 You're watching FJTN, the Federal Judicial Television Network. This monograph emphasizes still the least restrictive and the presumption of venison and all the constitutional principles that are so important to pre-trial. Right up front it says that the person who interviews the newly arrested person gives the first impression of the system. With pre-trial you have to be least restrictive and at the same time ensure that the community is protected. Hopefully in almost all districts at this point the officers are out actually in the community doing supervision. But I think the additional factor is that the officers are going to have to have a reason for having contacts with the offenders. There's a real emphasis on establishing a partnership between management and the officer and that partnership involves coaching, involves staffing, involves collaborating. I think if a chief is behind closed doors his supervisors or her supervisors are going to be the same way and it's not going to work that way. I think that the old days of just counting who spent the most time in the field is finally gone by the wayside. Welcome to the broadcast. Today we provide you with an introduction to monograph 111 which governs the supervision of federal defendants. In a moment we'll be joined by a distinguished panel of pre-trial services officers and managers from the field and keep in mind that the program is designed to highlight the major changes in the monograph and to demonstrate later on through some role plays that we'll do how some of those changes will impact pre-trial supervision. So stay with us. We've got an interesting show for you today and before we get to the meat and potatoes of it I wanted to turn the program briefly over to AO Assistant Director John Hughes of the Office of Probation and Pre-Trial Services who will introduce the monograph. On behalf of Director Mecham I am pleased to introduce the new monograph 111, the supervision of federal defendants. Over three years of effort have been invested by the pre-trial services committee of an ad hoc supervision work group appointed by Director Mecham in January 2000. The group sought input from every district from officers, supervisors, deputies, specialists, and chiefs as to best practices in pre-trial services supervision and also looked into recent research into what works in terms of achieving desired supervision outcomes. We now have a supervision monograph that preserves and builds on what was good and right about the original 111. It brings a new focus on pre-trial services as the front door of a broader community justice system and describes how pre-trial services can carry out its unique mandate in a way that facilitates the goals of safety and fairness shared with other elements of the system. The monograph also promotes continuity of services and reduces duplication of effort and, most importantly, the monograph defines the desired outcomes and principles of effective supervision. I started out in this system as a pre-trial services officer and I appreciate the importance of striking a balance between the presumption of innocence and individual liberty on one hand with concerns about whether the defendant will return to court or present the danger to the community on the other hand. That balancing act is often very difficult and it is our hope at the administrative office that this monograph will make the job a little easier or at least a little clearer. On behalf of Director Mecham, I want to say that the administrative office is committed to providing the technical assistance and tools required to fully implement the principles of this monograph now and in the future. Thank you. Now, bear in mind that monograph 111, like the new monograph 109 and the Charter for Excellence embrace the view of an officer as a professional. So there's a corresponding emphasis on the officer's ability to use professional judgment and frankly a corresponding de-emphasis on the officer's ability to fill out boxes on a form. Now, in terms of this first segment, our purpose here is just to provide an overview of the monograph's content and to highlight its differences from the previous version. To do that, I'd like to introduce our panelists both here in the studio and on the telephone, first from the District of New Mexico, Steve Skinner, the Supervising US Pre-Trial Services Officer. Steve, welcome. Also from the District of New Mexico, Chief US Pre-Trial Services Officer, hence Williams. Hence, welcome. From the Western District of New York, Tony San Jacomo, Deputy Chief Probation Officer. Welcome. And last but not least in the studio, US Pre-Trial Services Officer, Penny Wickenheiser from the District of Minnesota. Penny, welcome. On the telephone, we are joined from New York City by Dennis Spitzer, the US Pre-Trial Services Officer in the Southern District of New York. Hello, Dennis. Hello, Mark. From Dallas, Texas, Deputy Chief US Pre-Trial Services Officer, Jolene Whitten. Hi, Jolene. Hello, Mark. From West Palm Beach, Florida, Supervising US Pre-Trial Services Officer, Nancy Colon of the Southern District of Florida. Hi, Nancy. Hi, Mark. And from Salt Lake City, Utah, Tristan Smart, Supervising US Probation Officer for the Pre-Trial Unit in the District of Utah. Hi, Tristan. Hi, Mark. Welcome all. Now, let's begin at the beginning here with chapter one of the monograph. And the first chapter sets the tone for Pre-Trial Supervision and covers several topics. One of those topics is the philosophy of Pre-Trial Supervision. And first, I'd like to go to Jolene in Dallas. And Jolene, describe the philosophy for us of the monograph. If you could, highlight some of those differences between the philosophy undergirding the new monograph and that that was present with the previous version, publication 111. Well, Mark, I wouldn't say that the philosophy in our new monograph is new, in a sense. Basically, what I think our new monograph does is stay clearly what those of us in Pre-Trial Services have always felt to be true about our role in this agency and about our role in the supervision of defendants. One thing that will always remain the same is the idea that John Hughes referred to, that we must always create a balance between individual liberty and community safety. We have to keep in mind the presumption of innocence while we promote public safety through our supervision practices. But really, Pre-Trial Services is the front door to the federal criminal justice system. We're the first, before the courts, before the Bureau of Prisons, before probation, that these defendants have contact with. And we have an opportunity to impact how successful the defendant will be even at the later stages of the process. So as it says in our new monograph 111, we don't want that front door to become a revolving door. We really want to impact the lives of the defendants that we supervise. So we have a unique opportunity to lay a foundation for defendant's future success. And we do that several ways. One is through our professional ethics. For example, if Pre-Trial Services treats people with dignity and respect, then the defendant is more likely to expect that same treatment later from, say, a case worker at the Bureau of Prisons or a probation officer. And that may influence the defendant's behavior with those agencies. Again, if we act with integrity, then the defendant may expect the same kind of behavior from the individuals in the later processes. Also throughout the supervision process, if the defendant knows that his Pre-Trial Services officer has certain expectations and will follow through if the defendant doesn't meet those expectations, then they're more likely to believe there will be consequences at later stages in the federal criminal justice system. So as you said, we set the tone, so to speak, for the entire system. And that brings to mind our supervision process or practices. We all know that in Pre-Trial Services, it's not our function to rehabilitate. However, even though we're designed simply or basically to address the risks of non-appearance and danger, we can also have a secondary impact and a more lasting effect in that we do influence the defendant's future choices. An example provided in the 111 is the defendant who decides to quit abusing substances because of his experiences while under Pre-Trial supervision. That decision made by the defendant may have far-reaching effects beyond the period of Pre-Trial supervision and can influence not only the defendant, but his family and his community. In doing all that, we also have partnerships with other agencies, which can be instrumental in effective supervision of defendants. We can work with the Bureau of Prisons, with your U.S. probation or even community resource agencies. So we can increase our effectiveness in impacting the future success of the defendant through our supervision. Excellent. Thank you, Jolene. I want to come back to some of the points that you made about philosophy, but I now want to talk with, hence, Williams, hence one of the other topics covered in Chapter 1. Still on Chapter 1 of the monograph is Desired Outcomes. Describe all of those Desired Outcomes and how they differ, if at all, from the previous version of Publication 111. Well, it isn't a difference. In fact, it's the same thing. The Desired Outcomes are that the defendant appears before the court and not commit new crimes. That is what Pre-Trial is about. It is said by statute that those are the requirements for success. We, in this new monograph, believe that that success should not be just doing the Pre-Trial period, although that's basically all we're required to do. We believe that its successful supervision will follow this person throughout the process. Our Desired Outcomes become that long-term history, not just, you know, the six to ten months that this person is involved with the court prior to any kind of sentencing. Our hope is that the defendant will successfully complete the supervision period, that they will obey all laws, not be re-arrested for new behavior, comply with all the conditions of supervision, hopefully learning from that how to readjust their lives to carry them beyond the period of supervision, both Pre-Trial and Post-Conviction supervision, should that occur and make their required appearances before court. Those are the Desired Outcomes. There may be risks involved with this defendant that go beyond the conditions of release, which we also have to address, and those may be the factors which will help this person not come back before the court. Okay, so let's hold it there and go over to Tony San Jacomo. Tony, take what Jolene has described in terms of the philosophy, that the defense has talked about in terms of Desired Outcomes and talked to us about the supervision model that the monograph puts forth. There's a graphic representation in chapter one of that supervision model. We have that representation that will appear on the screen for the field and talk about how some of those concepts, we've talked about a lot of things, how they interact with each other in the supervision model. There's really a blueprint for officers to follow. The foundation of that model, if you see on the screen, is really the conditions of release and that's really where everything works out from. As you move up the model, you see that we have a monitor and those would be our monitoring strategies. For example, a defendant who is employed and part of his condition is to maintain employment. A monitoring strategy would be to maybe get some pay stubs to describe that they are maintaining employment. As you work up the model, you see, hence just describe the Desired Outcomes. Desired Outcomes is that the defendant will lead a law abiding life and attend court hearings as directed. As you work your way down the model, you look at the assisting, which is also a very important function of a pretrial and probation officer performing pretrial duties. Assisting, if we look at the employment again as a condition, and it has a condition to seek and obtain employment, you would assist by referring that defendant for employment services and maybe even resume counseling. Really, another very important piece is if you look inside the model, you can see that this is an ongoing cycle and we're looking at investigating, assessing, planning, implementing, evaluating. Within that, it's all around managing risk. We've animated the inside of that model in our graphic because we really think that that's an important thing for folks to get and sort of is one of the linchpins to understanding the philosophy here, which is a constant type of assessment, not a one-shot deal, not we're going to assess this person and that's all we're going to do and then we're going to move on to something else. We're going to be constantly going to be proactive here and I think that's an important thing to keep in mind when we are thinking about the differences between the new approach and the old approach. No one is frozen in time and we have to continue to assess a case and that's important. There are different cases called for different levels of interaction and proactivity but bottom line is that there should be a minimal degree at least a minimal degree of proactivity and that has to be the mindset of the officer. I think staying along the lines of least restrictive conditions, and the strategies should be proportionate to the risk and that's important. Good. All right. Now Dennis Spitzer in New York City, chief in the Southern District of New York. Still in chapter one. Chapter one is important folks. Talk to us about the principles of effective supervision, again articulated in chapter one. What are those principles? What do they mean? How do they correspond with what we're talking about? Sure Mark. The ad hoc working group early on identified five principles of effective supervision which are individualized, purposeful, multi-dimensional, attentive to changes, proactive in implementation and responsive to changes. When implemented, these principles will assist in achieving the desired outcomes of having the defendant obey the law on bail, appearing in court when required and complying with all other release conditions. All of which will result in the successful completion of the term of supervision by the defendant. So let's take a look at each of the principles for a brief description. The effective supervision as individualized in that it's tailored to the risk presented by the individual defendant. It's responsive to the requirements of the individual case rather than the implementation of any standard supervision plan or strategy. It's purposeful in that the supervision plan should develop objectives to be accomplished during a period of supervision and every supervision activity should have a purpose directly related to these objectives. It's multi-dimensional in the sense of cases that present multiple issues require the implementation of multiple strategies. And it's attentive to changes and proactive in implementation that offices need to be aware of changes in the defendant's circumstances and they do that through office, community and collateral contacts. Collateral contacts specifically with third-party custodians and cosigners, treatment plan providers as well as significant others. It's said if you know three people the defendant, then you know the defendant and that's our goal. And finally, responsive to changes as offices are aware of changes in the defendant's circumstances, they must respond by adjusting the level of supervision to address the current level of risk. We're seeking bail modifications to the conditions of risk to identify that risk and address it. Conversely, if a defendant is meeting his objectives in consultation with the supervisor, the officer should consider reducing the monitoring activities and may even consider removing the condition, requesting a removal of the condition of supervision. In conclusion, the effective supervision practices can assist in reducing unnecessary detention and having a positive impact for the defendant as well as the community. Excellent. Thank you, Dennis. I like to highlight one of the words you used as you were going through the principles of effective supervision and that is proactive. We already had mentioned that word when we were talking about the supervision model and what we were trying to represent in that animated part of that supervision model that folks saw on the screen. Again, it's that emphasis on being community oriented, active, getting out into the community, knowing the defendant and knowing about the defendant. And I think that's sort of a key again in the direction of this monograph as opposed to its predecessor. Moving right along, that does it for chapter one. Chapter two, the monograph describes supporting roles, which we'll refer to in our next segment when we do the role plays. So we're going to skip that for the time being. And chapter three simply lays out the conditions of release. No big changes there. So we're going to skip that as well and move directly to chapter four where assessment and the assessment and planning process is covered. And at this point I want to go to Nancy Cologne Supervisor in the Southern District of Florida. Nancy, what are the highlights and major differences between the new 111 and old 111 in terms of the assessment and planning process? There are four critical points that we need to address when we're talking about the assessment and planning process of the new monograph. The first is that the monograph emphasizes on the initial assessment investigation. Second is that the monograph also provides for a three tiered assessment process which I'll explain in detail in a few minutes. The third point is that the monograph shifts the supervision focus from activities to outcomes. And then finally the monograph fosters a professional and collaborative planning process while reducing unnecessary paperwork. Now when we're talking about the initial assessment investigation, this is the stage in which the officers will gather information, assess risks, factors, develop the initial supervision plan. This plan is to be submitted for review to the supervisor within 30 calendar days of the defendant's release. So this is a major change from Publication 111 which only allowed for the 10 day period to complete this process. Now during the 30 day period the officers are required to review all available documentation to conduct the post release and take interview of the defendant to do a home inspection of the defendant's residence to develop and contact collateral sources such as family members, employers also at this stage officers will implement or take steps to implement directives such as drug testing, referrals for evaluations, treatment So as you can see this is a period of a lot of activity on the part of the officer in order to learn more about the defendant. This period also emphasizes on the ongoing need for continuous assessment that is so important for effective supervision. Which brings me to the second point and that is that the monograph provides for a three tiered risk assessment process and this includes the use of the risk prediction index known as the RPI. It also requires officers to identify specific targeted risk factors such as mental health history of violence immigration issues issues that are not necessarily included in the RPI but that may present a risk for supervision. Once these factors have been identified the next step is to assess whether they present a reasonable foreseeable risk of danger to another person or to specific individuals So what we're talking about here is any risk of physical or financial harm to a specific person. The third point is that the monograph shifts the supervision focus from activities to outcomes. With the old monograph officers are required to specify number of contacts or activities for example quarterly home contacts quarterly employment contacts so often times officers and supervisors find themselves counting these activities rather than assessing why they are important or what do they actually accomplish. With the new monograph the focus is shifted away from counting these activities and it places greater emphasis on the outcome. The goal of the monograph is to have the officers develop objectives for the defendant to complete during the period of supervision and these objectives or goals are to be developed in collaboration with the office specialist and the supervisor which brings me to the last point that the monograph fosters a professional and collaborative planning process while reducing unnecessary paperwork. As you know the old way of reviewing files consists of officers completing the supervision plan review submitting the plan along with the complete case file to the supervisor then the supervisor will review the file, write comments on the case file audit form or the SPR and then returning the file back to the officer with very little face-to-face interaction. The monograph replaces that paperwork review process with a face-to-face meeting between the officer and the supervisor to discuss the case and to update the plan. The goal here is to save time to reduce paperwork to enhance professionalism and to promote a collaborative exchange. Excellent. Thank you very much Nancy. There are several things in what you said that I want people to make at least a mental note of because you're going to see a lot of that when we do our role plays in the next segment. We only have about five minutes left in this segment before we move to the role plays. So Tristan Smart in Utah, let me ask you to quickly summarize chapter 5 for us and then we'll come back here to the studio and we'll have Penny and Steve talk about what's happening in chapter 6. Chapter 5 deals with selecting and executing strategies so Tristan why don't you take us through that. Okay. The main points in chapter 5 are first that it provides guidance on implementing supervision strategies. It organizes conditions set forth in statute by topic area. It contains information regarding the purpose of each condition as well as implementation and monitoring strategies. It includes new and expanded topics on search and seizure. And finally it separates routine supervision activities for more intensive activities. Okay let me put in there and is there any sort of specific thing that you feel needs to be emphasized at these points? I know there's a lot there but what to you in your experience needs to be emphasized? Well I think under the point of providing guidance on implementing supervision strategies it emphasizes the officers need to develop a variety of both monitoring and assisting strategies and then the monograph goes on to give definitions of monitoring and assisting strategies. I think that the section about the search and seizure and plane view is particularly important because these are often contentious issues in a variety of districts. And that's a new thing for pre-trial services and I think in many districts a controversial thing. Correct and it is new in this monograph and I think it's important to point out quickly that the monograph does indicate that there's no explicit authority in Title 18 for a condition of pre-trial release that permits warrantless searches and seizures. However our officers are allowed according to district policy to continue with plane view seizures. Very good thanks very much. Now quickly chapter 6 talks about managing non-compliant behavior. Again we'll see some of this when we move to the second segment but Penny and Steve let me ask you guys to briefly summarize what's in that chapter. Penny why don't you take the first couple of points and then Steve will take the last point. Thanks Mark. Sure thank you. Chapter 6 stresses the importance of officers using the two-pronged approach of risk control and risk reduction interventions when managing non-compliant behavior. Risk control interventions hold the defendant accountable for future non-compliant behavior and let the defendant know that future non-compliance will not be tolerated and will have negative consequences. Risk reduction interventions address the individual needs of the defendant and offer assistance to that defendant in obtaining treatment, employment whatever is needed to alleviate or prevent future non-compliance. Risk control and risk reduction interventions should be used simultaneously not separately and the ultimate goal is to bring about positive change in the defendant's lifestyle. Talk about the combination and the guidance that the monograph provides regarding combined responses or approaches. The monograph provides an advisory framework for officers to receive suggestions generates ideas and ways for officers to deal with non-compliance. It sets forth this in areas of the two-pronged approach of risk control and risk reduction interventions and it's just a suggestion framework for officers. It's not a you have to type of thing but it does give ideas from low to high-risk violations. One of the things I wanted to say on that Mark was that we really want to move away from this no-action mentality and hopefully as you can see throughout the monograph this is really trying to raise the bar of supervision and pretrial services. Absolutely. I think that a lot of what we've talked about from the first chapter now through the last chapter gets that across. That proactivity is expected community orientation is expected doing something is expected. Not letting sleeping dogs lie because they don't sleep for very long. Good. Quickly Steve, last point. The last point here is that it emphasizes the need to tailor responses to circumstances of the defendant in the context in which the non-compliant behavior occurred. This is the notion that the cookie cutter approach doesn't work and that responses and interventions to non-compliant behavior need to be tailored to the specific defendant, his previous history, his current case, his current level of compliance with supervision. All those things wrapped into one. What probably doesn't work with this is the policies that many districts have which are graduated sanctions that specify if a person does A, B, or C then they get this sanction. They're going to be tailorized under this model. Look, we're off to a good start. Off and running. We got to get out. Thanks everybody. Folks on the phone sit tight. It's time to move to our next segment so we can show you some of the things we've been talking about. Actually demonstrate a few of the practices we've been referring to so you can see how it might look and what the change really will look like. My colleague Kate Lynet is currently making the rounds among circuits doing circuit-wide supervisors training so those of you in the field who are supervisors may have already received some training on the new 111 and the new 109. And you may have already been exposed to some of this information. You'll notice that there's a greater emphasis on the proactivity of the supervisor in this new monograph. But even if you've been exposed to some of that training already we thought it would be helpful for those of you in the field to see or to hear about and to see some of the programs that the FJC makes available for supervisors so you can continue in your professional development. So take a look at this message and we'll be back in a couple of minutes with our role-place. Monograph 111 indicates the supervisor's specific roles in the supervision process are to oversee the application of principles established by law and policy in each case and to work in partnership with officers to translate these principles into action develop the professional skills of their officers and facilitate the supervision function in their districts. The monograph requires supervisors and officers to collaborate in case planning and evaluations and notes that the supervisor's role in this process is to serve as mentor and professional colleague to the officer. To assist supervisors in fulfilling this critical role the Federal Judicial Center offers several educational resources. The supervisor's development program is a self-directed 90-hour program that requires completion within three years and leads to a certificate of achievement. For more information on this program visit the center's intranet site on the DCN or call 202-502-4100 We also offer other materials touching on such issues as communication, leadership and employee relations. For more information on these consult The Purple Book, Programs and Services for Federal Court Personnel available on the center's DCN intranet site or by calling 202-502-4110 We regularly offer training for supervisors on the Federal Judicial Television Network Recently, televised programs have addressed motivating staff leadership skills and ethical decision making. Many of our FJTN programs qualify for credit in the supervisor's development program. You can stay updated on these programs with the FJTN Bulletin published bi-monthly by the center and available on our DCN intranet site. These programs are also announced in our monthly column in News and Views. Let us help you with your professional development. Contact us soon. Welcome to the set of United States vs. James Jones. What we're going to do in this segment is illustrate through some role plays the practices or some of the practices that we've been talking about in the first segment. Our focus is going to be the practices. First, we'll look at the assessment investigation and where the emphasis should be placed there. And then in our second act, we'll move on to the six month supervision plan evaluation. Since all supervision takes place in the context of an actual case, our panelists who are also part of this program's planning group have put together their combined experience and developed a scenario to sort of serve as the backdrop for the practices we're going to be demonstrating. This, as I said at the beginning of the segment, is the case of United States vs. James Jones. Let me tell you a little bit about our defendant. Jones is a 20 year old white male and he's been charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He's unemployed but has held a series of fast food and construction jobs and he has a GED. He's on the ground and he's completed successfully his probation for that and we know that he's used marijuana since he was 14 years old. Jones lives with his father and has been released on bond with his father serving as the third party custodian and Jones also has a substance abuse treatment condition. Now, as I said, our first act is going to focus on the assessment investigation and our methodology here is going to be comparing the old approach to doing things so that you'll be able in your districts to discuss it and compare and contrast for yourselves what you like and what you don't like. And serving as our officer throughout our role plays is going to be Steve Skinner. Thank you, Steve. And soon we'll be bringing on Tony Sanjicomo who'll be playing the role of the supervisor for our role plays as well. Now, in the first scene of this act focusing on assessment investigation, Steve is the officer and he makes an unannounced visit to the defendants' home to James Jones' residence. He knocks on the door and waits for a response. Mr. Jones, are you home? There's no response. Steve, why don't you come on over, take a seat there. Now, having gotten no response after he knocked on the door and left his business card wisely, Steve is now back at the office and the defendant pursuant to the number on the business card calls Steve while he's sitting at his desk. The telephone rings. Pre-trial to Steve. Mr. Jones. Yeah, I appreciate you calling me back. You did get my card. Are you living at that 1155 Main Street address? Okay. Listen, I need you to stop by my office and drop off some sort of bill or utility bill, water bill, something like that with your name on it. I'd like you to do it as soon as possible. Tomorrow after work would be fine. Okay. Great, that works. Thanks. Good. Address verified and I got it done within 10 days. Beautiful. Steve, why don't you stand up and come out here. Tony, let me ask you to come on the set, please. And you guys just have to sort of stand right there. And we're going to change the set here before we move on to the next role play. Now, that's the old way of doing things, assessment investigation. Tony, let me get your reaction. What works there or what doesn't work? What's sort of wrong with that picture? Well, I think clearly it's not the most effective way to really assess safety issues. Okay. And also demystify our role in the process, which is very important for the defendant and other individuals living at the residence. Steve, let me get your officer's perspective. I mean until recently you were a line officer. I mean, that worked for you? It was the minimum standard. It was something that you could document in your ICSP that you had completed the residence verification. It did not, however, give you a lot of information to go by as you went along with supervision and dealt with non-compliance issues later. Okay. So, now let's take a look at the new way of doing things. And what I'd like to do is to have my colleagues from the FJC, Chris Wagenzeller and Bob Fagin come on. If you guys could just sort of take some positions here. Don't sit down. Just stand up. Welcome, guys. Thanks for being here. It's a familiar position for you, Bob, I know. Yes, indeed. Now, Chris, you are our wayward defendant James Jones and suffice it to say you're getting a little freaked out at being involved in the criminal justice system, but you're sort of just waking up as to what's actually going on here. Bob, you're his stand up dad. You're a good guy. You're disappointed with what's going on. You're kind of upset about what's going on. This is your motivation. Very disappointed in him. Right. You know his history. He's never sort of been the kind of kid to be and suffice it to say also he's probably a little disappointed with you two, dad. So this is really where we're going on what we're talking about here. Now, in this scene Steve again is the officer. Tony is the supervisor. This is the home assessment. This is that home assessment that the monograph is referring to. We're going to act it out here. Now you've come to the residence and you introduce yourselves to the defendant or you reintroduce yourselves I should say, particularly you, Steve, to the defendant and his father. Why don't you guys go ahead and play it out. How you doing, Jim? All right. Officer, how are you? Good. This is Tony Sanjay Como. He's my supervisor. He's going to go through the house and do the home inspection with him. All right. We talked about this on the phone, but I just want to make sure that your pit bull is put somewhere. He's locked in the basement. We had an officer bit last year and I just want to make sure that the dogs don't run around by Tony. Is this your dad? Yeah. Hi, Mr. Jones. Steve Skinner. My supervisor Tony Sanjay Como. We're here to meet with you and talk to you and Jim about Jim's obligation under pretrial release and your obligation, sir, is that they're a party custodian in this matter. Okay. But first we want to walk through the house. Does that mean you're going to have to look through all the bedrooms and everything? Sir, we are going to walk around the house and walk in the rooms. We won't be looking in closets or digging through your drawers or any of your personal effects. Now, I noticed some beer bottles outside the house when we walked in and have you been drinking at all? No, not me. The neighbor set a party over the weekend. I tried to clean it all up, but I might miss some. We don't want to take up a whole lot of your time this afternoon, but we do want to sit down and talk and explain all the responsibilities. It was third party custodian and more importantly, you, Jimmy. Have a seat. Okay. So the walk through has occurred. Introductions or reintroductions have occurred. We're back in the living room. The defendant and his father were everybody seated with the exception of the supervisor. Now, two questions, Tony. First, what the heck are you doing here? Is the expectation now going to be under the new monograph that the supervisor is going to go with the officer on every home assessment? Absolutely not, but the expectation is that the supervisor and the officer will work more closely together and that will entail some field work together. And in this case, this happens to be a field day where Steve is doing a home assessment. Okay, so we just wanted to illustrate that this will happen from time to time and again, emphasize like we were talking about in the first segment that there is a more proactive role for the supervisor in terms of working collaboratively with the officer. We'll talk more about that in a few minutes. But now I see you're standing and Steve is sitting. Why is that? This is regard to safety and that there's a cover officer. We took out the word home visit because no one turns into a visit. It's not really a visit. And this just gives it more of I think a formal approach but still allowing the probation officer or pre-child officer and the defendant to establish a good rapport. Okay, very good. I just wanted to make sure we were clear on both of those points. Steve, why don't you go ahead and conduct the discussion. Great. Jim, as you know and Mr. Jones, we work for the federal court and we work for the judge who released Jim on bail in this case. We're going to monitor your compliance with the conditions of release. We also need to know if you need any assistance from us. Things like employment, life skills, anything that we can assist you in. We want to take care of anything that might prohibit you from complying with all the conditions of release that the judge established last Tuesday when you were released. I got it. We also need to keep open lines of communication with you, Mr. Jones. We'd like to establish this rapport with you and if you have any questions, concerns throughout this process we want you to call us and have an open dialogue with us. Sir, as the third party custodian you're obligated to inform me if Jimmy does anything that he's not supposed to do. It's contrary to those conditions of release. For example, if you know that he's smoking pot which is obviously a violation of his conditions you need to call me and let me know that he's done that. Am I going to get into any trouble of something that he might do? No, sir. The court can hold you in contempt if you fail to notify us of something you know that he's done that's contrary to the conditions of release. I suppose something happens on a Saturday or Sunday. Are you guys even open? Our office is closed but before I leave here today I'll give you a pager number that's available 24-7 and you can call our office and we'll be back in touch with you. Like I say, one of the big things I want to do here today is establish means for you to communicate with me. Okay. Now, Jim, you're supposed to submit to random urine samples, reports of my office as directed to substance abuse assessment. Do you have insurance? What difference does that make? Well, since Jim has been ordered by the court to do a substance abuse evaluation our office tries to utilize private insurance private funds before we utilize the taxpayer's dollars. It's okay. I don't have any. I'll give you a number before I leave here today to the county chemical dependence office. You should call them tomorrow and contact me with the date and time of that appointment. Also, you'll have to report to my office every other Tuesday between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. Those are our office hours. Since you're not employed right now, that should work, right? Uh-huh. And you're going to be looking for a job, I know. I put you on a code of phone program for urine collection. We discussed that the day you were released, remember? Yep, I'm read. Okay, you've got your code down. Good. Who I've met. Your stepmother and your older brother. Is that still the case? Yes, and my stepsister stays here every once in a while. Okay. I want to put together a list of everyone who stays here even if it's just now and then. I also need to know what time people will most likely be here in the house. Why? I'm the one on bond. Yeah, I'm aware of that. I have the conditions of release and know what you're required to do. I know that we do conduct unannounced home visits and I want to know who might be here at any given time when I come by. I've met your father. My intention is to meet other people who live here in the house. I also need the phone number and address of your girl from PAM. You're still involved with her, is that correct? Yeah, okay. Thanks. Do either of you have questions? No. All right, Mr. Jones. Jimmy's already got my card but I want to give you my card. Okay, thanks a lot. Contact me anytime you have any concerns. Thanks, I'll do that, Steve. So I'll see you Tuesday, Jimmy? Tuesday. I'll be there. And thanks for stopping by and telling Jimmy and I what our obligations are. That's not a problem. If you have any questions at all, please give me a call. If you don't give me, feel free to call my supervisor, Tony. Okay, safe drive. Excellent. Why don't you guys step over here a little bit? Bob, Chris? You've had your 15 minutes. Fame. Thank you guys very much for doing this. Okay, thanks. I want to ask Penny, Penny Wickenheiser on our panel. Penny, could you sort of give us the officer's perspective about what you observed in comparing that home assessment and that whole approach to assessment investigation to the old one earlier? I really like the new way. I think our safety concerns as officers are being met with the gathering of the information, making the collateral contacts with the family, doing the walkthrough of the home versus just standing in the doorway saying, okay, this is it. I'll see you next time. I think I like the gathering of the information, the exchange of information, and kind of the open door policy with the defendant and his family. Does this differ really very much from how you already do it in your district? Actually, no. Our district does do home assessments this way for most of the time. Obviously, if you're in an uncomfortable situation and you're alone as an officer, you may not do the walkthrough of the home at this point. But if there are concerns, hopefully this new monograph will reinforce the fact that you should bring a co-worker or supervisor with to effectively do the home assessment. Very good. Now, I want to go to Jolene Whitten in the Northern District of Texas. Jolene, this is a much different approach to doing things, obviously. Let's just address it straight on. This is a much different approach to doing things in terms of what the monograph requires formally than the publication 111. And I think it will strike a lot of people in the field, frankly, is quite invasive, especially when you think in light of the least restrictive conditions. So can you speak to that at all? Sure. First of all, I think you noticed in this scenario that the officer and the supervisor were careful to still be respectful of the defendant and his father. And also, we need to keep in mind that the term least restrictive refers to the conditions of release that were set. Our supervision strategies, as Tony mentioned earlier, are to be proportionate to the risk. And I think in this case, the supervision strategies are proportionate. Okay. So least restrictive conditions does not necessarily translate directly into least restrictive strategies, correct? That's correct. Tony, reactions to that? Well, I think it's important as Jolene mentioned, you have to make sure, if you adequately assess something, that your risks are in line with that assessment. And the strategy that you put in place, and it's very important to do that. If you don't adequately assess a case and the risk factors, your strategy will not be in line with what's necessary to manage the risk. Okay, good. You always want to make sure that those conditions are the interventions that you impose are within the conditions of release. Sure. Okay. Thanks for making that point. Hence, I wanted to just sort of get the chief's perspective on what we've observed here. Again, the contrast between the old and the new. What are your reactions? When the committee was reviewing the process, one of the things we absolutely felt needed to happen is our officers needed to perform as professionals. And as you could tell, leaving the card in the door was not a very professional act. And it didn't give you any information and by which to make an assessment on what conditions would be appropriate, what strategies would be appropriate, and how you were going to get this person from release through post-conviction or conviction if necessary. What we had hoped was that our officers would perform at a level far we raised the bar, I guess, is where we were. We wanted our officers to perform better using their own professional skills. There are skills of assessing these defendants and what things were necessary. It came to be, as you could see from the second scenario, that there was a lot more information. The relationship that they had developed with the father already establishes how this is going to go. The father is on board, understands what's the expectations, and so does the defendant. They also know that we're coming to the home, that we are going to hold them accountable, but we're also there as a resource. The professionalism of our officers is what we had hoped to gain from this. Very good. Now just to sort of bring it back around here to what we were talking about in the first segment, I mean, there's a clear community orientation. There's a clear emphasis on continuing assessment. Now what we didn't see was the post-release intake interview, right guys? I mean, we know that's going to happen. So this isn't the first time you're going to be seeing the defendant, right? I mean, as the officer. No, and hopefully we've established a report with the father and the defendant at the time of the post-release intake interview and made some collateral contacts as well. Right. So this is simply a follow on to that. And again, sort of, by raising that community, it gets you out into the community and sort of does it in a consolidated efficient way, Tony. And I think another thing to keep in mind is when you're in the defendant's home, after their first release, sometimes they're very nervous. They're not hearing things as clearly as they would in an environment like this when they're more relaxed in their own home. Very good. I want to move on to our second act, which will focus on the six month supervision plan evaluation. But before we do that, why don't you just summarize for us what we've observed here. A lot of good things happened. We saw not only the verification of defendant's residence and who else is living at the residence, but potential hazards with the dog were identified, potential supervision issues, Tony noticing the beer bottles outside. That was addressed. Also the collateral contacts establishing the report with the not only defendant, but the father is third party custodian and establishing those collateral contacts and possibly laying the groundwork for future collateral contacts with Steve requesting the girlfriend's telephone number. So we assume he's going to follow up with that and setting the tone to the supervision presence that to expect the unannounced field visits from time to time. So I think all those things were excellent actually and provide for a collaborative approach in terms of supervision. Excellent. Let's move on to our second act looking at the six month supervision plan evaluation. Steve, let me ask you to step off the set. And this first scene, again we are going to focus on the old way of doing things and then we'll show you the new way under the new monograph on 11. In this scene Tony is the supervisor, he is Steve's supervisor and he's reviewing the files and lo and behold he's come across the file of one Mr. James Jones. So Tony why don't you have a seat here. Good. And we've got your little file here, right? No phone calls, you've got your calls held and we're going to do this the old way so let's roll them. Go ahead Tony. Time for case reviews. Okay, let's see what we have here. Jim Jones I can't, I don't really remember this case. Okay let's see, it's time to start some counting here. We've got to count the UAs. Okay, supposed to take three UAs a month for six months. So there should be 18, let me count three in April three May three July. Wait a second. 17 UAs. Hmm, so still have 18. Case plan not properly executed. Okay, let's see what we have next here. Oh, home visits. Okay, one every quarter. Okay, let's see. Hmm, well it looks like we only have one home visit, not two as we're supposed to. Case plan again not executed as directed. All right. There's got to be a better way than this. Okay, that's the old way of doing things for the supervisor in his little bubble in his office. Okay, now let's bring on the officer. The officer retrieves the file out of earshot and eyeshot of the supervisor. Reactions. Why is Tony so focused on the frequencies? I'm meeting my goals of the case. Jim is drug free. He's going to treatment. He's reporting as directed. He's so focused on counting the UAs and the home visits that he didn't even notice that the mental health issues that I've been dealing with. I wish there was a better way to do this than all the counting he does. All right. Tony State put. Steve can stay right there. I want to first go to Nancy Cohn in West Palm Beach, Florida. Nancy from the supervisor's perspective give us your reactions to what we've observed here. What's wrong with this picture? Well, I think that with this approach emphasis is placed on counting the activities rather than looking at the outcome. You can see the frustration on the part of the supervisor and the officer with all, you know, this counting of activities and the officer even expresses that the supervisor is not, you know, focused on the counting and doesn't take note of the issues which is, you know, mental health issues that this defendant is going through. So I think this is not a very effective way of supervising defense because the attention seems to be more on the quantity rather than the quality. Okay. Now two related questions. I mean, we noticed in the dialogue and we built this into the dialogue that both said, specifically the supervisor in this case said there's got to be a better way. You're a supervisor, you know, and you've been in this position. I mean, do you feel like there's got to be a better way just truthfully as a supervisor? Oh, definitely. I mean, this exchange of files back and forth is just not a very effective way. I mean, there's very little communication between the officer and the supervisor and I feel that for years we've been doing it this way and we've our minds are pretty much embedded and, you know, that this is the way that we do supervision by focusing on the activities, but with the new monograph, you know, it takes it a step further. You know, now we are to focus on the outcomes and this continuous assessment is what's really important. Very good. Penny, you're a resident line officer expert here. Give us your reaction to Steve's reaction. Can you relate? In my disc, in my district, we have always had an open line of communication with our supervisors, so we've been very fortunate with that. I've always been able to call him, so I can't really relate to the role play. However, I do know that there are districts that can and the quantity was such an emphasis and I think we will enjoy the new approach in the new monograph 111. Steve, let me ask you, I mean to some degree what we're trying to get at here is that, and Tony, to some degree the supervisors and the officers' behavior are a reaction or a result of what was required of them by the publication of 111. We don't want to portray, our intention certainly was not to portray the officer of the supervisor as antagonistic or lazy or whatever, but that or as being counters in the case of the supervisor, but as sort of doing what's expected of them and as asked for by the governing monograph, would you agree with that? I think one of the things to look at is the critical thinking element that an officer has to interject in their position and if you look there were 17 UAs, I mean we're sort of making fun of it, but there were 17 UAs and we didn't have the 18 so the case plan wasn't executed. Well if all 17 were negative, we didn't even need 12. So I mean that's what we have to get in here is the critical thinking what is actually happening with the case and I think it's a very important element of the monograph. Okay now let's do the contrast. Let's move on to the next scene and take a look at how the new monograph what the new monograph requires in terms of the supervision plan evaluation. Now we know it used to be called the supervision plan review. We've purposely seen a name change here to the supervision plan evaluation. Why don't you guys have a seat. Now we're going to be in the officer's office so why don't you Tony sit over there and Steve move over here behind the desk like you were in the first scene that we did. Let's move the chair back over here it's okay. Move the chair back over here take your take your seats everybody quiet on the set. Welcome to as supervision turns. Okay now we're going to see what the new monograph requires and take a look at the interaction. We've got the supervisor sitting in the officer's room they're going to go over the case files and we are again focused on the file of James Jones. Why don't you guys take it from here. Ready for a case plan Steve? I sure am Tony. Great what do you have today? The first one I'd like to talk to you is Jimmy Jones. What's going on with him? I've got some concerns about his emotional stability I think he's a risk to himself and probably a danger to the community Tony. Why is that? I got a call yesterday from his attorney who said that there was an incident at his office the attorney's office. When Jim came over and made some inappropriate comments about the cost of the legal representation that he's getting in this case that we have his attorney said his behavior was rural erratic. That's not good. No that's sure sure not. According to his attorney Jim has acted inappropriately on more than one occasion. He was hesitant to provide me a lot of information about it because of the conflict with him being his attorney and all but he did say he called the police and they sent him out of his office. Was he charged with a new offense? Not charged or arrested but they did give him a citation, a warning actually for trespass. His attorney said he's going to be filing a motion to withdraw from the case. Is this the first time Mr. Jones have an incident like this? No he self reported sometime back and what he's reported concerned me. He was scheduled for an evaluation, a substance evaluation over at county that I had referred him to and he missed the appointment. He came by my office the next day and I can only characterize his behaviors as kind of strange and when I asked him why he missed the appointment he said he had a feeling that something bad was going to happen to him if he went out of his house so he just stayed home all day. We rescheduled the appointment and he subsequently made that appointment but it just acting kind of like oh you know I remember this case I think this is the one they had the beer bottles in front of the house and the father's the third party custodian. The father's the third party and got a little bit out of shape when I asked him about the if that insurance remember that? Oh yeah he seemed like he was a little on edge. Yeah that's him. The top thing's off he's no longer allowed on the grounds where the father owns that jewelry exchange store where they have that booth where his father makes jewelry. He can't go there anymore because of this case and he was a bit evasive about when I questioned about what was going on with that situation not being able to show up at his dad's place of work. Did you talk to the owner at all or no? Yeah I did and the owner said that he had had the Jones, Jimmy had had several confrontations with customers out and around the facility there. Boy it definitely sounds like he might have some psychological issues. I noticed he has a drug treatment condition and you've done several UAs. Yeah I've done quite a few UAs Tony and they've all been negative so that's why I asked the vendor to reduce them and we're not taking as many as we were. I called his counselor, Miss Ross this morning she said that Jimmy's attending all the meetings but he's confrontational with staff and kind of difficult to deal with. She thinks he needs to be evaluated for biopsychologist, psychiatrist. Well you know I agree with your assessment the defendant may be a risk of danger. He could also pose a risk and out appearance. Yeah I think he does. I spoke with his father this afternoon he's going to bring him by so we can intervene at least in the short run and see what's going on with him. He's going to be in it three o'clock today. That's a good idea. We definitely need to intervene here. Let's get Joan involved and see what services we can put in place to get him seen by a psychiatrist as soon as possible. That makes sense. Let me call Joan while you're here so we can schedule a meeting for the three of us. Joan can you come down here to my office with me in time? Thanks. Nice job guys. Stay put. Let's talk about this for a little bit. Three things to keep in mind here hopefully as you were watching you saw collaboration. You saw a two-pronged approach to managing non-compliance and you saw the supporting roles first of the supervisor and then toward the end we alluded to the supporting role of the specialist. Keep those things in mind during our discussion here. Let me go out to Utah and supervising US probation officer Tristan Smart Tristan. Talk a little bit about what we observed here emphasizing this notion of collaboration and the two-pronged approach. What did you see and what's your experience been in your district with this? First of all let me say that the two-pronged approach is how officers should intervene when a defendant fails to comply with his or her conditions of release and these are risk control and risk reduction strategies. I think in this case we saw the risk control strategy as having the defendant continue to submit his UA's whereas the risk reduction strategy would be referring him to a psychiatrist to deal with this. I think in our district these are things for the most part we've been doing all along. We've I think defined them better now and maybe have it more set in stone with a new monograph. All right and now let me go to Jolene. Jolene in a prior conversation you talked about that in many districts this approach is really in a way formalizing what was an informal process can you speak to that a bit? Yes. What I had mentioned earlier is a lot of times these conversations will take place in the hallway maybe in the lunch room just haphazardly talking about defendants and what's going on with them and this puts it down formally this is what a supervisor and an officer should do is to meet periodically discuss these cases and those are problems and the collaboration as you saw in this case involved not just the officer the supervisor but also the specialist and I think that's an approach that is very effective using the expertise of all the appropriate people in the office making this a team effort and not just leaving the officer to deal with situations on his or her own. Excellent. Okay now we're going to have to wrap this segment up and move to our last segment about implementation issues and strategies but hopefully we've given you some concrete ideas about how this thing is supposed to work and what some of these practices might look like once you actually do them. Remember again keep in mind the big picture an increased emphasis on the professionalism of the officer and the professionalism of the manager, the supervisor and upper management. We've noticed in dialoguing with the field over the past several months the emerging concern about time both on the part of supervisors and officers. Supervisors are concerned with how the heck am I going to have enough time to meet with my officers and collaborate in this way even if I do want to do it and officers similarly have that concern of how the heck am I going to find the time to meet with my supervisor when I have all these cases I need to work etc etc. What we want you to do as we move to our next segment is take a look at these two messages that acknowledge those issues and then we'll come back in our last segment and talk about them in terms of implementation challenges and ways you might try to deal with them. Take a look. So what did you think of that supervisors training? Well it was interesting. What do you mean? Okay, so now they want us to collaborate with our officers and meet with them and do field work with them. Unbelievable. I know like I'm going to have time to do that. Supervising six officers each of them with 50 to 60 cases. What are we supposed to do, like just fit it in among the bazillion other things we've got going on? And how are the officers supposed to fit it in? Well, something's going to have to give. I mean it actually sounds like this new approach might work better than how we do things now if there was time, you know. Think about it. Wouldn't it be great to work more closely with officers on cases? I mean I kind of miss case work, don't you? Yeah, I do. Some aspects of it anyway. Do you have a chief to find out how this is supposed to work? Definitely. Tell you what. I'll call her to try to set up something. So, did you watch that FJTM broadcast on the new 111? I didn't see you there. Yeah, I came in late, but I saw most of it. I guess now we're supposed to sit down with our supervisor on every case. How are we supposed to do that exactly? I don't know about you, but I've got 60 cases and too busy. I know. I don't see how it's going to work. I don't have the time and my supervisor sure as heck doesn't either. What if we're scheduled to meet on the cases and then we get a bunch of interviews we have to do? There goes the schedule. Then we have to take more time to reschedule. Then something will come up, because it always does, and that meeting will go out the window. Yada, yada, yada. Totally. Hey, I've been doing this job a long time. I don't need anybody looking over my shoulder. Don't get me wrong. I personally think it could actually be a good thing to have a chance to sit down with my supervisor to work through case issues together. She's pretty good at that stuff, but we just never have the time to do it. It's frustrating. I think we'd better find out how this thing is supposed to work. Welcome back again. In this final segment, we talk about implementation challenges and ways to meet them. As we alluded to coming out of the prior segment of the role plays, there are going to be many challenges as you think through how this thing is supposed to work. Let's talk firsthand about the time issue, because it clearly is a concern among a lot of districts and officers, supervisors, because they haven't many had a chance to sort of think about how this is supposed to work or experiment with it yet in their districts. Talk about how it's worked in your district and what your role's been. The first thing for us was the commitment to do it. It wasn't negotiable. We were going to pilot, test the process and how did it work and what were the challenges and what were the issues. The first one was we're going to do this. So from that, what I did is I allowed my deputy chief and Steve and our other supervisor to come up with how could they best formulate a plan where their time would be available to the officers for this process. Initially it was tough. What they tried were regular office hours to do this in and there were interruptions. They chose to go to a 7 o'clock time once a week with each officer for their review times. Amazingly it worked and it works well. What we found is that officers at the initial meeting did not come prepared felt that this was a gotcha or they were out to get them with this face-to-face meeting with the supervisor because historically when the supervisor came to your office something was wrong. They moved to a neutral point which was a conference room. They decided that they would let the officer lead the discussion and what they found in their second and third meetings with the officers they came absolutely prepared. They prepared a checklist of things the officers should have reviewed prior to doing the assessment or doing the case review and the officers were prepared. We found that the officers had given the opportunity to come in and meet with the supervisors as it said in the little vignette to meet with the supervisor and explain how well they were in fact doing and how much they did in fact know about their cases. This was a thoughtful implementation process not a willy-nilly kind of thing although it was a difficult thing for let's not sugar coated it was a hard thing to implement and change is difficult and you ran into resistance when you tried to do it but I think your role was key it was the commitment to do it. Dennis Spitzer let me ask you just again as a chief what is the role of the chief in the upper management in making sure that this thing happens? Well as you mentioned it's been mentioned before change is hard and I think it's the role of the chief and the deputy to evaluate the operations to make it happen and provide the time and resources can sit down and discuss these things if it makes it necessary to change rotation or certain days to be put aside to do this then that's what it takes and each district is different and each face our own individual problems and circumstances but if there's a willingness I think it can be done. Tony let me ask you what kind of have you had similar kinds of experiences in your district you all have been trying to again implement this approach what's the experience been like? I think one of the keys and we've been starting to implement the 109 at least in the planning stages I think it's very important that you involve the officers in that because they're ultimately going to be the ones that drive the new monograph along with the supervisors and I think they need to work together and to bring up the issues and to confront those issues I think if you try to gloss over the issues you're not going to do justice for your organization. Okay, so you've empowered the officers by enabling them to take part in the process of the change. Yes, we recently had a meeting which involves some officers who volunteered with the supervisor and we went over chapter by chapter the 109 we'll do the same thing with the 111 and we kick that off and there are some issues that came up there were some disagreements between some officers officers and supervisors but we're working through those and I think we're going to be a better organization on that. Okay, so really the challenge is to include officers to the extent possible in the change process and empower them that way let them have some input let them know that this isn't about getting them, you know there's a new sheriff in town there's a new way of doing things and that we're all in it together because I gather you're going to get some resistance from supervisors who've been doing the counting for some time too because they're in a certain way and they're used to doing it and they might feel threatened if they have to do it a different way, no? Now that you're a supervisor, you know, can you relate? This is a cooperative effort when the officer and the supervisor sit down the officer can make suggestions hopefully bring some things to the table that the officer hadn't considered that the officer make the decision and the supervisor hopefully will feel comfortable enough that the officer made the right decision and it's not going to be a situation where the officer writes down what they're going to do and the supervisor puts down what they should do it's a cooperative effort and the document that's finalized should speak to what both of them can live with and it's a cooperative process Alright, so hence and Dennis mentioned sort of this notion of commitment Steve alluded to it now Steve has also alluded to this notion of teamwork you know, a cooperative effort so we've got commitment, teamwork and since it's changed implicit in that is flexibility on the part of management, flexibility on the part of officers sort of gradually working through some of this did you want to say something? I think one of the things to keep in mind as you implement the process is that things will come up like frequencies and the supervisors may look at that differently than an officer may because they're so used to doing that but I think you have to get the mindset out there that this is a new way of doing things and try to get people to be open to that Okay, now Penny I'll get to you in a second I won't be too aggressive Penny, tell us based on what you've been hearing here your district is just contemplating the implementation of it but has a similar way of approaching supervision anyway so what do you take from this discussion? I like that it's going to be formalized I like that it is going to be the standard practice and not just the way that we get to do it in our district and so I really like that if I'm doing a courtesy supervision for another district that district will also have the same standards or similar standards to us and we're not picturing that all of us are going to have to do exactly the same thing each district will be able to waiver a little bit but this does set some really good outlines some minimal standards for everyone to meet so I'm excited about the product to come forward that was an excellent point and that was something that I intended to raise earlier and perhaps glossed over it and that is that we've got people here from all different districts on this panel even though we're speaking as part of the national system we've got people on the phone from several different districts I think six or seven different districts are represented here districts do things differently there are different trends there are different approaches the monograph in a way that works in your district culture we can only help you with that to some degree you know your district culture better than we do and you said that this kind of approach will work in your district and you're going to have to be attuned to whatever your district needs we only have a couple minutes left in this segment I want to briefly go out to Tristan Smart and Utah, Tristan I know you guys have been implementing this approach as well could you just briefly tell us and just bring us full circle here sure we've been implementing many aspects of this for probably the past year and a half now I think that our officers have welcomed the change there's more of a focus on the defendant's behavior now rather than on the officer's behavior and that contributes to this idea of professional collaboration between the supervisor and officer we have had some challenges in implementing the 111 I think one of the biggest ones interestingly is getting the home assessment done because we're not just leaving a card in the door anymore they've had some difficulty actually making contact with the defendant and getting the assessment done so I've told them that they can schedule appointments for home assessments in rural and outlying areas that brings up a really important point again indicating the differences among districts because we've got urban districts we've got rural districts we've got supervision issues that are particular to rural districts where you've got long distances and doing those home assessments particularly in a district like Utah the entire state of Utah the entire state of New Mexico the entire state of Minnesota I mean sure there are some urban areas but you've got to really make an effort so what else did you want to add justin just that we've done things not only are we no longer doing the bean counting with home visits and UAs but we've discontinued counting field hours we're making sure the officers are doing need based supervision instead of meeting a minimum number of field hours and I really think they feel like they're being treated more like the professionals they are very good okay we need to move on we're moving quickly here bear with us you guys sit tight we know that there is a lot of interest in the field in hearing about the technical assistance that's available from the AO so we wanted to show you an interview that I did recently with Nancy Beatty the chief of policy and communication at the AO office of probation and pre-child services who talks about just that technical assistance and the expectations of the AO so take a look Nancy thanks for being here first question is what are districts expected to have completely implemented the principles of monograph 111 we recognize that implementation is a process and it's not something we can put a drop dead date on so what we've done is asked districts to appoint a supervision point of contact in the district and we've asked that person to develop an action plan that will spell out for us what parts of the monograph they can implement at what stage because it really is something that can happen in stages we're asking that that action plan be submitted to Barbara Meyerhofer in OPPS by the end of November, November 30th okay now what supporting documents are available on the JNET to help districts as they develop their action plan okay well the monograph itself of course is there but there are also other pieces one is a summary of changes which specifically shows what's new about this monograph this 111 another is a list of references of research that were used in developing this monograph and then there are three other pieces that would be helpful for supervisors to implement and move forward with some of these changes they are all on the OPPS web page under the section called clearing house and then publications, monographs okay now either in the development of their action plans or for some other reason if folks in the district should have questions where should they go first they should speak with their point of contact in their own district if that doesn't settle the issue or if it's the point of contact who has the question they should contact first we've set up an email hotline that's at aodb underscore supervision outreach services and that will be something we check daily and we get responses back within 24 hours or so to the person asking the question that should be that should be the first couple of places that will go if there's still issues though or they want a conversation sometimes these things aren't simple questions they should call the regional administrator okay just to wrap it up what else should folks in the district know as they continue to develop their action plans and implement the monograph well there were about three and a half years of work that went into this and involved a lot of input from people throughout the courts we're making a commitment to keep it updated though because we know that even though it's been greatest at the moment there will be changes or there will be things that happen in the implementation process that we didn't foresee so we're going to work on collecting feedback throughout the year and updating it annually we're also going to bring in some of those points of context to have discussions about things that have worked really well and things that have been a little more difficult so we think that by getting input and keeping it updated we'll really have a better product excellent thank you Nancy alright we've covered a lot of ground in this short 90 minutes but keep in mind our purpose here was only to introduce the monograph to you and highlight some of the more salient points the new monograph clearly requires some major shifts in how many of us think about conducting pre-trial supervision and these shifts aren't going to take place overnight they're going to take time so again as the spots you saw before are emphasized make the time to understand both what's in the monograph, the mechanics but also the bigger picture that emphasizes the professionalism of the officer and the professionalism of the supervisor the participant guide that accompanies this broadcast suggests some things you can do in your district in terms of in-district training to do a little bit more discussing and helping you think about ways of implementing the monograph that are attuned to your district culture take a look at them if you have questions please don't hesitate to contact me here at the center but for now I'd like to thank our panelists both here in the studio and on the telephone thank you guys very much and thanks to our folks on the telephone Steve Tony thanks for being here thanks to Bob Fagan Chris Wagenseller Barbara Meyerhofer from the AO who was part of the planning group especially thanks to John Hughes and Nancy Beatty for their participation and support in the program and finally thanks to you for watching don't forget to send us your evaluations and rosters we want to know who's here and what you thought we'll see you next time