About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


89 Fed. Probation 3 (2025)

handle is hein.journals/fedpro89 and id is 1 raw text is: June 2023 3 John J. Fitzgerald Chief Probation and Pretrial Services Office Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts ON MARCH 4, 1925, President Calvin Coolidge signed into law the Probation Act of 1925, which not only authorized federal judges to impose a term of probation in lieu of a term of imprisonment but also created the federal probation system. This was the culmination of decades of attempts, mostly from federal judges, to secure this kind of authority. The federal probation system was originally placed under the control of the attorney general, and later under the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In 1940, it was moved to the federal judiciary following the creation of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO). In the years since its creation, what eventually evolved into the federal probation and pretrial services system has experienced significant change. In 1930, it was charged with supervising federal parolees. Later it was given responsibility to supervise federal juvenile delinquents. After World War II, the system assisted in supervising military parol- ees. In the 1980s, Congress authorized pretrial services and supervised release. The system's workload, staffing, and complexity have all increased over the past century. The centennial of federal probation marks a good opportunity to take stock of what has been accomplished and where the system needs to go. Twenty-five years ago, federal probation and pretrial services undertook a strategic assessment, the recommendations of which have shaped many of the major initiatives that have been implemented since then, including: (1) the creation of a national training academy, (2) the creation of a data- driven business intelligence platform, and (3) the adoption of evidence-based practices to reduce recidivism. While much progress has been made on these and other initiatives identified in the strategic assessment, much remains to be done. Additionally, changes in the law and technology (among other areas) have emerged since the completion of the strategic assessment. In this article I highlight some of the issues facing today's federal pro- bation and pretrial services system using the framework established by the strategic assess- ment. I offer possible pathways to pursue Figure 1. Overall Arrest Rate Over Time 40% 30% 25% 20% 15% 1% 5% 2012 2013 and raise questions for system leaders and stakeholders to ponder. Considering these recommendations and questions will help our system plan for success in the years ahead. What are the mission-critical outcomes that the system should be striving to achieve? The central recommendation of the report on the strategic assessment was to become a results-driven organization with a compre- hensive outcome measurement system. In 2014 2015 Fiscalyear roe ed 2016 2017 Th is T ° gnpkl. ove.pait xr ... _te w Ihia .1w le s s:,t~'i 1] 1tf ye . Fe indr iv 1 ,i t,I lii1e , , _ i i. ,li I t ! ,`..c u 1.i i i u ~l idt vb June 2025 3