type Result District

1992 detention information Lower detention in 1993 VAE

Failure to appear Release of defendants with

only amnesty status

AZ

Administrative Office More time to interview

defendants

MIW

Drug survey Reduction in drug testing NV

Detention rate Court began using electronic

monitoring

NYN
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 47

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Type Result District

Five years of statistics on

diversion cases

Revised policy PAM

Time study Court holds hearings early in

the day

NYS

News and Views article Officers can carry Cap-Stun CAC

Funds expended Court more sensitive to use of

electronic monitoring

NJ

H-Tables Too early to determine ALS

Court approved supervision

monograph

NCM

Court imposes travel and

employment conditions less

often

OHS

Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 49

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Use of Literature

Description

Literature, for the purposes of this publication, includes written and printed

material. Chiefs reported that they most frequently used publications from the

Administrative Office and the Federal Judicial Center, including Federal Probation,

The Third Branch, News and Views, Volume XII of the Guide to Judiciary Policies and

Procedures, and U.S. Pretrial Services Supervision Publication 111. Also cited were

newspaper and magazine articles, opinions, editorials, and letters to the editor,

and professional journals published by private organizations and government

agencies, such as the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Publications produced by agencies within the district were also mentioned.

Suggestions for implementation

• Determine how the judicial officer feels about reading literature.

• Determine what forms of literature the judicial officer is interested in

reviewing.

• Provide the judicial officer with only material that is relevant to the issue

being discussed.

• Select material that is brief.

• Read and make sure you understand all material you provide to the judicial

officer.

• Identify a contact person, the chief or a staff member, in the event the judicial

officer has questions regarding the material.

• Present written material in an organized fashion.

• Provide a brief description of the material in a cover memorandum or note.

• Use a variety of literature.

Survey results

Twenty-seven chiefs reported using literature to inform judicial officers about

pretrial services issues. Eight chiefs specifically cited the March 1993 edition of

Federal Probation as an effective communication tool.
50 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Responses from the survey show that chiefs used literature to address the

following issues: home confinement, the implementation of a supervision

program, drug testing, the risk of nonappearance, the release of dangerous

defendants, the use of Cap-Stun, the confidentiality of HIV status, community

corrections center placement of transient defendants, voluntary surrender, prison

overcrowding, and detention and release.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Home confinement VI, RI, NYW, CT, OHS

Release and detention MN

Risk of nonappearance ID

Cash bond for dangerous defendant VAE

Selective use of electronic monitoring MOW

Implementation of a pretrial supervision

program

AK, OHN

Drug testing PR, IAN

Increased use of electronic monitoring TNE

Confidentiality of HIV status NJ

On-site drug testing CAN

Detention GAM

Supervision WY, MA

Transients ME

Awareness/appreciation of pretrial services LAE, NYN

Voluntary surrender MOE

Cap-Stun PAE

Prison overcrowding NYS

Type of bonds used NCE

Confidential informants NE
Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications 51

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Written Correspondence

Description

Written correspondence that chiefs found to be effective communication tools

were letters, memos, office newsletters, minutes of staff meetings, and brochures.

Suggestions for implementation

• Make sure all written correspondence is well-organized, clear, and concise.

• Include an introduction explaining the purpose of the correspondence

(informational or a request for action) and identifying the issue discussed.

• Put appropriate salient issues in the body of the document, for example, the

history of the issue, advantages and disadvantages, possible courses of action,

and the costs and benefits.

• Include a summary and state the course of action, if any, that is requested.

• Find out about the decision-making process of the judicial officer.

• Hand deliver correspondence addressing important issues.

• Follow up with a personal visit or telephone call.

Survey results

Twenty-seven chiefs cited instances in which written correspondence was an

effective means of communicating with judicial officers about pretrial services.

Two chiefs used written correspondence to address supervision issues and

electronic monitoring. One chief addressed issues involving residential

placement, and one chief discussed a decentralized budget. Firearms policy and

using nonprofessional staff as interpreters were concerns in other districts.

Use of the practice

Issue addressed District

Use of routinely ordered release conditions MD

Decentralized budget GAN

Conserving funding for residential placement NV

Firearms policy NYE
52 Effective Practices: Pretrial Services Communications

Federal Judicial Center • June 1995

Issue addressed District

Supervision UT, INN

Electronic monitoring ME, INN, MA

Alternatives to detention HI

Emergency clothing and financial assistance NYE

Co-payment ILN, AZ

Class A misdemeanors “fast track” procedures DE

Diversion CT

Pretrial services reports retained by counsel LAM

New form MOE

Supervision Release Status Reports PR

Drug testing NV, MOW

Time for interviews MSS

Pretrial services policies and procedures MN

National bail practices TXW