97
Oral History Of Gennine Hagar
Chief U.S. Probation Officer
United States District Court For the District Of Columbia
Fourth Interview
February 9, 2017
This is the fourth interview of Gennine 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 Hamrock. The interview is taking place in the offices of Covington &
Burling, 850 Tenth St. NW, Washington, DC, on February 9, 2017, beginning at 4:45 p.m.
MR. HAMROCK: Ms. Hagar, thank you for returning and joining with me for what should
be the final session of this oral history. Thank you, not only for today, but
for taking the time over the last several sessions to come and sit with me
and talk about your memories and experiences as Chief Probation Officer
for the District of Columbia as well as your prior jobs here in the District
of Columbia. It has been an amazing experience for me to hear about your
experiences.
MS. HAGAR: Thank you, it has been my pleasure.
MR. HAMROCK: When we were finishing up our last session, we talked about your
responsibilities as Chief Probation Officer, your life lessons that you
learned there. I would like to spend a few more minutes talking about the
end of your term as Chief Probation Officer, and your transition to
retirement. Congratulations, by the way. Let me start by asking you to
describe for me, when the time came, that you knew that it was time for
retirement. Why did you decide to retire?
MS. HAGAR: That’s a good question. I felt that it was a good time to leave. I had been
in the Probation Office almost 30 years and I was looking forward to
98
retirement. I had been the Chief for ten years. There were people in place
to lead the office. It felt right.
MR. HAMROCK: What was the process that was followed for you to retire and for your
replacement to be selected?
MS. HAGAR: After I informed the Chief Judge that I wished to retire, my retirement was
announced and the selection process for a new chief began. The chief
judge permitted me to have a lot of input regarding my successor. I
drafted some of the interview questions and sat in on the interviews with
the candidates. The Court made its selection in July, and until I left in
December, I worked with the new Chief. So, that was good. The
incumbent chief had been in the office for seventeen years; he was
familiar with the office; and he had been a supervisor and my deputy. He
was ready to step into the position. It was good to have someone take my
job who knew what to do, and who had a good relationship with the court
staff. So, it worked out.
MR. HAMROCK: Who was that?
MS. HAGAR: Brian Shaffer.
MR. HAMROCK: Were there other candidates?
MS. HAGAR: Yes.
MR. HAMROCK: If you would, at the time of your retirement, how would you contrast the
office and its functions versus when you first started?
MS. HAGAR: There was no technology when I started. The secretaries were still using
typewriters, and when I first started, they still used carbon paper. It was a
99
couple years later, maybe ’91, before we even obtained our first
computers. There were no cell phones, computers, and none of the
reports, case files, or information we maintained were automated. Today,
practically everything is automated or maintained electronically.
The work itself and the interactions we have with the offenders remain
relatively consistent. Learning how to establish a rapport and find services
for them are constants. However, how we maintain and process our
documents changed tremendously. When I started, we had a paper file for
each person under supervision, when I left we were basically a paperless
office. Technology did change some aspects of how we supervised
people. We have people on GPS monitoring and individuals are able to
submit monthly supervision reports online. They still have to report to see
their officer, but they can submit some of the paperwork online.
MR. HAMROCK: Interesting. With the advent of that technology, did you find that the
individuals the officers supervised, did they had access to that technology?
Did they understand it? Were they able to . . .
MS. HAGAR: Initially, the individuals on supervision did not have access to any
technology we were using. As time progressed, electronic programs were
developed for those on supervision. As it pertains to the probation officers,
we first started using computers in 1991 or so. Most of the older officers
did not embrace the technology readily. Many thought that a secretary still
should type their work. As younger officers joined the ranks, they were
more familiar with technology and welcomed its use
100
MR. HAMROCK: What about the individuals who were being supervised? Were they able to
use the technology?
MS. HAGAR: Many were not able to use the technology at first. We had to show most of
them how to navigate the programs. Because most of them had been in the
custody for several years and some for decades, they had very little
ongoing access to computer technology. Also, most did not have their own
computers at home.
MR. HAMROCK: After your retirement, or I guess before your retirement, you had a
retirement celebration at the US Courthouse. What were your
recollections of that?
MS. HAGAR: I would have really preferred to leave quietly, without a huge celebration.
Family, friends, and court staff insisted, so I had a retirement ceremony. In
hindsight, I am glad that I did. My family members were there, including
my grandfather, high school and college friends, courthouse family, and
people from various professions that I met during my career. My biggest
takeaway from it all–I never realized how many lives I had touched. To
have a couple hundred people come to a ceremony on a Thursday
afternoon in November to celebrate my career was beyond touching.
MR. HAMROCK: What day did you actually end work?
MS. HAGAR: December 31, 2016.
MR. HAMROCK: What have you been doing since then?
MS. HAGAR: For about a month, I simply relaxed and enjoyed doing nothing. I recall
one night realizing that I had only one message on my phone and the only
101
emails I had received were from Groupon. That was nice! Then, there
have been times when it feels like I am forgetting to do something or to
call someone back and I start to panic. It’s all part of detoxing from an
intense career. Retirement is a significant shift in my life, but it’s a good
thing. It’s good to rest, sleep in, and just watch commuting traffic on TV
and not be in it. I gave my job my best and it took a lot of my time. So, it
takes some time to detox. It really does.
MR. HAMROCK: I understand the detox is now complete, because you are starting a new
job?
MS. HAGAR: Yes, during the Christmas holiday season, I ran into the owner of a
women’s halfway house in DC. She was in need for a new director and
convinced me to take a one-year position, until they can find a permanent
director. I am looking forward to it and I’m actually very excited about it.
I already see things that I would like to do help improve the halfway
house.
In probation and law enforcement in general, the work that I did gave me
such a sense of purpose that I often ended my day feeling better than I did
when I entered the door. It seems to be that way in many helping
professions.
MR. HAMROCK: As the temporary director of the halfway house, what will be your
responsibilities?
MS. HAGAR: To oversee the staff and all of the operations of the halfway house.
MR. HAMROCK: It sounds not so much like a retirement as a change of position?
102
MS. HAGAR: Trust me. It feels like retirement. The positions are significantly different.
Right now there are about forty women in the halfway house. As a
probation officer, I was responsible for that many people on my caseload.
MR. HAMROCK: Looking back over the course of the last thirty years, I would be curious to
know, what stands out to you? It has been a long time, there have been so
many people, events, and changes, what stands out to you in terms of
memories of those years?
MS. HAGAR: I was employed at the Probation Office so long, I was able to see people
who entered prison or started the supervision process in the 80s, and see
them again 25 years later. I was fortunate to witness people undergo
positive change and progress. Unfortunately, seeing some of them as they
aged and remained within the criminal justice system their whole life is
embedded in my memory as well. The events and changes that stand out –
the AIDS epidemic and the ostracism that was associated with the disease;
crack – severe addictions and long prison sentences; technology -it
changed and continues to change everything; and the return to focusing on
rehabilitation and treatment.
MR. HAMROCK: Do you feel that the way the criminal justice system treats those
individuals now is better or worse than the way it did 30 years ago?
MS. HAGAR: Better. Many of today’s programs and treatment opportunities for those in
the criminal justice system neither existed 30 years ago, nor did they
receive the degree of funding or community support that they do today.
103
There was no Second Chance Act – no Reentry Courts. Harsh mandatory
minimum sentences were corrected. So, it’s better.
MR. HAMROCK: Do you have any reflections on the sorts of crimes that you saw 30 years
ago versus the sorts of crimes that you see now in the District, in terms of
the individuals whom your office supervises?
MS. HAGAR: Yes. The drug offenses remain. However, the type of drugs have changed.
Crack cocaine offenses overwhelmed our courts 30 years ago. Today,
synthetic drugs and heroin are significant. Now more than ever, our
system is inundated with immigration and sex offenses. However, in the
District, the drug offenses and fraud are still most prevalent.
MR. HAMROCK: I think you said that the number of supervised individuals has gone down
during the course of your tenure. What do you attribute that to?
MS. HAGAR: The crime rate has gone down in the District of Columbia. When I started
in 1988, DC was the “murder capital,” and the crack epidemic was in its
early stages. Since the late 80’s, the city’s demographics have changed;
many public housing units have been demolished; and the cost of living in
the city is exorbitant for returning citizens. The people getting out of
prisons are moving farther out of the city into the surrounding counties.
Also, we now only supervise individuals who actually live in the District.
At one point, if a person lived in border counties like Prince George’s and
Montgomery, but were sentenced in DC, our office would supervise the
case. Primarily, because in earlier years, the people under supervision
often moved back and forth between the city and the neighboring counties.
104
Now, if they move out of the city, they tend to not move back. Now,
when they move out of the District, we transfer the supervision of the case
to the jurisdiction where the person resides.
MR. HAMROCK: Well, I have reached the end of my questions, but I wanted to give you the
opportunity if there are any thoughts you had about your career, during
this interview process is there anything that we haven’t covered that you
would like to mention?
MS. HAGAR: I was fortunate to be chosen to lead a criminal justice organization. I
prayed that God would help me make good decisions for my staff, the
community, and for the individuals on supervision. Actually, God did
above what I could ask or ever imagine. It was an awesome journey and
I’m grateful for those who were sent to help me along the way.
MR. HAMROCK: Thank you very much. We will stop the recording at 5:08 p.m.