Gennine Hagar Interview 2

41
Oral History Of Gennine Hagar
Chief U.S. Probation Officer
United States District Court For the District Of Columbia
Second Interview
August 14, 2014
This is the second interview of Genine Hagar in connection with the Oral History Project of the
Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. The interviewee is Gennine Hagar. The
interviewer is Kurt J. Hamrock. The interview is taking place in the offices of McKenna Long &
Aldridge LLP, 1900 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. on August 14, 2014, beginning at 4:25
p.m.
MR. HAMROCK: Ms. Hagar, thank you for taking the time to sit with me again today, and
talk with us a little bit about your experiences with the United States
Probation Office and generally with your experiences with the D.C.
courts. Today we would like to talk about your work at the U.S. Probation
Office, your experiences there, people with whom you work, the changes
you seen over time and the issues that you see facing the Probation Office
and the courts generally, not only in the pass but also the presence.
MS. HAGAR: Yes.
MR. HAMROCK: So with that, in our last interview we talked about your prior work
experience, and I would like to start today with your work at the U.S.
Probation Office beginning with your first job there. If you could, would
you talk to me briefly about your decision to move to the U.S. Probation
Office and your first job there?
MS. HAGAR: I began working at the U.S. Probation Office in April 1988. Working in
the federal system as a probation officer is the epitome of our profession.
I interviewed, got the job, and started as a Line Officer. As a Line Officer,
you supervise a general caseload. Primarily, I supervised individuals who
42
were addicted to drugs. I also wrote presentence investigations. From
1988 until about the end of 1989, I had a general caseload. After that, I
was assigned a caseload that consisted of individuals who were infected
with the AIDS virus, or who were HIV positive. I learned a great deal
about life, alternative lifestyles, stigmatisms, disease, doctors, and
hospices. This experience helped me to become more aware of different
lifestyles. There appeared to be little lifestyle diversity on the Eastern
Shore. I grew as a person. People would ask me, “Why would you work
with those people? Aren’t you afraid?” Working with people who had a
disease that was new to mankind was frightening initially. As I became
educated about the risks and modes of transmission, I lost that sense of
fear. In the late 80s and early 90s, it seemed as though when a person
acquired the virus, they died quickly. People on my caseload did die.
Supervising them helped me to become more sensitive to people who are
sick from any type of illness.
I frequented hospitals, clinics, and social service agencies helping the
individuals on my caseload get assistance and treatment. You do so many
things and wear many hats as a probation officer.
MR. HAMROCK: Ms. Hagar would you tell me a bit about the first year when you were
General Line Officer at the U.S. Probation Office, before you began the
special work with the clients with HIV?
MS. HAGAR: During the first year, I was in training and the Senior Officers
accompanied me to court and in the field. I reviewed reports and met with
43
my supervisor routinely. Although training was the focus, I still had a
caseload, went to court, and made visits in the community. I had a lot of
guidance during the first year.
One of the things I noticed when I assumed my caseload at the U.S.
Probation Office, was that almost everyone that I supervised was older
than me. I was 27 years old. My caseload was approximately 95% male.
As a parole/probation officer in Maryland, approximately 70% of my
caseload were male and most of them had never served much time in
prison. At the U.S. Probation Office, most of the individuals on
supervision had been in prison an average of five years and they had prior
felony convictions. I was now working with individuals who had been in
the legal system for quite some time.
MR. HAMROCK: Are there any other contrasts that you saw between your prior work
experiences in this field and the new group of people you were
supervising?
MS. HAGAR: Their age, the type of offense, number of prior convictions, time served in
prison, employment history, and substance abuse history. The federal
offenders were typically older with a more serious criminal background.
MR. HAMROCK: What kind of drugs?
MS. HAGAR: Crack at that time. Crack or heroin. However, in the state system in the
80s, the offenders I supervised abused alcohol and used marijuana. The
federal offenders typically used the hard drugs.
44
MR. HAMROCK: What do you remember during the time about your supervisors and your
co-workers?
MS. HAGAR: They were great people. My first supervisor was a black woman named
Solona Moore. She is deceased now, but she was one of the first black
officers hired by the U.S. Probation Office in D.C. I remember she was
very kind, but very strict. She said to me that this is a conservative court;
you are to act that way; behave that way; look the role that you play; don’t
dress down and don’t even wear pants. That was in 1988. Solona’s dress
code for me, is a far cry from the dress code for officers today. My
coworkers were kind, helpful, and wanted me to learn the job. I was
trained to represent the Probation Office well, be responsive to the court
and community and be a good steward of the government’s resources. We
didn’t send people to treatment who had already been there or those who
didn’t need it. My first two supervisors had been officers for a very long
time, and they had been in our court for more than fifteen years when I
started. They were well-rounded, considerate, even humorous, but
tough…tough on new officers.
MR. HAMROCK: Did you have occasion to appear in court?
MS. HAGAR: All the time. I first went to court about a month after starting the job. I
remember one of the first judges that I appeared before was Judge
Barrington Parker. I couldn’t find my mentor at the time to go with me,
because as a new officer a senior officer or your supervisor had to
accompany you to court. I had been before the magistrate judge early on,
45
but on my very first time appearing before a federal district judge, there
was no senior officer in my unit to go with me. I did not even know how
to get to Judge Parker’s chambers. I had also heard that he was really hard
on probation officers. He would question you. I was more afraid of the
judge than I was the offenders…funny isn’t it. I did find my way to his
chambers and when I first walked in I said “Your Honor, I have never
been before a federal judge before, so if I do something that is improper
please tell me and I will correct it.” He said “Young lady, I certainly will.”
From that point on he was quite nice to me. So much so, that when the
other officers had a case before Judge Parker, they would ask me to cover
court for them. So, that was my first experience with a federal judge.
Throughout my career, the DC bench has consisted of judges who are
thoughtful and fair. Among the reasons that I stayed in this court for 26
years is because of the bench. They are concerned not just about the
defendants and offenders, but about the court staff as well. Many of them
have told me that sending someone to prison is the most difficult thing
they have to do and they take it very seriously. As probation officers, our
job is to help provide the judge with reasonable and sound
recommendations. We only make recommendations, but as we all know,
the actual decision rests with the judge.
MR. HAMROCK: Do you recall any other experiences in front of other judges during these
early years of your career as a probation officer?
46
MS. HAGAR: Yes. I had a young lady on my caseload and she had a long criminal
record. She was a prostitute, in addition to a whole lot of other things. I
had tried everything with her; inpatient/outpatient drug treatment, and all
types of therapy. I wanted her to make it. We had appeared before the
court several times due to her violations. Each time I would ask the judge
to let us try this program or let me put her here or there. One day when
she came in, I felt I had exhausted everything that I believed our office
had to offer. I recall being apprehensive about telling her about seeking
God, but I have seen people change because of their faith, so I decided to
say it to her anyway. I said “You know what, you need God.” I told her
that I have seen people change once their beliefs changed. I asked her
what did she believe in and she said “Nothing, nobody, nothing.” I said
that maybe faith is something you should consider. She didn’t reply.
Months later we were back in court for another violation. At the hearing,
she asks the judge if she can speak and the judge agrees. I have no clue
what she plans to say. She says to the judge, “I think it was very
inappropriate for Ms. Hagar to recommend some type of religion to me. I
don’t think that is what she is supposed to do as an employee of the
government. I am not going to do it and I was offended.” Needless to say,
I was stunned and feared the judge’s reaction. This was probably my
second year as an officer. I thought “Oh man, I am going to get in trouble
when my chief hears this.” I was afraid, but believed I had did the right
thing. The judge looked at her for what seemed like a long while to me
47
and then he looked at me. The judge said, “Maybe Ms. Hagar was right.
You know we have been going through this time and time again, maybe
God is what you need.” I was so stunned. She sat down and he just looked
at me and smiled and that was it. The judge sent her back to jail that day.
Years later, I saw her hitchhiking on the beltway.
MR. HAMROCK: Oh my goodness! You mentioned that after about a year or so, you began
sort of working with individuals who had HIV and the AIDs virus. What
prompted that development in your career?
MS. HAGAR: Because many of the offenders in our office had been intravenous heroin
users or lived an alternative lifestyle, we had a large population who were
HIV positive. Another officer saw the need for this type of caseload and
presented it the Chief. The Chief agreed and he established a special
position called an HIV Specialist. Since the HIV Specialist had so many
cases, we needed someone else to help supervise these cases, and that
someone was me.
MR. HAMROCK: What did you find were some of the special concerns and issues that you
had to face with that population?
MS. HAGAR: They were unable to work, had no income, oftentimes no housing, and no
health insurance. Getting public assistance was difficult, because most of
them were men and historically, women received public assistance and
men did not. I remember that the Whitman Walker Clinic helped my
offenders tremendously. I would take them there or tell them to meet me
there and there would be someone at the clinic who would just take over.
48
They would make sure that the individual got food, medical attention, and
most importantly, they would talk to them. The community partners that
we established as probation officers were so helpful. Although our goal is
to help them while they are on supervision, you want them linked with
community agencies because once the term of supervision is done, you
want them to be able to still get the assistance they need.
Having a place to live was often an issue. Because many of them had been
to prison, created problems within the family due to their criminal
lifestyle, then returned home with AIDS, many families and society as a
whole shunned them. Sadly, housing is still a problem for people who are
returning from prison. They had so many things going against them, their
health and criminal background. It was difficult and sad.
MR. HAMROCK: Did the individuals, I am just curious in terms of the way they contracted
it? Is that usually something that happened while they were incarcerated?
MS. HAGAR: No, usually before.
MR. HAMROCK: How long did you serve as a Line Officer there?
MS. HAGAR: Three years.
MR. HAMROCK: So that would have taken it up to about 1991?
MS. HAGAR: Correct. In 1991, I was promoted to Federal Sentencing and Guideline
Specialist. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines had passed and we had just
began writing presentence investigation reports that included the new
guidelines. The federal judiciary saw the need to have probation officers
who were well versed in calculating the sentencing guidelines. I learned
49
the sentencing manual thoroughly. I did a temporary duty assignment at
the Sentencing Commission for six weeks and I worked on the sentencing
hotline. Officers and attorneys from all over the country would call the
Sentencing Commission. I found it so interesting to research cases, add
the numbers up, look at the case law, and apply the guidelines. This was
something that I really enjoyed doing. However, I always thought that the
guidelines were far too harsh. Specifically, the crack guidelines were
really harsh. But in recent years, the crack guidelines were lowered by
Congress.
When I first began applying the guidelines, almost everyone that I did a
presentence investigation on was subject to a mandatory minimum prison
term of five, ten, twenty years or more. First time offenders, young men
who had never committed a crime, were sentenced to five years. Judge
Oberdorfer taught a class at one of the local law schools. Occasionally, he
would ask me to give the class information about how the guidelines are
applied. As a probation officer I calculated guidelines and did presentence
reports all day long. So, I became well versed in that area. I had frequent
contact with the Sentencing Commission, and helped train new probation
officers and judges on how to calculate the guidelines. Sentencing
Guidelines Specialist was a great position, a great role.
MR. HAMROCK: Let me ask you sort of a twofold question. (1) Could you describe for us
sort of what the sentencing guidelines are, or what they was meant to be
50
back after they were adopted? (2) Tell me how much of a change was that
in what was being done before the sentencing guidelines?
MS. HAGAR: The guidelines were enacted to help ensure that defendants who were
similarly situated, the same background, same amount of drugs, same type
of history were sentenced similarly. Prior to the guidelines, in DC for the
distribution of five grams of crack you may have received two years, and
in Texas you might have received eight. To describe the guidelines in
very simple terms, your sentencing guideline range was primarily based
on your criminal history and factors related to the offense of conviction. If
you were convicted of a theft offense, your guideline sentence was based
largely on the amount of money…there were other factors involved like
your role in the offense and those types of things…but primarily your
criminal background and the offense itself determined your sentence.
Likewise, if you were convicted of a drug offense, the amount of drugs
you distributed combined with your criminal history determined your
guideline range. Although, the guidelines took away some of the judges’
discretion, and some felt forced to impose sentences that they did not
agree with, there were opportunities for the judges to depart, but most
sentenced within the guidelines.
MR. HAMROCK: You already sort of touched on how these sentencing guidelines were
received. How did they work out during those first few years?
MS. HAGAR: As an officer, you apply the guidelines and use the information that you
gathered during your investigation. You really didn’t have any discretion.
51
You obtained the information from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the
investigator, and you received input from the defense counsel. You then
compiled a report and provided it to all the parties. In our district, we also
made a recommendation regarding the sentence that should be imposed. I
recall people that I did reports on who received fifteen and twenty years,
and even more time. I have also been here long enough to see some of
them released from prison and start supervision. It’s hard to believe that
they were really removed from society for that long period of time for
drug offenses.
MR. HAMROCK: After the adoption of the guidelines did you see an effect on say guilty
pleas or other ways in which the criminal prosecutions were conducted?
MS. HAGAR: Yes. It appeared that many individuals cooperated with the government
more, because cooperation was one of the simplest, although not
particularly the safest, way to get a reduction in your sentence. In the
District of Columbia…and this topic has been in the paper many times,
there are a lot of sealed cases, because of the volume of people who
cooperate with the government in order to have their sentenced lowered.
There also appeared to be far fewer trials and more guilty pleas.
MR. HAMROCK: While you were serving in this position did you also have a caseload of
individuals whom you were supervising?
MS. HAGAR: Not anymore. When I first started officers did PSI investigations, and
supervised a caseload. I think it was in 1991, the office was restructured
so that there were officers who only supervised individuals and there were
52
officers who solely conducted presentence investigations. So since a
guideline specialist, I did presentence investigations only.
MR. HAMROCK: What do you remember about the leadership of this office during the time
period and your co-workers?
MS. HAGAR: The office was in a bit of turmoil. The Chief that hired me in 1988, retired
in 1992 or 1993, and pending the selection of a new chief, we had cochiefs. The two deputies, both acted as Chief simultaneously. That was
somewhat chaotic. This lasted about a year. There was no true leader in
place and the deputies and other managers were competing for the Chief’s
position.
MR. HAMROCK: I meant to ask this earlier, from 1988 into the 90s the offices were located
over at the U.S. Courthouse, correct?
MS. HAGAR: Yes.
MR. HAMROCK: What do you remember about the physical space during those opening
years of your career?
MS. HAGAR: In comparison to the state of Maryland where I shared an office, or the DC
Jail where I worked at a desk or table in a cell block, or in a cubicle in the
Case Managers’ Division, my physical space at the US Courthouse was
great. I had my own spacious office located on the second floor of the
courthouse. Although it’s old, our courthouse is well maintained. The
local police department, Superior Court, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office
are all within walking distance. Whenever I had to appear in court, I
53
didn’t have to leave the building, since the judges were upstairs or
downstairs. The physical location of the office was very convenient.
MR. HAMROCK: Also during this time period again, I’m talking late 80s, early 90s, what do
you remember about the DC legal community, or DC general during that
time period?
MS. HAGAR: The school system was poor and most of the people on supervision were
products of the DC school system. Many were dropouts, and if they had a
tenth grade education they were probably reading on a fifth grade level.
One of the things that stood out to me was the deficiencies in the school
system. Regarding the politics of the city, I did not pay too much attention
to the politicians. My focus was primarily on the agencies in the city and
the services that they were able to provide.
MR. HAMROCK: These days DC seems to be going through a resurgence and a popularity
of actually people living in the city. I understand back during that time
period in the late 80s and early 90s that was not the case. Do you have
any reflections on sort of city life?
MS. HAGAR: There were never more than five people in our office who lived in the city
at that time. And even now, out of a staff of almost fifty people, maybe
two live in the city. Housing in the city is very expensive. I don’t
remember any of us coming back into the city after work. We did go out to
eat lunch or at lunchtime go to the museums. We were in the community
during the day doing our field work, but at night, rarely did I hear of
54
anyone coming back into the city. It’s different now because the city has a
true nightlife. The city has changed dramatically since the 90s.
MR. HAMROCK: For those individuals from your office who was supervising, would they
come into the office, would the field officers go out and visit the people
being supervised, or both?
MS. HAGAR: Both. They had to come to the office and we were required visit them at
their home and job. In the office, we were able to talk with them about
things that we would not talk about with other family members present.
You really don’t know what’s going on until you see where and how they
lived and where they worked. You talked with their family members, their
employer – if the employer was aware the person was on supervision.
MR. HAMROCK: These days with all of the technology and so forth that are in the offices, I
imagined it was quite a different experience during the 80s and early 90s.
What do you recall at the Probation Office that technology have now that
you didn’t have then that you had to do without?
MS. HAGAR: Of course we didn’t have cell phones. So, when the buildings were locked
and usually they were locked, you had to bang on the door or either you
had to let the person know that you were coming on a certain day and
time. We were required to and made unannounced visits as well. When
you made those unannounced visits, you had to wait for someone to come
open the door and or you followed someone in.
In those days, the files we maintained on offenders were very thick files.
We used a Dictaphone, and a secretary would type our notes, memos, and
55
reports and place these papers in the files. Everything is maintained in an
electronic database now and we use mobile devices to record our work and
write documents. I can go into my iPad or laptop at any time and get
information about someone on supervision.
MR. HAMROCK: During these early years at the probation office, what interactions did you
have with other probation officers, or other law enforcement agencies
around the country?
MS. HAGAR: I interacted with other offices and law enforcement agencies all the time.
Since our office is located between Eastern District of Virginia and
Maryland, we have always had a close relationship with our neighboring
sister agencies. We have done trainings and have held joint conferences.
The U.S. Probation Office is a national system. So, when there are events
in other cities, like trainings and conferences, we go, we meet, we get
know each other. We also maintain a close relationship with CSOSA,
which is the city’s local probation office. Oftentimes, we are supervising
the same people, since a person may be on supervision for both a
conviction in Superior Court and in our court as well. I work to keep a
good relationship with all of the surrounding probation agencies and with
the police department. Also, since most of the officers in our office came
from the state of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina state agencies, we
have ties with the surrounding states agencies as well.
MR. HAMROCK: You mentioned the law enforcement agencies, there are so many law
enforcement agencies here in the District of Columbia. What are your
56
recollections regarding dealing with the different law enforcement
agencies here?
MS. HAGAR: Primarily, we dealt a lot with the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department
and the FBI because these agencies are the ones who investigated most of
the crimes that involve the individuals we have on supervision. The FBI
agents and police officers had put a lot of time into their investigations and
they wanted to make sure that when we did the presentence report, that we
got that information right. They wanted to make sure that we were
accurate when it came to informing the court about the offense, victim,
and the victim’s losses. All of the law enforcement agencies in DC seem
to work well together. We have a common purpose and that is to protect
the community. Some of us lean more towards helping the offender, but
still our primary goal is to protect the community.
MR. HAMROCK: How long did you serve in this position? I guess it’s the presentencing
specialist position?
MS. HAGAR: From 1991 until 1997.
MR. HAMROCK: Over the course of those six years, did you see any changes with respect to
the way in which the sentencing guidelines were applied, or with the
process work?
MS. HAGAR: Not at that time. There were challenges to the guidelines and there was
always a lot of new case law. The case law helped us interpret and apply
the guidelines correctly.
57
MR. HAMROCK: Let’s talk for a little bit, we talked about your work, let’s talk about your
family over the course of these ten years. It was 1988 when you started at
the probation office? During the course of those ten years tell me about
what was happening with your family?
MS. HAGAR: Well, I have one son, Gregory. He was born during the time I worked at
the jail. When I started at the U.S. Probation in 1988, he was almost two.
In 1987, we moved from an apartment in Laurel to a house in Upper
Marlboro. During those years, my husband and I were just working every
day and raising our son. During that period, my father died in 1996. His
death was very, very, difficult for me.
MR. HAMROCK: Was his passing expected, or sudden?
MS. HAGAR: His passing was unexpected. He became sick in September of 1996 and
was getting better. Several weeks later, he then started bleeding internally
and died in December. He was only 54.
MR. HAMROCK: How did your family cope with that?
MS. HAGAR: It was very difficult for me because I was my mother and father’s oldest
child. He was 18 when I was born and my mother was 16 years old. We
were close and I would like to believe and in fact I do believe that I was
his favorite. It was also difficult for me because since he was young when
I was born, it always seemed as though he was so lively and fun. After he
graduated from college, he worked for the local government and he helped
me when I would complain about working in the U.S. Probation Office.
He would always say “how much money do you make now?” I would tell
58
him and he would say “Ha, forget it, stop!” He was just someone I could
talk to about me and someone who I knew always had my best interest at
heart. It’s hard to lose someone like that.
MR. HAMROCK: During these ten years when you were at the probation office, do you
recall any changes in the court generally, in terms of the leadership there,
judges, or anything that stands out to you during that time period?
MS. HAGAR: Yes, of course the chief judges changed. When I started, Judge Aubrey
Robinson was the chief judge and I believe Judge Penn after that…I am
trying to keep them straight. So, there were changes going on in the court
all the time, judges getting elevated going from our Court of Appeals to
the Supreme Court. New judges were appointed by the President. The
court was ever changing.
MR. HAMROCK: This was in 1992, President Clinton was elected. Did you see changes in
the court or in DC generally with the transition from the Republican to the
Democrat?
MS. HAGAR: Oh sure! Almost all of his appointees were Democrats. During that time,
I did get to see the First Lady when she had to appear in court once.
Throughout my years there, I had the opportunity to see Oliver North
when he was on supervision in our office. Of course, Marion Barry too.
There were many famous people that, unfortunately, had some you issue
that brought them to the courthouse. You just looked out the window and
would see a crowd and ask “So, who’s here today?”
59
MR. HAMROCK: During this time period, are there any problems or issues that you recall
standing out as being big, big deals, big issues that had to be worked
through that you hadn’t already talked about?
MS. HAGAR: No.
MR. HAMROCK: Well let’s talk then about what happened in 1997. You took a different
position at the probation office?
MS. HAGAR: Yes. I was promoted to Presentence Investigations Supervisor. In that role
I reviewed probably half of the presentence investigations that were
submitted to the court. I reviewed all the sentencing guidelines, the
recommendations made by officers, and trained new officers.
MS. HAMROCK: How long did you serve in that role?
MS. HAGAR: From 1997 until 2002.
MR. HAMROCK: During that five year time period, and even before, what changes were
going on in the Probation Office itself, in terms of personnel, or procedure
policies?
MS. HAGAR: There have always been a lot of turnover in the probation office.
Primarily, because no one was from here. Typically, people seeking a job
as a federal probation officer apply to major cities like D.C., and also to
probation districts located on the border to get into the system. At that
time, these types of districts did the most hiring. Then, after a few years
officers would transfer to wherever it is they want to go. Most of the
officers that we lost, transferred to Maryland, because most of the staff
live in Maryland. We were hiring five or more officers every year. That
60
has slowed down significantly. When the economy changed eight or nine
years ago, so did the turnover. People tended to stay when the housing
market crashed. They couldn’t sell where they were to move someplace
else and the hiring in other districts slowed as well. Turnover has been the
norm for our district. But it’s good because new people bring new ideas.
MR. HAMROCK: I guess during these five years when you were serving in a supervisory
role, did you have responsibilities in respect to the office budget,
procedures, those sorts of things?
MS. HAGAR: Procedures yes, budget no. I didn’t get involved in budget matters until I
became Deputy Chief, but procedures, yes absolutely.
MR. HAMROCK: How did the training during those years compare with say the training
back when you first started at the office?
MS. HAGAR: When I first started, the Chief who hired you assumed that you knew a lot
because you worked as a local or state probation officer before being hired
by him. So, I did not receive as much training here as our new officers
today. We don’t assume that they know much about the federal system. If
they do that’s good, but if not they are still going to thoroughly trained.
When I started, I walked into my office and had cases stacked on my desk.
Now, we increase the officer’s caseload very slowly and they go to a sixweek National Training Academy in South Carolina. When I started, we
went to training for a week at a place near Baltimore Washington Airport.
At the National Academy new officers receive firearms and safety
training, in addition to case management training. Prior to the National
61
Academy training, you were trained on those things within your district.
When I started in our district we did not carry firearms. We began
carrying firearms in the early or mid 1990s. While carrying a weapon was
not mandatory, we all had to attend the training. Officers had to know how
to arm and disarm a weapon, identify the parts of a weapon. You had to go
to the range, but if you chose not to carry you didn’t have to follow that
process all the way through to certification.
MR. HAMROCK: Let’s talk a little bit more about that for a while. So in terms of carrying
firearms beginning in 1992, did individuals carry firearms at all times, or
was that when they were making their visits to individual’s homes? When
would they carry it?
MS. HAGAR: Officers carried firearms when they were in the community. Today, we
are not permitted to carry them inside of the courthouse. When we arrive
at the courthouse, we must store our weapons in an area near the
courthouse’s entrance. Everyone is issued a safety vest and officers are
strongly encouraged to wear their vest at all times when they are in the
community.
MR. HAMROCK: But, not always?
MS. HAGAR: No, they don’t. I would love for my officers to wear them at all times, and
I believe that I am going to make it mandatory very soon. As soon as
summer is over, I think it would be a bit more digestible to tell them that
they have to wear them all the time. But they should, I worry about their
safety all the time.
62
MR. HAMROCK: Let’s talk about that for a minute. During the first fifteen years working in
the probation office, were there times where a probation officers injured in
the course of duty?
MS. HAGAR: Yes. A couple of years before I started, an officer had been shot while in
the field. Fortunately, he was not seriously injured. Officers have been
involved in car accidents, threatened by offenders, fended off attacks by
dogs and other things. Our system maintains a national database in which
we are required to report all of these incidents. You never know what’s
going to happen when you are out in the community, you just don’t.
Safety is always an issue. Officers receive safety training several times a
year, which includes scenarios, defensive tactics, everything. Everything
that we can possibly do to make them better, and safer, we do.
MR. HAMROCK: During this last time period we have been talking up until 2002, let’s shift
back over to your family and family life and so forth. How old is
your…your son is almost graduated from high school by this point?
MS. HAGAR: Yes. He graduated in 2004. He was at the Department of Labor, right
across the street from the courthouse, in daycare before he started school.
Our children have always been a part of our office. They come here and
we don’t restrict it. I tell officers, if you have to bring your child to work,
of course it should be infrequent, but you are to make sure they are safe
while in the office. Don’t put them in harm’s way. We are a close knit
group when it comes to our families. We talk about them, share stories,
and pictures. My son grew up learning and knowing about probation. He
63
has been in the courtroom with me once, knows what I do, that it is not
easy, and that it takes a lot of time. I guess the greatest thing that he
knows is that, I care.
MR. HAMROCK: We are in sort of the early 2000s by this timeframe, how much in court
experience did you have once you assumed this supervisory role?
MS. HAGAR: I went to court at least a couple of times a week. As a new Guideline
Specialist, maybe three or four times a week. If you prepared the
presentence report on a defendant, you went to court when the person was
sentenced. You answered any questions the parties had about the report,
investigation, or guideline calculations. Spending so much time in court, I
became familiar with the judges and vice versa. We formed relationships
because we were in chambers and their courtroom frequently.
MR. HAMROCK: In 2002, what was your next role as probation officer?
MS. HAGAR: I was promoted to Deputy Chief Probation Officer. As Deputy Chief, I
had oversight of the presentence investigation units at first, and later I
oversaw the supervision function in our office. At any given point, I
might have five supervisors under me, and each supervisor had six, seven,
or eight officers in their unit. I also supervised the clerical staff when I
was Deputy Chief. I had many responsibilities. I worked with the Chief
as it relates to the budget. I was in engaged in hiring and had some input
or responsibility for many functions in the office.
MR. HAMROCK: Who was the Chief at the time?
MS. HAGAR: Richard Houck.
64
MR. HAMROCK: How long had he been Chief?
MS. HAGAR: Since 1995. He came to our court in 1995. He had been the Deputy Chief
in the District of Maryland. He was hired as the chief after our office’s cochief period. His selection was difficult for our current deputy chiefs,
because they both wanted to be Chief and the court went outside of the
office to select a Chief.
MR. HAMROCK: Who appoints the Chief?
MS. HAGAR: The Chief Judge, with the assistance of a judicial selection panel. When I
was appointed Chief Probation Officer, Chief Judge Hogan was the Chief
Judge. Since his term was about to end and Judge Lamberth was to be the
next Chief Judge, Judge Lamberth headed the selection panel. My
selection panel also consisted of Judge Henry Kennedy and Judge
Rosemary Collyer.
MR. HAMROCK: Once you took over as Deputy Chief, how did your experiences change at
the Probation Office in terms of just day to day activities?
MS. HAGAR: A lot more responsibilities and more meetings. The Deputy Chief’s role is
to make sure nothing “falls through the cracks.” I was always looking at
our procedures, our processes, and engaging with the outside agencies. So
a lot! A lot of meetings. You had to meet with the supervisors to make
sure they were doing things consistently and according to policy.
Reviewing policies, conducting audits, troubleshooting for the Chief,
resolving issues, handling complaints, meeting with the judges, helping to
65
train new officers, training new supervisors, hiring at every level, from
support staff to supervisors, as Deputy Chief, I did a lot.
Despite all the work, the Deputy Chief position was one of the best
positions I held. I say that because the supervisors take the heat from the
line staff and the chief takes the heat from the top. As the deputy, you are
kind of in the middle. I mean you have a lot of influence as the deputy
chief, but you are insulated to some degree. Of all of the positions that I
have held being the Deputy Chief, was the best.
MR. HAMROCK: Is there only one Deputy Chief?
MS. HAGAR: No two.
MR. HAMROCK: There are two?
MS. HAGAR: Sometimes there is just one. When I became Chief, I only had one deputy.
Our office has decreased in size and at some point in the 90s, there were
about 120 staff members. Today, we have 49, and that has a lot to do with
technology, as well as a decrease in crime in the city. Before computers,
we had one clerical person for every three officers. Today, I have one
clerical person for seven or eight people because now officers are using
the computer to type their own work. We had data quality analysts,
people who would enter things into the computer for us. We don’t do even
have those positions in the office anymore. A lot of things have been
streamlined because of technology. The number of people we supervise
has decreased because many of the individuals who were sentenced in our
court are not returning to the District when they are released. The cost of
66
living here is so high. Or, they don’t return to the city because they have
been away so long and their family has moved.
MR. HAMROCK: You know that raises a good question, one that I have not thought of
before. When individuals are sentenced here in the District, is there a
standard place of incarceration? Or, how is that determined?
MS. HAGAR: That’s determined by the Bureau of Prisons. The prison that a person is
committed to is based on several factors. The Bureau of Prisons considers
the offense, the inmate’s needs, separation issues, prior record, and other
factors…a process the BOP calls classification. An inmate’s classification
determines where they will be housed. If you have a severe mental
problem, you will be at a prison that is equipped to handle your mental
health needs. They try to house you close to your home, if they can, but
by no means are they obligated to do so. But they try to do so.
MR. HAMROCK: In the office you said there was two Deputy Chiefs, did they both have the
same responsibilities, or was there a division of labor?
MS HAGAR: There was a division of labor. At one point, I was Deputy Chief over all
of the supervision services. I had oversight of all the officers, clerical staff,
and supervisors who were responsible for anyone who was on probation,
parole, supervised release or any type of community supervision. The
other Deputy Chief had oversight of the Presentence Investigation Units.
At one point, I had oversight of the Presentence Investigation Units too.
The deputies divided some of the administrative duties as well. For
67
instance, I would manage the clerks and the other deputy would manage
HR and Training. (tape stopped) (changing tapes).
MR. HAMROCK: Go ahead.
MS. HAGAR: The duties of the Deputy Chief are at the discretion of the Chief Probation
Officer. If the chief wanted us to divide things evenly, we did, or if he
wanted us to switch, we did. We performed any function the Chief wanted
us to do.
MR. HAMROCK: I have a question that just occurred to me. In terms of budgeting and
administrative processes and so forth, does the probation office, you
know, stand alone, or does it work within the judiciary? How would the
money flow into the agency?
MS. HAGAR: We are funded by Congress through the federal judiciary. Funds are
appropriated to the federal judiciary and allocated to the Administrative
Office for U. S. Courts and allotted to our office by the Administrative
Office. Primarily we are allotted money based on the number of people we
have on supervision and the number of presentence reports we complete.
Many other factors determine our funding too, but primarily our funds are
based on our workload. I manage my budget independently. I mean of
course, we have set guidelines regarding spending and I certainly stay
within those boundaries. Our funding is used to pay for treatment for the
offenders, staff salaries, technology, furniture, just everything it takes to
run an agency.
68
MR. HAMROCK: So you became Deputy Chief in 2002? For how many years did you serve
in that position?
MS. HAGAR: Until January 2007.
MR. HAMROCK: So what I think I would like to do is sort of work up to January 2007, and
then we can take a break and see how much further we want to go today.
Tell me about those five years as Deputy Chief? What do you remember
most about that time period?
MS. HAGAR: I remember learning different things. I learned how to manage a multimillion dollar budget and how to handle difficult personnel issues. I
learned a great deal more about grievances, terminations, promotions,
hiring, and those types of things. I had a Chief who permitted me to learn
what I needed to learn to be a chief. He trained me well. Many of the
memos and things he had to do, I drafted, or I reviewed for him. Richard
Houck taught me to excel and to do things in an excellent manner. I am a
better chief because of him.
I went to meetings in the city that consisted of other law enforcement
agencies, so that we could maintain good working relationships with them.
We met with the Deputy Chiefs from Maryland and Virginia, just to make
sure that things went as smoothly as they could between our districts. As
deputy you worked to develop and to maintain good relationships, so that
things would be easier for your office and officers.
MR. HAMROCK: Looking back, rather during these five years, or even longer, 1988 to 2007
time period, that was almost 20 years, what changes did you see in terms
69
of the individuals who were coming to the Probation Office for
presentence reports, and then supervised release?
MS. HAGAR: They started to become older in age. When I started I would say many of
those on supervision were in their 30s – 40s, now 40s, 50s, and 60s. It
appears that we have an older population in our office. Their job skill and
education level are about the same. Most have little to no education and
only basic job skills. They have only held laborer positions. Of course, in
federal court we have a number of white collar offenders as well, who are
well educated and employed in mid to high level jobs. The drug of choice
was heroin for the older offenders. Then the crack epidemic hit DC hard in
the late 80s through the 90s. Now synthetic drugs are on the rise and
heroin is making a comeback. When I started, we had very few sex
offenders, now we have a lot. I don’t know if that’s because there are
actually more sex offenders, more technology that provides access for that
type of crime, or more focus on that crime. It’s probably a combination of
all those things.
MR. HAMROCK: Are there problems that they are facing now that they weren’t facing back
in the 80s and early 90s?
MS. HAGAR: Yes, absolutely! The offenders tell me that learning all the new
technology is difficult. When many of them went to prison, there were no
iPads, iPods, or cellphones. I had one person tell me that when he went to
the gas station, he didn’t know how to operate the gas pump. Just think
about that, and some have been away so long that the Metro system, the
70
subway didn’t exist. They come home and the neighborhood and the city
had also changed. If you and I have a hard time keeping up with
technology and we are in society, they have a tremendous amount of
catching up to do when it comes to that. There are computers in prison,
but they say the young ones get to the computer and that they really
couldn’t do that much when they did get to use a computer. So that
technology gap is really challenging! We have computers in our office
that the offenders are able to use to search and apply for jobs. No one
goes to a job site and submits a handwritten application anymore. You
have to be able to get on a computer, and apply for almost any job. You
may have to go to a store like Lowe’s and Home Depot and apply for a job
on their computers. This means the offender has to know how to use
technology. Technology is definitely one of the greatest challenges they
face. Problems obtaining employment and housing have always been
difficult for the person returning from prison. Those age old problems
have not changed, but there are many reentry services and agencies that
provide assistance. When I hear them talking about coming home, what
has changed, and catching up, I tell them, “Oh, I still have to catch up
sometimes myself!” They don’t believe it though. They respond by saying,
“No you don’t, you are just saying that.”
MR. HAMROCK: Popular opinion seems to be that family life these days has changed
tremendously from 10 to 20 years ago in terms of family life. Have you
71
seen that have an effect on people who are coming out on supervised
release, or what have you?
MS. HAGAR: Unfortunately, most of them had troubled family situations when they
went to prison and being away certainly did not help at all. The family
situation continues to be a struggle. When they come home, bonding and
reconnecting with the family is difficult. Sometimes, the family has moved
or the parent or someone they depended on died while they were away.
The family has high expectations for them, and the offenders feel like they
must begin work immediately and earn a salary that’s not realistic based
on their skills. I observed a lot of frustration within the families.
MR. HAMROCK: Going back to your office, I am trying to remember when the new facility
at the courthouse was built.
MS. HAGAR: The Annex, as we call it, was completed in 2005.
MR. HAMROCK: So, I am in the right time period?
MS. HAGAR: (laughing) Yes, about that time.
MR. HAMROCK: Tell me about that transition?
MS. HAGAR: We watched them dig the hole. We looked out the window for years as
they were constructing the courthouse, but it was exciting. It was a new
addition that was going to be pretty. We had the sketches of it and
everything. The Annex gave the Probation Office a lot more space. At
the time when the plans were made for the Annex, it appeared as though
our office would keep growing. So, we ended up getting a lot space.
72
However, the opposite happened. The Probation Office is on one floor and
that makes it easier to manage. The transition was relatively seamless.
MR. HAMROCK: I guess thinking back it’s sort of a wrap up question, but obviously you
can talk as much as you like about it. Going through that period and up
until the time before you become chief, what reflections do you have on
the way that the Probation Office has developed over those 20 years?
MS. HAGAR: When I started, the probation system focused on rehabilitation. Then the
“tough on crime” movement began, the sentencing guidelines were
implemented, and harsh sentences were imposed. I don’t even think we
even used the word reentry in the early 90s. Now we are shifting back.
We are focusing on reentry and rehabilitation. Even the U.S. Attorney’s
Office is involved in reentry and trying to help in our reentry efforts. So, I
am seeing this shift in our system. Even the federal sentencing guidelines
are now only advisory, whereas the guidelines used to be mandatory. I see
that pendulum has swung back to rehabilitation, which is a good thing. It’s
good because they need the help. People make mistakes and some
mistakes are just costly. The swing back is good.
MR. HAMROCK: Have you found that the community resources that we talked about a little
earlier that you worked with during your earlier years, have they gotten
stronger, weaker, or are they different, or are they the same?
MS. HAGAR: Oh my God, they are so much stronger! When I started there was no such
thing as the Mayor’s Office on Returning Citizen’s Affairs. The Mayor
established an office several years ago. We refer people there and they
73
help them find jobs and other services. There are so many services in the
city that just did not exist at all in the 80s and 90s. Employers are more
open and willing to hire ex-offenders. We have an Employer Appreciation
breakfast every other year in the courthouse. We invite the employers
who hire the offenders and thank them for doing so. People who have a
criminal record are still stigmatized, but I’m grateful for the employers
who give them a second chance. The Second Chance Act that was passed
by Congress several years ago, gave us funds to help with reentry.
Congress would not have done that in the 80s or 90s.
MR. HAMROCK: Those are all of my questions for now. Are there any other thoughts that
you have that you would like to put on the recording for now?
MS. HAGAR: No.
MR. HAMROCK: Alright, so we will go off the record for now. It is 5:47 p.m., on August
14, 2014.