Proud Careers
Statements from retired probation staff
What do you feel is the biggest impact our office has on the community/justice system and/or what you are most proud of as a member of the WD/NY family?
Retired Senior U.S. Probation Colleen Rahill-Beuler 1986-2011:
“I loved our office and the work we did. I was proud (most of the time) to be a USPO and tried to be mindful of how lucky I was to have that job/career. This feeling is perhaps reflective of the people in my unit, the nature of the work we did, the chance to work and develop pretty good relationships with the attorneys and judges, or a combination of it all.
In 1994, we hosted a three day Future Search Conference that was pretty innovative. All stakeholder groups were invited - judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, agents, and yes, even men on supervision with us. The purpose of the conference was to look at what we were and were not doing that would make us a better, more responsive office. It was a very cool conference and there were a number of ideas implemented as a result.
One other thing - in my experience, our leadership never stood in the line officers’ way of obtaining training that would improve their skills. As a result, it seemed that many of us had the opportunity to not only receive training, but become trainers on a national level, which was also a wonderful and unique experience.”
Retired U.S. Probation Officer Specialist Joseph A. Killian 1991-2013:
“Working for the U.S. Courts was an honor. In the WD/NY, I was proud to be a small part of the team that was dedicated to both community protection and rehabilitation. We were at the forefront of keeping our community safe by leading the way in search and seizure while at the same time starting one of the first re-entry courts and cognitive behavioral therapy programs. I was and still am proud of our balanced approach. For me, it was always about being in a helping profession and I know I helped keep our community safe and helped people change their lives.”
Retired U.S. Probation Officer Ira Z. Fox 1991-2013:
“Our agency developed over time, from behind the desk to proactive community based supervision. This occurred in the Nineties by blending in officers that came from federal districts around the country and NY state agencies. The effective, hands-on supervision we provide today was molded by those officers, which I was proud to be a part of.”
Retired Supervising U.S. Probation Officer Richard H. Galmarini 1991-2018:
“I transferred to WD/NY in 1991 from the SD/FL. At that time, the National Administrative Office was moving the probation system into Enhanced Supervision for post sentence offenders. Chief Giacobbe was instrumental in allowing us to move forward with this program. He allowed officers to research the benefits of using government cars for field work. This step encouraged officers to supervise offenders in the field and made it safer for officers to do field work. He allowed us to get mirrors in the bathroom to watch urine samples being submitted, which started our drug testing program off on the right track as being one of the best in the country. Although he may have had hesitations, Chief Giacobbe began a Search & Seizure program in WD/NY that became the shining star of supervision in the country. We were innovative in this area and brought a realization to how dangerous field work could be.
Retired Supervising U.S. Probation Officer Barry W. Horton 1991-2014: “The creation of the search team!!!”
Thoughts From Retired Chief U.S. Probation Officer Joseph A. Giacobbe
1981-2009 (18 years as chief)
One of my proudest accomplishments as Chief U.S. Probation Officer involved the effort to change the culture of the Probation and Pretrial Services office from what was the nationally common autocratic/top-down form of management to a flatter organizational model, incorporating Total Quality Management (TQM) concepts, along with Participatory Leadership.
The TQM model was a concept deputies Tom McGlynn and John Babi, and I, discovered in 1993, while attending a leadership workshop in Maryland sponsored by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC). We happened to sit behind the management team from the US Probation Office, SDFL and overheard their plans to incorporate TQM as their overlying style to lead their court unit. A conversation ensued between our two districts, and we liked what we heard from the SDFL team. Tom, John and I then embarked on a mission to change the leadership culture in our unit, a journey that took several years to fully accomplish.
TQM involves a management approach to long-term success through customer satisfaction. In a TQM effort, all members of an organization participate in improving processes, products, services, and the culture in which they work. The four pillars of TQM are (1) customer focus, (2) continuous improvement, (3) employee involvement, and a process-oriented approach. This leadership style was uncommon in our system at the time. In fact, having Chief USDJ Michael Telesca, an open-minded leader who offered unfettered support to me as Chief, was the key to our overall success in pursuing and achieving the culture change of our office.
Mentioning customers in a public sector organization appears to be a misnomer. Who are the “customers” of the probation and pretrial services the staff asked? Our “customer base” or stakeholders, included District and Magistrate Judges, treatment contractors, the community, our defendants and offenders actively under supervision. (Some staff initially balked at identifying our clientele as customers, but in a sense, they were the individuals who would most benefit from our services and interventions.) The continuous improvement aspect involved identifying training needs for the staff, at every level of our organization. We also developed methods to measure our work efforts to determine our success and areas that required improvement. We gathered feedback from the court on our work products and adjusted our practices based on the feedback from not only the court but also our contract providers and segments of the community. Employee involvement was the key to our success in the culture shift from top-down management to an organization that encouraged staff to participate in certain decision-making efforts. The result was an improved work product and a sense of pride experienced by the staff. When we first started our journey to flatten the organization was met with some staff resistance. I recall a staff member suggesting that she would prefer to be told what to do rather than take the initiative to actively participate in decision making. As time passed this same officer came to appreciate the opportunity to participate in planning, organizing and implementing various projects and concepts district wide.
Participatory leadership is a management style that involves employees in decision-making. It's based on the idea that subordinates can be consulted before making decisions to solve problems together. Participative leaders encourage employees to provide feedback and ideas and give them the resources and discretionary powers to participate. In addition, we obtained feedback from our customer base over the years, to include offenders and defendants. Initially some officers hesitated at this effort, however, we obtained rational insight from active and former offenders relating to their treatment by staff during their terms of supervision from post-supervision questionnaires. (Overall, the information received from our offenders was complimentary and supportive.) This information was helpful in our efforts to continuously improve our practices, a vital part of a quality organization.
These efforts, TQM and Participatory leadership, took a few years to take hold. Staff were somewhat suspect of our intentions, not ready to take these responsibilities on, in fact some were concerned that if they made mistakes along the way they would be punished or get “in trouble” with management. We worked hard to distill those concerns and allowed staff to learn from any mistakes made. In fact, we encouraged staff to take the initiative. Staff eventually entrusted upper management and lost any fear that may have been residual from “old style” top-down administration. It took a few years of ongoing training and implementation, and the staff eventually appreciated the opportunity to work in a “learning organization.” We encouraged change, welcomed new concepts and methods and staff at every level benefited.
One vital opportunity helped us develop our new culture. The FJC noticed our efforts to develop long-term planning for the future of our court unit. We were asked to hold a Future Search Conference, sponsored by the FJC. Only one other court unit, Bankruptcy Division, SD/CA had taken part in the future search conference. The deputies and I jumped at this opportunity and, in 1994, a three day Future Search Conference sponsored by the FJC was held off site with a mixture of our stakeholders. The participants consisted of a one third of our staff, representing a cross section from support to officers, District Judges, Magistrate Judges, representative from the U.S. Attorney’s office, Federal Public Defenders office, drug and alcohol contract providers, Halfway house staff, our District Clerks Office and a few former offenders. We involved the participants in team-based skits that mimicked what our office may look like 10-15 years down the road. Judges and treatment providers and defense attorneys and prosecutors working together on teams with the goal of providing our organization with information to improve our probation and pretrial services office. We investigated and discussed a variety of common issues to form a structure of what our court unit could look like 10 years down the road. We considered needs such as hiring a more diverse staff, identifying training needs that would address the changing offender and defendants, how we might react to new laws that could affect our workload and how to best be prepared to address a variety of needs the courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys may experience in the coming years.
Some of my peers thought I was taking a drastic chance by exposing our office and garnering input from “outsiders” (those we either serve or work with on a professional level). I never saw it in that frame. In fact, this experience made me a better leader. The conference proved to be a success. We were able to identify short- and long-term goals, and developed a 10-year strategic plan, one which was reviewed and updated annually. These goals were intended to improve our court unit by considering input provided to us throughout the conference. One aspect of the seminar involved developing a stakeholder committee made from a cross section of “customer” participants from the future search conference, which was in place for approximately 5 years after the conference. This group tracked our efforts and success as we implemented our long-term strategic plan.
This conference was an example of ongoing training from outside contractors in leadership development, effective communication, team-building exercises which allowed staff to realize the benefits of TQM. Staff were buying-in to the concepts and accepted their roles in our leadership style. In the long run our office developed into a fine-tuned organization, where staff input was encouraged and appreciated by upper leadership. An added practice developed resulting from our leadership approach involved regular staff and unit meetings, an annual retreat where training was provided to staff and annual unit meetings held by respective supervisors, usually off sight, with the intent of solidifying working and personal relationships.
In terms of developing staff, one more proud moment I recall was playing a role in national endeavors. Again, enjoying support from the chief Judges and my management team was instrumental in my ability to have the opportunity to take part in leadership roles at the Administrative Office, Washington DC. The exposure offered to me trickled over to my staff, at every level. Deputies, supervisors line officer, budget and personnel specialists had opportunities to travel national not only for training but also to fill roles in national committees, where they shared their expertise and provided either provided training or played active roles in policy development. Finally, I am proud to say the during my entire tenure as Chief, spanning 1991 to 2009, I had at least one officer taking part in the FJC’s three-year Leadership Development Program. This was a testament of the value of developing leaders from within our system.
