AN ORAL HISTORY OF CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER VERONICA M. PERRY

AN ORAL HISTORY OF CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER 

VERONICA M. PERRY

BY

LINDSAY L. LESKO

INTRODUCTION

Probation, alike many criminal justice agencies, is a work in progress. To understand the current position of probation in the United States, it is important to be familiar with how it was set in motion. Probation in the U.S. began in 1841 with the innovative work of John Augustus, a Boston boot maker who was the first to post bail for a man charged with being a common drunk under the authority of the Boston Police Court (Petersilia, 1998). Augustus, who had experience working with alcoholics, asked the Court to release the man into his custody for a few weeks. After a few weeks, the man convinced the court that he had been reformed by Augustus during the short probationary phase. Consequently, the man was only ordered to pay a small fine. This was the beginning of the probation concept. During the next fifteen years (from 1841 until his death in 1859), Augustus bailed out over 1,800 persons in the Boston courts, making himself liable to the extent of $243,234 and preventing these individuals from being held in jail to await trial (Petersilia, 1998). He carefully chose defendants who he thought would do well in the community and did not need to be incarcerated prior to the disposition of their cases.

Massachusetts, in 1878, was the first state to formally adopt a probation law for juveniles (Petersilia, 1998). It took about 20 years for other states to begin to follow suit. It was not until 1956 that all the states had implement adult and juvenile probation laws.  It took many years for the states to recognize the need for probation supervision and appreciate the assistance it provides to the court. However, probation was and has continued to be criticized.

In 1974, a widely publicized review of rehabilitation programs purportedly showed probation’s’ ineffectiveness (Martinson 1974), and two years later the U.S. Comptroller General’s Office released a report concluding that probation as currently practiced was a failure, and that the U.S. probation systems were “in crisis” (1976:3). They urged that “Since most offenders are sentenced to probation, probation systems must receive adequate resources (Petersilia, 1998). The funding for probation either remained the same or decreased. Probation departments were expected to accomplish more and more activities, but they did not have the resources to help them. Lack of funding and resources still remains an issue today.

It was not until the 1990's and 2000's that a focus to organize and support probation began. In many states, the issue was to decrease the incarceration of offenders due to the overcrowding of state prisons and curb the cost to the states. America leads the world in incarceration, with an imprisonment rate five to ten times greater than other western democracies (Teague, 2011). Fiscally, there has to be  another way to punish some of the offenders who would have gone to prison without incarcerating them. As Parenti caustically observes, the nation has been engaged on a ‘frenzied and brutal lockup binge’ since1981(Parenti, 2008). As a result, it will take many years to repair the damage already done.

The Justice Reinvestment initiative means that some states (primarily driven by the imperative to shrink expenditure on incarceration but also aiming to promote rehabilitation) have been developing their investment in probation and parole programs (Teague, 2011). This is an attempt to reinforce the probation and parole departments in order to help keep offenders in the community and not add to the price of having them incarcerated. The term ‘Justice Reinvestment’ (first used in America over a decade ago) refers to an evidence-based, data-driven approach (outlined, for example, in Cadora 2007) which aims to divert savings--achieved by lowering expenditure on incarceration-- towards alternative criminal and community justice stratagems, often focused on the level of individual localities and neighborhoods. The goal is for probation and parole departments to have an evidence-based system that has been proven to increase the success of offenders in the community.

There were approximately 84,000 probation officers in the United States in 2002, and this number is projected to reach 97,000 by the year 2012 (Colbert, Slate, & Wells, 2006). The number of probation officers has increased in response to the increase of felons being placed on community supervision. Felons are receiving probation more than ever before and probation officers “have contact with more offenders than most other justice employees” (Colbert, Slate, & Wells, 2006). As a result, it is key for probation officers to be using techniques that work and are able to help reduce recidivism.

Since its creation, probation officers have worn many hats. They have been in charge of many tasks and functions. Interestingly, probation departments are not alike and the functions can differ greatly in each department.

Augustus was the first person to use the term probation— which derives from the Latin term probatio, meaning a “period of proving or trial.” He developed the ideas of the presentence investigation, supervision conditions, social casework, reports to the court, and revocation of probation (Petersilia, 1998). All of those ideas are still being executed today and are of great importance to criminal justice system. Probation departments consist of line staff, supervisors and a chief probation officer. Another definition commonly defines probation as: A court-ordered disposition alternative through which an adjudicated offender is placed under the control, supervision and care of a probation staff member in lieu of imprisonment, so long as the probationer meets certain standards of contact (Petersilia, 1998). This definition describes the probation officer's role to guide the offender through the probationary period until the offender has completed their supervision. In fact, it is safe to say that no other justice agency is involved with the offender and his case as comprehensively as the probation department (Petersilia, 1998). The probation department spends an extensive amount of time with the offenders in order to effectively do their jobs.

METHODOLOGY

In order to complete the oral history with Mrs. Veronica M. Perry, I constructed a list of reference questions to use as a guide during the interview. The reference questions centered around Mrs. Perry's upbringing, family, schooling, career, accomplishments, and her views on the criminal justice system as it pertains to probation departments. I wanted to discover how Mrs. Perry came to be a chief probation officer and how her achievements helped her to obtain that position.

In addition, I wanted to review the issues Mrs. Perry faced during her career as a probation officer, supervisor, and currently as a chief probation officer.

Mrs. Perry agreed to meet for the interview on two separate occasions in order to complete the interview process. Due to the convenience and our employment in the same department, we decided to meet in the Medina County Adult Probation Department on both occasions in the in-house counselor's lounge. I brought my list of reference questions and a Sony IC Recorder. After the interview, I translated the audio recording into a Microsoft Word document by hand. It was an opportunity to thoroughly review the material and acknowledge any discrepancies. The first session was conducted on October 19, 2012 at 12:03p.m. and the second session was conducted on October 22, 2012 at
12:14p.m.

RESULTS

INTERVIEWER:  I am here with Veronica Perry who is the Chief Probation Officer of the Medina County Adult Probation Department. I am going to be conducting an oral history. The time right now is currently 12:03p.m. on Friday October 19, 2012. Veronica, I'm going to do an oral history with you. I have a line of questions I'd like to ask you. However, if we go away from that and you have some stories you'd like to tell I'd be more than excited to hear them.

MRS. PERRY: Ok.


INTERVIEWER: Are you ready?
MRS. PERRY: Yep.

INTERVIEWER: Alright. First thing I'd like to go into is how you came about and where you grew up and when you were born.

MRS. PERRY: Well, I was born in Croatia and I was five when I came to America.  I did not attend kindergarten because my mother did not know I needed to. Then, later on I went through first and second grade while living in Cleveland. Then we moved to Euclid for the remainder of my high school. I went to Kent State and graduated there in four years with a criminal justice degree.

INTERVIEWER:  If I can back up a little bit, when you first moved to the United States you were living in Cleveland for how long?

MRS. PERRY: When I first moved to the United States I was living in Cleveland until I was eight or nine.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok, so you were there for a few years and then you moved to Euclid?

MRS. PERRY: Yes.

INTERVIEWER:  What year were you born?

MRS. PERRY: 1964. It was 1969 when we came to America.

INTERVIEWER:   Do you remember those first few years?

MRS. PERRY: When I came here?

INTERVIEWER:  Yes.

MRS. PERRY: Yes, I do actually.

INTERVIEWER: What do you remember about that time?

MRS. PERRY: I remember moving around a lot of ethnic people at the same time it was a very heavy Croatian community there in Cleveland at the time. I remember not knowing the English language and feeling a little bit self conscious about that. I remember also being at the Croatian parish where I went to school at the time for the first two years and the priest going around renaming everybody to English names that he thought would be easier. So, I remember waiting with a lot of trepidation to see what my name was going to be changed to. Luckily, when he came to me he said, "Well, we can keep your name the same because it's a universal name."

INTERVIEWER:  You got to keep Veronica, that had to feel good.

MRS. PERRY: Yes, it did.

INTERVIEWER:  Do you remember anything growing up in Croatia, prior to coming to the Untied States?

MRS. PERRY: Actually, we lived in Paris the year before I came here. I remember a little bit more about living in Paris, because I was four. I have a few memories of leaving my aunts and uncles and grandparents. I remember the landlord where we were living in Paris for some reason.

INTERVIEWER:  What do you remember about him?

MRS. PERRY: I remember we must have had a community bathroom and shower; kind of like in a dorm is what I'm recalling.

I remember going in the mornings and he would always be shaving in there with shaving cream. I remember him putting shaving cream on my face with a brush. It was a big joke, he would always try to pretend like he was shaving me.

INTERVIEWER:  That's funny. When you started going to school here and you didn't know the English language, who helped you through that and taught it to you?


MRS. PERRY: I think it was the fact that I was in a Croatian parish and they taught English. Some of the teachers knew Croatian, but not all of them. I think it was a good transition at that point to learn. Plus, kids are very quick to learn a foreign language anyways
.
INTERVIEWER:  What was the name of the school?

MRS. PERRY: St. Paul's Croatian School. It was on Fortieth and St. Clair. The parish is actually still there.

INTERVIEWER:  Is it? Have you been back since?

MRS. PERRY: Oh yeah. Not in a long time, but as kids we always used to go every Sunday. My parents still go. Actually, the Croatian priest there, along with the pastor at the church we got married to in Euclid, married us.

INTERVIEWER:  Oh, wow. A lot of history there. Where did you go to middle school then?
MRS. PERRY: I went to a public school for third grade in Euclid. Then, for the remainder of fourth through eighth I was at Holy Cross. Then ninth I went to Villa Angela and then I switched to Euclid High School.

INTERVIEWER: Where is Villa Angela?

MRS. PERRY: It is on Lake Shore and maybe one fortieth or one fiftieth area.


INTERVIEWER:  How did you like going to a religious based school for all those years?

MRS. PERRY: Well, at the time, I thought it was great because I didn't know any differently. Really, I had gone to the public school briefly, but that was just for one year. I guess as a kid you're not real critical or judgmental about it or forming an opinion. Looking back, I think that it was good to have the religious foundation. In high school I felt like I didn't need it, so I moved. Well, I already had it I guess I should say.  It was my initiative to transfer to Euclid. So, I did. As an adult now with my own kids, I realize it's really not whether it's a private catholic or public school. It's really what kind of school system they have, that matters.

INTERVIEWER:  Is there any traditions you have from being born in Croatia originally that you have carried on?

MRS. PERRY: The one we do, when Croatia used to be a communist country, until 1991 or 1992. As a result, they weren't allowed to practice Catholicism or any other religion. It was an orthodox government. You could not practice religion.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok.

MRS. PERRY: The Croatian's in Croatia would always celebrate Christmas Day on Christmas Eve, thinking somehow the Communist Regime would not catch on. I guess they thought they would come in under the radar and during that Christmas Eve they also have a tradition of not eating meat on Christmas Eve.

So, that's the tradition that we have. On Christmas Eve, I always have it at my house and it's always seafood. The Italian's do that as well, I guess.

INTERVIEWER:  Well, that's neat that you still do that.

MRS. PERRY:  Yeah.

INTERVIEWER:  As far as your family dynamic growing up, can you tell me about who raised you and your parents?

MRS. PERRY: My mom and dad raised myself and my older and younger sister. My younger sister was born here, but my older one was born in Croatia also. They were both hard workers, my parents. They were stereotypical immigrants really. They both worked in a factory. They were both blue collar workers. My dad was actually a train conductor in Croatia, but when he came over here he was in a factory. There were a lot of factory jobs at the time and that's pretty much where they both retired from. Neither of them are educated in the sense of going to college. It was very important to them that we were.

INTERVIEWER:  Wow. That must have been nice to have the support of your parents during school and it sounds like you were a close family.

MRS. PERRY: Yes. They were very supportive.

INTERVIEWER:  Are they both still alive now?

MRS. PERRY: Yes.

INTERVIEWER:  What is your relationship like with them now? Do you see them often?
MRS. PERRY: I do. They live in Westlake and so does my younger sister. We see each other once or twice a week and probably talk every other day.

INTERVIEWER:  That's wonderful. You started to talk about how you went to Euclid High School and then you went to Kent State University. How did you decide to go college there?

MRS. PERRY: It was not too far from home, but yet I knew I did not want to stay home. I figured  that was the best chance I had at going away and living on campus. My father was very traditional and was not going to permit me to live off of campus anywhere. I was able to talk him into one hour away.

INTERVIEWER:  What year did you start Kent State?

MRS. PERRY: 1982 and we graduated in '86.

INTERVIEWER:  When you were there do you remember any experiences that stand out for you?

MRS. PERRY: Ah, yes, plenty! Any specific experiences?

INTERVIEWER:  Anything, it could be about your professors, jobs you may have had or internships?

MRS. PERRY: Well, jobs I had I worked in a college bar checking I.D.'s for the first two years.

INTERVIEWER:  What was the name of the bar?

MRS. PERRY: The Crazy Horse and it was not a nude bar like the one in Cleveland. I worked there for the first two years and then I waited tables the last two years while I was there. My parents paid for my tuition and I paid for my room and board and any incidentals, that was my responsibility. That is where I worked and then I did my internship at the Portage County Public Defender's Office, which had a huge influence on me. My first interview there, when I walked in,  the Chief Public Defender  had a big poster on the wall that said, "Capital Punishment, Cruel and Unusual  Punishment."  He asked me about it, he said, "What are your views?" I guess, I had never, at that point, had stopped to think about them. He pointed out to me that as long as you work in this office, you need to understand that everybody is innocent until proven guilty and the burden is on the state of Ohio to prove them guilty and if they cannot, then they must not be. I remember to me that was very profound. Not to say my views on capital punishment haven't changed.  I have vacillated back and forth through the years, but I thought that was a good lesson.

INTERVIEWER:  What was your role when you were there for the internship?

MRS. PERRY: I interviewed defendants. I would do an intake interview with all of them and then pass the paperwork on to the public defender.

INTERVIEWER:  While in college, you were also doing other side jobs such as serving and working in restaurants, what was your first job ever?

MRS. PERRY: I was a waitress. When I was 15 I started waiting tables and I stayed at the same place until I graduated from high school.  Then I waited tables through college and then I actually waited tables for about six months after college because I couldn't find work right away.

INTERVIEWER:  In college, you met your husband. Could you tell me a little about him, how you met, and when you got married?

MRS. PERRY: I lived next door to a pizza shop and he was the pizza shop manager. I went in one day to get an application and he hired me and was my boss until we got married, which is what we joke all the time. Anyways, he was my manager, I think I was there for about a year. He made pizzas and managed the restaurant. That's how we met and then we ended up getting engaged. That was junior year I met him and then we got engaged senior year and got married.

INTERVIEWER:  When did you get married?

MRS. PERRY: I graduated in May 1986 and got married in July.

INTERVIEWER:  Wow. That's great. What was your husband in school for?

MRS. PERRY: He was a journalism major and he was from Chicago, so Kent had a really good reputation with their journalism program at the time. He wanted to come to Kent.

INTERVIEWER:  What does he do now?

MRS. PERRY: He's an attorney.

INTERVIEWER:  What type of cases does he do?

MRS. PERRY: He does predominately consumer law. He'll do bankruptcy or lemon law or consumers have issues so he'll help them with those. He also does estate planning and a little bit of everything, but predominately right now he is doing bankruptcy and consumer law.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok and your major at Kent State was criminal justice, how did you decide that was going to be your major?

MRS. PERRY: Well, I started off as a fashion merchandising major and then decided that I wanted to switch. I literally went through the catalog one summer trying to decide what my options were and what interested me. I was always interested in human behavior and apparently deviant human behavior! So, that's how I decided.

INTERVIEWER:  Did you always know that you wanted to go into probation?

MRS. PERRY: I actually didn't always know, but when I took a probation class that's when I decided that it was really interesting and I'd like to do this.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok.  How come you didn't pick something didn't like being a police officer?

MRS. PERRY: I knew I never really had a desire to be a police officer. I didn't want to work in the justice system in that role.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok.

MRS. PERRY: I think I was more interested in having a relationship with the offender I guess as opposed to just arresting them.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok.  When you got out of college you said for another six months you were still working in a restaurant, how did you find your first job in the criminal justice field?

MRS. PERRY: Well, it was a really tough economy back then as well as now. I saw an advertisement for a legal assistant with a criminal attorney and that interested me because he was a criminal attorney. I was able to land the job and I was extremely excited. It paid $5.30/hr. with no benefits.

INTERVIEWER:  Aw, wow.

MRS. PERRY: I thought it was the greatest thing ever. I did learn from him, although, ultimately it ended up really being like a glorified secretary. I guess I wore many hats for him. It was good in that I did finally learn the practical sense of criminal law and I would help him with motions sometimes and go to court with him sometimes, but not as often as I would get stuck typing.

INTERVIEWER:  So it sounds like you got a lot more experience in your field seeing that?

MRS. PERRY: I did.

INTERVIEWER:  How long were you with him for?

MRS. PERRY: I was with him for one year, because then another opportunity in another law firm came up and I took that. That was not criminal law, but actually at that point, it was $5,000.00 more so I did it for the money.

INTERVIEWER:  Sure.

MRS. PERRY: I was an office manager there and it was good, but I knew that's not where I wanted to, ultimately, be long term. So, an opening had come up in the probation department in Cuyahoga County. I had applied for it, I was called in for an interview, and then heard nothing for seven months. Then, I got a phone call at work one Friday afternoon with a job offer. I accepted the job and took a $5,000.00 pay cut. So, I was right back to making $5.30/hr. pretty much.

INTERVIEWER:  So, it sounds like you really wanted it though?

MRS. PERRY: I did and I've never regretted it.

INTERVIEWER:  That's great and I know what that feels like since I have a similar story
.
MRS. PERRY: Sometimes, you know how you have to take that step back, one step back two steps forward.

INTERVIEWER:  You didn't know anyone in the department prior to starting, it was just applying on your own?

MRS. PERRY: Yes, I was fortunate because I think I was one of the first groups that they had hired. Up until that point, they were hiring on an individual basis, but then they must have had a fairly busy time and/or received some funds. They hired a group of seven and I was in that group of seven
.
INTERVIEWER:  Ok. What were your official duties when you first started as a probation officer in Cleveland?

MRS. PERRY: Well, we had training for three weeks and in the training room they exposed us a little bit to PSI's, pre-sentence investigations, and to caseload management. They told us that there was six writing PSI positions and one caseload management position, which was the welfare/fraud caseload. At the end of our training period, we could put down what we wanted and what we were bidding on. I was the only one who bid on the welfare fraud caseload, apparently. I think it was because I came to find it was 450 offenders, so the other six must have inquired before to see what it was, but I really didn't care. It really didn't matter to me, because I wanted the case load.

INTERVIEWER:  You were happy to be there.

MRS. PERRY: Yeah, I had that case load for one year and I learned quite a bit, but then I wanted to get a different experience, other than just welfare fraud. I moved on to writing PSI's and then I switched to general supervision case load and then ISP.

INTERVIEWER:  It sounds like you were around everywhere and gained a lot of experience.

MRS. PERRY: Yes, it was very important to me to do that. You know,  I encourage our staff to do that as well. You know, I wanted to understand how every aspect of the department worked
.
INTERVIEWER:  Definitely.

MRS. PERRY: I made sure I worked on every different position.

INTERVIEWER:  I noticed it's helpful, not only because you know how to do it, but sometimes you have questions with your own caseload, that by knowing another area can be helpful.

MRS. PERRY: Right.

INTERVIEWER: What year was it that you started with the probation department?
MRS. PERRY: 1989

INTERVIEWER:  When you started there and you said you got hired with a group of seven people, what was it like atmosphere wise in the department?

MRS. PERRY: Well, back then it was predominately a male dominated profession. I would say the department was, maybe, 25 -30 percent female and what was even more shocking was the pay. When I first started there, I started at $15,500.00, but I came in at a pay raise. Right before that, they were getting paid $12,500.00.

INTERVIEWER:  Wow.

MRS. PERRY: Which at that time, apparently, according to the staff at that time, made the eligible for food stamps if they were so inclined.

INTERVIEWER:  That really says something  about it.

MRS. PERRY: So, at that point, I came in at $15,500.00 and I think I told you that I was a supervisor. I got promoted in 1997, but prior to that we actually unionized the probation department, because of the pay predominately.

The Cleveland Municipal Probation Department was one floor below us so we always tried to stay pace with their salary, but they had exceeded us, probably by a good four or five thousand. So, we decided to try to unionize, which according to Ohio Constitution, we're really not permitted to, but somehow the court managed to permit us. We were able, for the first time ever, to put a salary scale in place and I was on the union negotiating team, which was an elected position. I did that for a couple years and then I got promoted to supervisor and I couldn't be on the union team anymore.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok. What made you want to be on that committee and why did it intrigue you?

MRS. PERRY: I thought that somebody had to step up and help and I was nominated to do it. I guess I accepted the nomination and it was something that interested me. I thought I could make a difference if we could get the pay scale implemented and we did actually. It was successful and, probably for the first five years, the union was definitely beneficial to the staff. Now, I'm not so sure. Because now they have had a pay freeze for seven years and they all have to pay fair share which, I think , they pay almost $40.00/mo. in union dues.  So, right now I think they may be wishing that they didn't have a union --

INTERVIEWER:  At this point?

MRS. PERRY: At this point.

INTERVIEWER:  When you were still a line staff officer, at that point,  were you close with your co-workers or what was your relationship like with them?

MRS. PERRY: I was very close to my co-workers, but I always made a point of not falling into any clicks. I had, you know, we had three satellite offices and I had friends, I'd say, in all of them. I'd say it was a good group of people.

INTERVIEWER:  That's great and you had how many judges that you were working for?
MRS. PERRY: 34 and there's still 34.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok, great. How did you deal with the contrast in personalities for judges that you were working for?

MRS. PERRY: Well, I think with 34 judges, even though they all have reputations that proceeds them, the difficult ones you knew you weren't going to see very often on the rotation of 34. You just prepared well and did the best you could and were as professional as can be and hoped you got out of there without any issues.

INTERVIEWER:  Sure. Any issues that come to mind?

MRS. PERRY: No, actually, I was very fortunate. There have been other officers who have been either yelled at or had complaints from some judges, but I never had a run in with a judge, which was a good thing.

INTERVIEWER:  Good. Did you have any favorite judges?

MRS. PERRY: Absolutely.

INTERVIEWER:  Which ones were those?

MRS. PERRY: Judge Patty Gaughan who is now a federal judge. I would say she was my absolute favorite. Judge Coyne, I think his name was William Coyne.
He is no longer there, he's retired, but he was a great man. I liked Judge Nugent, he was a Common Pleas Judge and he's a federal judge now. Those are probably my top three.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok. How was your relationship with your supervisor at that time?

MRS. PERRY: Great. Well, I had several supervisors.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok.

MRS. PERRY: Every time I switched positions I had a new supervisor.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok, so it was split up by which department you worked in, you had a different supervisor?

MRS. PERRY: Yes, the main office had, probably, twelve supervisors working there and then the satellites might have had as many as six or eight.

INTERVIEWER:  When you were in each department, can you describe how it was set up?

MRS. PERRY: I spent most of my career in the Justice Center. I went to a satellite for, maybe, a year and then I got promoted to supervisor, so I came back.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok.

MRS. PERRY: How they did it there, was when I was a supervisor I had eight officers underneath me. Generally, it was one officer to about eight staff and I was responsible for eight officers who had a case load, Interstate Compact being one of the case loads. Then other supervisors, all they did was read PSI's. So it really depended, there were ISP supervisors, there were general supervisors, there were PSI supervisors.

INTERVIEWER:  Sure. When you talk about becoming a supervisor, can you explain how that transition occurred?

MRS. PERRY: I think I was always a really hard worker and when I first took that welfare fraud case load, I made some changes to that case load and I had to share an office. I was the first one in the department who had to share an office and the woman I shared an office with also had a case load of welfare fraud probationers. I think because I came from a private law firm and because I was so excited about my position, I worked really hard, much to her dismay. I think when you're in a especially a larger department, like that anyways, I don't know that all departments are this way; you could choose to work as much or pretty much as little as you want to. Unfortunately, I think that she resented the pace I was working at and, actually, I know she did because she mentioned it to me. It was one of those, you know, you're making us all look bad. I really think at the end of the day, either that's who you are or you aren't and I always worked hard and I think that's why I ended up getting promoted, ultimately. I like to think that it went recognized.

INTERVIEWER:  Sure. When you went from working that first case load and then onto PSI's and then to working general supervision and then to ISP, it sounds like you did the same thing, worked really hard, in each area that you were assigned to?

MRS. PERRY: Yes.

INTERVIEWER:  When you applied for the supervisor position, which department was that for?

MRS. PERRY: There were two positions, so I don't know that you really knew which one you were going to get. One was actually a former supervisor of mine who had died of a heart attack.

INTERVIEWER:  Who was that?

MRS. PERRY: Brian Everett. He was married to a woman who is now a supervisor at federal probation now.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok.

MRS. PERRY: So, he died of a heart attack. There was his unit and then there was another pre-sentence unit. I got promoted. Well, actually there were two positions; two people got promoted at the same time. I got the supervision and another gentleman got the writing unit.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok, so how did you make that transition personally?

MRS. PERRY: That transition was the hardest thing I've probably ever done in my life. Going from a colleague of somebody's to their boss was very, very difficult. It was easier for me to come to Medina and be the chief, in some respects, because you didn't have relationships that were built with people already. It was interesting, almost the day I got promoted, you could sense the pull back from people. They just act differently around you at that point.

INTERVIEWER:  Sure.

MRS. PERRY: That took a little bit of getting used to.

INTERVIEWER:  How did you handle that?

MRS. PERRY:  Pretty much just kept doing my job and tried to treat everybody fairly. Just focused on my unit. That's all I could do and I still had the friends that I considered friends for the most part, in my inner circle. Some of the staff, that used to be, maybe, a little more comfortable around me, seemed uncomfortable, which was unfortunate.

INTERVIEWER:  Sure, it's unfortunate that people view it that way sometimes.

MRS. PERRY: Yes.

INTERVIEWER:  How many years were you a supervisor in Cuyahoga County?

MRS. PERRY: I think four years before I came here.

INTERVIEWER:  How did you hear about the position for Chief Probation Officer in Medina County?

MRS. PERRY: It was advertised in the newspaper. I decided that I had been in Cuyahoga for eleven years at that point and decided that I was ready for a change, because as great as the experience was, there was a lot of nepotism that caused some difficulties in my actually performing the duties that I needed to perform. There were people in my unit that were related to Judge so and so and doing things that needed to be addressed and I was not permitted to address them. That was unfortunate and that ran its course and I became very frustrated.

So, when I saw the job in Medina, I decided to apply for it because I felt like if I had stayed in Cuyahoga County, at that point, that my work ethic would have either been eroded or it just would not have been a happy place to stay.

INTERVIEWER:  Where were you living during this time? You were working in Cuyahoga County, were you living there as well?

MRS. PERRY: Yes, I still live there.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok.

MRS. PERRY: The commute here is twice as far for me to come to work.

INTERVIEWER:  It seems like it's more worth it, considering the changes that happened and you faced while you were a supervisor out there.

MRS. PERRY: Yes, absolutely.

INTERVIEWER:  Before we get into your duties as a Chief Probation Officer,  you did have children during that time?

MRS. PERRY: I did, yes.

INTERVIEWER: Can you tell me about your kids and when they were born?

MRS. PERRY:  Yes, my oldest one was born in 1991, two years after I started working there and then my younger one was born in 1993. I was fortunate enough to be the first one in that department to be permitted to work a 30 hour work week, because I was actually considering quitting. With two children and daycare and what we were getting paid, at that time, I was actually paying more in daycare costs than I was bringing home. Moving to a three day ten hour day work schedule made child care more affordable. I was able to stay.

INTERVIEWER:  That's great. What are your kids doing now?

MRS. PERRY: They are both in college, one is a senior and one is a sophomore. The senior was going to go to medical school.

INTERVIEWER:  That's  Jonathan?

MRS. PERRY: Yes, that's Jonathan. He took one semester off sophomore year and decided he was not going to do pre-med and go to law school. Well, he announced two weeks ago after taking all the pre-med courses that he is probably going to go to law school instead. You have to let him find their way and be true to themselves.

INTERVIEWER:  In his father's footsteps?

MRS. PERRY: Yeah, yeah. I think he's very glad he took all the science classes, because it gave him a real good idea of what med school would be like and I just don't think right now, at this point in his life, he is willing to commit another six to ten years.

INTERVIEWER:  That's a long time.

MRS. PERRY: Yes, it is. I look back now and I think he must have had some question either way, trepidation, because he took that semester off at sophomore year. Now he says he would like to be a prosecutor so we will see where and what he ends up doing.

INTERVIEWER:  What about your other son? What is he studying?

MRS. PERRY: He is in the business school in Miami. He wants to do social entrepreneurship and he is very passionate about it. He said he wants to work with start-up companies when he first graduates and then he wants to start-up his own company with a social cause, kind of like Tom Shoes. If you are familiar with Tom Shoes?

INTERVIEWER:  I'm not.

MRS. PERRY: Tom Shoes is a brand of shoes. When you buy a pair they donate a pair to somebody in a third world country for every pair you buy. So there is the social piece of it, the social concept. That's what he wants to do, something to that effect, where there is a social benefit. Then, this coming Fall, a year from now,  he is going to be studying in Geneva, Switzerland for the semester.

INTERVIEWER:  Wow, he seems like he thinks outside the box and he's on a path where he's not just focused on making money --

MRS. PERRY: Right.

INTERVIEWER:  -- but, he wants to see what he can do to help a lot of people overall, not just himself.

MRS. PERRY: Absolutely, and I will say both of my kids are not motivated by money, which I'm glad, because I think it lets them have a clearer vision as to what they really want to do. The money will come later.

INTERVIEWER:  Definitely, it's what they enjoy. That's great. So, you came to Medina then in what year?

MRS. PERRY: 2000

INTERVIEWER:  When you were interviewing for the position, to you was it a natural change from being a supervisor or was it intimidating?

MRS. PERRY: It was not at all intimidating. I actually am someone who loves change, which you may have picked up on by now. So, I'm okay with change and like I said, my unit in Cleveland was eight people. Well, when I came here, the entire department was eight people, so that was not intimidating to me. I was very confident coming from the largest county in the state that I knew how to reorganize this department. So, no I was not intimidated or nervous, I was excited to have a change really.

INTERVIEWER:  When you had the interview, who did you interview with?

MRS. PERRY: I interviewed with Judge Kimbler and Judge Collier. When I had finished with the interview and when I walked in the door, twenty minutes later the phone rang and my husband said, "It's Judge Kimbler," and I said, "Oh, be quiet," and he said, "No, it is." So anyway he made the job offer twenty minutes after I got home, which was nice and he will say to this day that the reason he did was because when I came in, I had put together a list of things I could and would do for them . He really liked that and liked what was on the list, so he always tells people that's what differentiated me from the others.

INTERVIEWER:  It sounds like you had done some research then.

MRS. PERRY: Yes.

INTERVIEWER:  What types of things had you looked into?

MRS. PERRY: I looked into their size and how many judges of course. One of my officers knew one of the officers working here and they would have discussions from time to time. They had told him some things that he had shared with me, but I had no idea of the political allegiances that were here. Which, I think every department has that. Coming in as a new chief, not knowing there was an interim chief who had been with the department for fifteen or sixteen years and had applied for the chief job twice and didn't get it was a somewhat, unnerving, concept.

INTERVIEWER:  Who is the chief you were taking over for?

MRS. PERRY: Well, I was taking over for Ron Kolzing who had been the chief here for, I guess, maybe twenty plus years. But then Paula Foutz was the interim chief when he had retired. I think they looked for a chief for eighteen months and she had interviewed twice within that eighteenth month period.

INTERVIEWER:  And then when you came in, what was the department set up like?

MRS. PERRY: You mean physically or structurally?

INTERVIEWER:  Anything you want to tell me.

MRS. PERRY: Well, physically, quite frankly, I was a little bit shocked. I didn't even ask to see the department before I started, because I didn't consider myself territorial. I had a lake front office in Cleveland, I might have told you this, but I never paid much attention to it and people would come in say, "Oh, you have a beautiful view," and I'd say, "Oh, great, great,"  you know. Then I came here and, you know, we're in the basement and the space was very very limited.

This room that you and I are sitting was not usable. The room Jan is sitting in was their lunch room and that was not very conducive. Our conference room and our lunch room currently, were storage areas and then where you sit in your office and Brad, those were not offices. I guess they were more storage.  You were here for the cubicle renovation, so I never expected to have to be so active in the expansion and construction of things in the department, but I was glad that I had the opportunity to still find ways to expand. Even though we are now busting at the seams, I think there's what 16 of us?

INTERVIEWER:  I think so.

MRS. PERRY:  We've doubled in size and made due.

INTERVIEWER:  With all this storage, did we used to keep all the files on site?

MRS. PERRY: They kept all files on site and Mr. Holman, the prosecutor, he, for some reason, had occupied our lunch area, that whole room, so that was filled with all their old storage files.

INTERVIEWER:  Ok, from the prosecutor's office?

MRS. PERRY: Yes, this room was just full of file cabinets and boxes. There wasn't any rhyme or reason. The same for the conference room, it was just full of boxes. I think the office manager, at the time, did not like to throw anything away. They had documents from fifteen years ago and message books from fifteen years ago. So, we had to a lot of house cleaning, literally. So, we did and we cleaned all that out and it's pretty much what it is now.

From the operational perspective, I really think I turned their world upside down, especially in the first year. I came in and the way that they had done things was very foreign to me and inefficient to me
.
INTERVIEWER:  Ok.

MRS. PERRY: I had to get things changed to the way that I knew how to operate. And again, that's why I think was very fortunate, having my experience in Cleveland, because you're not going to, too much second guess the procedures and policies from the largest county. You know the policies and procedures they have had came as a result of some experience, some case, and they all were kind of relevant.

INTERVIEWER: It sounds like each department in Ohio, at that time, did not have an overall consensus of the way they were run?

MRS. PERRY: No, really even still at this time. I mean House Bill 86 was trying to address that, but you still can’t say that every county does things the same.

INTERVIEWER: If we could now go into some detail, the organization that you implemented into the department and give some examples of how things were previously and what you did to change them.

MRS. PERRY: Yes, for example, on my very first day here, you have to keep in mind that they were extremely, I think, understaffed and that was intentional by the Court because they wanted the new chief to come in and to determine what the staffing needs were going to be and make their own hires.
The very first day, I literally walked in, and Anna Alexander, err Newman, looked at me and threw a file at me, because it was her report day and said, “Could you go cover this hearing for me?” I said, “Sure,” I’d covered hundreds of hearings, if not thousands up to that point. I went up, I covered the hearing, but as I go up I’m looking at her file and realizing that there is no way that I could look at this file without reading the 400 pages of paragraph text to find out what the history of the case is. One of the first things I did was ask Anna, “How do you know what is going on in the case if you cover for one another?” Anna said, “What do you mean?” I said, “How could you know if you have to read 400 pages, how do you know, you don’t know, you have no idea.” That’s just how they did it. Now we have our electronic case management, but then, in Cleveland we had the electronic case management when I left, but to transition very slowly here, I introduced them to a kit book system. The kit sheet was really a face sheet, similar to what we now have on our files that we put in, except it also had a whole note section. It also had a code section, which we have now, but we don’t really enforce. The idea was to look at the code and you would be able to see the whole history. The defendant was assigned, there was a probation violation hearing and so you would put notes in and be able to review the kit sheet and understand if you were filling in for somebody what the status of the case is.

INTERVIEWER: So, if the Judge had any questions you would be able to accurately go back and find those answers.

MRS. PERRY: Right.

INTERVIEWER: I have noticed myself when going back to look at case notes, some of them are hand written, was that the case when you came?

MRS. PERRY: Actually, they were using Word, but when I got here, there was a program, Pro TL, that they had tried to have somebody write a probation program, but they were not actively using it. I think they ran out of funding to pay them or something. I think, maybe, 60 or 70 percent of it was already done. We brought the guys back in to activate it and finish it, so we did start using Pro TL within the year. Then we switched again to Probatum.

INTERVIEWER: How did the staff react to the changes you were making?

MRS. PERRY: I think it was very hard for them. The interim chief, Paula, ended up quitting. She resigned after nine months. She really was a very nice woman and I could sympathize with her position but I had no choice. When she resigned, she said, “I just cannot keep up with all the changes, I’ve done this a certain way for 15 or 20 years.” I think she wasn’t willing to rewrite the wheel, so she had a difficult time with it. Some of the older staff, that were not computer friendly, had a difficult time. I think some of the other staff, who embraced it, I think they still had a difficult time, but I think they knew it was for the better.

INTERVIEWER: Ok. Prior to you starting in Medina, they carried weapons in the department, how did you determine a change in that area?

MRS. PERRY: They didn’t all carry weapons; just the ISP officers were armed. There were two of them at the time. Of the two, I noticed that their training was very inconsistent and they weren’t going back for their training as they should be.

Quite frankly, we were not armed in Cuyahoga County and they still aren’t armed in Cuyahoga County, so I never felt a need to arm the officers in Medina. I thought it was more liability and I didn’t like the fact that two officers would be armed, but the remainder of the staff wasn’t. To me, it was going to be all or none. Plus, realistically I still believe that in this field, even the armed probation officers will rarely will have an opportunity to draw their weapon. I think if you’re not on top of your training, you’re actually harming yourself more than helping. As you know, we use what we called in Cleveland, an apprehension team. We would go out with armed officers, about 95 percent of the time, and if we feel any threat at all, I ask you not to go if you feel there is a threat.

INTERVIEWER: Right. When we’re doing home visits and we arrest probationers in the office, the Sheriff’s Department helps us and takes them into custody as needed. It takes a lot of pressure off of us and some of the responsibilities.

MRS. PERRY: Right and I know you were here when there was a push to arm us a couple years ago?

INTERVIEWER: Yes.

MRS. PERRY: And I said to the staff if you can make a good enough argument why you need a weapon, I’ll consider it. One of the biggest reasons, first I don’t think their arguments were very good and, B.) One of the biggest reasons I was reluctant was because if we did agree to that, then you would be transporting your own people to and from, be making your own arrest, and I think you would increase your work load by at least a third. So, it’s just not worth it to me
.
INTERVIEWER: I remember one of the other reasons would be that our department would have to pay for the car for transportation, pay for training, guns, the ammunition, and with the economy being like it has, there’s not a lot of money to pay for extra expenses like that.

MRS. PERRY: Right and I would never prioritize money over your safety, but I think we have that more than covered when you go out with armed officers who do pull their weapons and are trained on a regular basis. I’m much more comfortable with you being safe in that regard than having your own weapon that you, probably, will never draw.

INTERVIEWER: We also wear bullet proof vests. Was that occurring prior to you coming here?

MRS. PERRY: I know that they were not wearing bullet proof vests and they were not going out with armed officers, but I don’t think they were going on home visits frequently.

INTERVIEWER: Ok. As a criminal justice professional, what do you think are the most important qualities for someone to have applying for a position such as yours?

MRS. PERRY: I think they have to have a genuine interest in human behavior or I don’t’ think you’re really going to be engaged in your job. I think you need to be flexible, because the law is always changing. I think you need to be interested in the field to the extent of; either you want to go on and get your graduate degree, like you are doing, or seek out new trainings and stay current with what’s happening in the field.

INTERVIEWER: You ended up getting your graduate degree in what year?

MRS. PERRY: I think in 2003 or 2004.

INTERVIEWER: What made you decide to do that after you already had your position here?

MRS. PERRY: Quite frankly, I knew that the field was changing and two of my officers had talked about going and I thought I couldn’t be the least educated. So, I decided it was a good time. Plus, my husband had finished law school. I had actually always said I was going to go when he was finished. The timing was good and it’s something I knew I would do sooner or later, but with him being in law school and having two kids, the timing wasn’t good until then.

INTERVIEWER: How did you decide on Tiffin University?

MRS. PERRY: They actually had a seated course and an accelerated program. They were actually one of the first ones in the area that had an accelerated program in Justice Administration. Being an administrator, that’s what interested me. I had gone to the Mentor campus for the first three classes and then I defected and went online to finish.

INTERVIEWER: It sounds like it was a big deal for you, at the time, to keep up with the times and I give you a lot of credit for going back to school when you had been out of school for so long.
MRS. PERRY: I graduated in 1986, so fifteen years.

INTERVIEWER: Wow, when you went back to school, do you remember any professors you had that really stuck out for you?

MRS. PERRY: Actually, Mr. Haley. I remember him and I remember him challenging questions a lot, answers actually, not questions.

And he was very helpful in my narrowing down my topic I wanted to do for my final paper and I thought he was very insightful.

INTERVIEWER: What did you write you final paper on?

MRS. PERRY: It was jury selection and I think it was the biases, if there were biases in jury selection and what they were.

INTERVIEWER: Where did you study that at?

MRS. PERRY: Upstairs in this courthouse.

INTERVIEWER: So, here?

MRS. PERRY: Un huh, so I compared Judge Kimbler's jury trials to Judge Collier's jury trials selection process.

INTERVIEWER: Do you remember what the results were?

MRS. PERRY: Actually, I really don't, I wish I did. I'm not sure, I might still have the paper at home...

INTERVIEWER: That's okay.

MRS. PERRY: I don't really remember, it's been awhile now. It's been ten years, so I'm not really sure.

INTERVIEWER: That's okay. You have a lot of job duties, as I know working with you, so could you tell me what you're main job duties are?

MRS. PERRY: Well, yeah, um, I guess I consider them all main duties. So, I don't know what would be less important than the other. I think it's really important, to me, that I stay on top of current trends and I have an obligation to lead you guys. So, it's really important to understand, when a new sentencing reform is coming through, it's important for me to understand it so I can share it with you and have you guys buy into it. So, I think staying current in the field is probably the largest piece, I think, because even though you guys may or may not realize how that actually operates behind the scenes. That is something that is on the forefront of my priority list. And then secondly, is to try to make sure my staff is generally happy, or as happy as I can make them. You know, you're not going to make everybody happy, but I am really really proud and blessed of the staff that I have. I think everybody works really hard and too hard this past year, unfortunately, but I think that, you guys are all consummate professionals and really care about your people and about your jobs and you care to do a good job. And that's really important to me.

INTERVIEWER: With all the responsibilities that you have, who do you report to or who is your boss?

MRS. PERRY: My bosses are the judges,  the two judges. I am very blessed, in that, both of them have given me an enormous amount of autonomy since the first day I've been here.

INTERVIEWER: Wow, that's great they make you feel that way. And you have a supervisor in your department, can you tell me a little bit about how you picked your supervisor, and I know that you knew her previously before you started here?

MRS. PERRY: I did, she actually was an officer in my unit at one point in Cleveland. So I knew she was a very hard worker and I knew she understood the job and the field. I knew that if I asked her to come to Medina, I knew that she would be loyal and hard working. So, I did. So, she came here as an officer the first year, I think, maybe a little bit longer. So, she was a line staff officer when she first came and then, um, you know, everything that was going on, there was so much change, and I realized that I needed a supervisor, because I wouldn't be able to do the training and the budget and all the other administrative policy things I need done if I am the only person that the staff can come to.

INTERVIEWER: Right. So, there wasn't a supervisor when your first started here? It was just the chief over everyone else?

MRS. PERRY: Right.

INTERVIEWER: It has been about an hour, is it okay with you if we stop here and will pick up at this spot next time?

MRS. PERRY: Sure, sounds great. (We ended the first session at 1:07 p.m. on October 19th).

INTERVIEWER: Ok, it's October 22, 2012 and this is part two of my oral history interview with Veronica Perry. It is currently 12:14p.m. and we are going to continue with our interview.

INTERVIEWER: So, Veronica, we have been talking about your duties as a chief probation officer and next I wanted to ask you, what is the most gratifying part of your job?

MRS. PERRY: I think the most gratifying part is being able to train the officers and see that they evolve into, you know, successful, productive staff members. That's really gratifying to me. So, I would say that's probably my number one in an administrator perspective. But when I was a line staff officer, or even watching, you know, you guys do your jobs, the second most gratifying part would be when you actually succeed in helping somebody recognize that maybe they should be living a different type of life and what you can do to help them. And help them not recidivate.

INTERVIEWER: Definitely, I agree. You do support your staff a lot and I see that personally. And also, I have that feeling as well, even though the defendants may not continue on the path that you think they might, at least at some point, you help them through something. So, it is gratifying.

MRS. PERRY: Right.

INTERVIEWER: So, opposite of that, what is the most difficult part of your job?

MRS. PERRY: I think the politics of the job, which I never really, um, had to consider at all until I became a supervisor and then a chief. I think there's a fine balance between satisfying the requests of the court and keeping your objective opinions and remaining neutral as the probation department is supposed to. Sometimes, there are conflicts there because I may realize it's in the department's best interest to do one thing when the judge wants a different thing done.

INTERVIEWER: And that can be a hard position to be in, how do you handle that?

MRS. PERRY: I almost always end up doing what I think is right for the department in spite of maybe having some conflicts with the court at times. And then I think eventually, the court will come around. Not always, but it seems to work that way, because I really feel you hired me to run the probation department and the judges are very knowledgeable about the law and about what they do. At the same time, I feel I have more probation knowledge than they do and that's what they hired me for.

INTERVIEWER: Right and the judges are elected positions, so how does that influence your choice there?

MRS. PERRY: It really doesn't, because, I guess , considering that they are elected positions, they may be elected for the remainder of their life span. So, I really don't look at it as a time frame when it comes to their victories when they are running. But if you wanted to ask the question, does it affect me if they have a turnover upstairs and the one judge leaves and a new one comes in, that would absolutely would have a greater effect. I guess I don't worry about if our judges will or won't win. And also you guys are civil service employees, so you should be protected from the elections if another judge would come in, your job would be protected. Myself, that would not be the case, management is excluded from that. So, I don't worry about it.

INTERVIEWER: It's hard to plan for the unknown.

MRS. PERRY: Yeah. I just kind've do what I need to do and hopefully just run the department on a daily basis and don't worry about it.

INTERVIEWER: Good. In the criminal justice field and especially in management can be high stress, how do you deal with that stress?

MRS. PERRY: Well, I think having different to colleagues, different chiefs that I'm friends with, a lot of times we commiserate, maybe at the chief's meetings or we will call each other. I think just bouncing some things off the supervisor here, Beth, helps. I go home, I vent. And just other things in general when I stressed, I may exercise or try to take a little time away.

INTERVIEWER: Ok, um, and that's part of what I was going to ask next so I won't, but I was going to ask who do you turn to when you have questions or need help, so, have you found that you are closer to some of the chiefs in the local area or Cuyahoga County?

MRS. PERRY: Ah, yes, and I would consider them in the local area as well. So, yeah I am closer to Wayne County and Cuyahoga County and sometimes they are in the dark as well about a certain issue so we are fortunate that we have an association we can email or we can go to the Supreme Court to find the answers if need be.

INTERVIEWER: How do you motivate and then also encourage your subordinates during changes or transitions in the department?

MRS. PERRY: Well, I try to present it from an intellectual perspective and say this is the change we need and why. And I think, most of the time, if I can do that, I think the staff buys in, because they see it as well and whether they maybe don't agree or do agree.

And then there are times, when staff has not bought in, certain staff members, and I think you know very well, with um, evidence based practices especially, we had some resistance. Quite frankly, all those officers are not here any longer. Sometimes they leave by choice, sometimes they leave because they wouldn't get on board. At the end of the day, I have a goal and I have a mission that I have to meet. So hopefully we can do that together.

INTERVIEWER: Definitely. And then you brought up evidence based practices, can you talk about what that is?

MRS. PERRY: Well, when I first started in the field, pretty much, there was no validated proof that one way of operation was better than another. You would have probation officers running amuck, yelling at their people, calling them names, or not, depending on who you were. It was really a much more random process. There really was no training as to how you should approach your offender, you just did what you thought was best. So, after decades of that, it became apparent that the recidivism rate wasn't getting better, the resources were getting depleted, so the State of Ohio commissioned the University of Cincinnati to start doing some studies. They did and according to the University of Cincinnati, they have studied and implemented the best practices. Actually, I should say they have recommended the best practices. Now, the practices that we implement can be measured.

INTERVIEWER: Great. Thank you. What other things have they recommended from the University of Cincinnati or required?

MRS. PERRY: Well, they required that we use motivational interviewing so that we spend more quality time with the offender. They've required cognitive behavior therapy, so hopefully, while we are spending that time with them, we are pointing out to them what they could have done differently and having a discussion and enlighten them a little bit, as to what not to do to come back, how to better their families. They also recommended more training for the staff, more consistent training. And they recommended, actually, consistent practices throughout the state, which we are heading towards that direction.

INTERVIEWER: They have also implemented the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) Tool, so how have you noticed a change within the probation department using that tool?

MRS. PERRY: Well, it takes a lot more time to implement now so I know there's been a huge demand on staff and I think that the instrument could be a good instrument. It's not validated yet, so I'm a little bit leery to say that it is a good instrument. I think that generally, the idea, is a good one. However, the results have to be conclusive and they are not.

INTERVIEWER: Sure. What tool were you using prior to the ORAS?

MRS. PERRY: We actually had the Wisconsin Risk Assessment, it was called, which was a lot simpler. A lot fewer questions, but again, nothing was measurable at the time. We were using the Wisconsin assessment hoping it was effective, but nobody measured it so how would you really know if it was effective.

INTERVIEWER: How do you think it'll look five years from now with the assessment tool we are using now?

MRS. PERRY: I think they will probably have it validated by then and I think it will have worked out some kinks that we are currently are experiencing; like maybe when the offenders are coming back low risk and we feel they should be high risk. I think everybody will adapt to it, but I don't think everybody will necessarily like it, even five years from now. And then, I think it will stay with the field though. I don't know if it will always be ORAS or I'm sure it will change throughout time, but I think the need for a risk assessment will remain.

INTERVIEWER: Sure, sure. What do you think is one or two of the most important things you do in your job?

MRS. PERRY: I think trying to balance all of the different responsibilities and doing so fairly. I think trying to meet the judge's demands, but yet taking my staff into consideration when we have these changes or requests made. Hoping that you guys are, you know, as, I guess, as happy as you can be. Although, I really can't control that at the end of the day. I have to do what I have to do, but I like to think that we are a team and we make the most out of environment that we can to be a good one.

INTERVIEWER: Definitely. You talked about this with the judges, a little bit, how do you deal with the politics of your job effectively?

MRS. PERRY: Do you mean between the two judges  and myself or...?

INTERVIEWER: Well, what would be some examples if you have any and they don't have to relate to the judges?

MRS. PERRY: Well, I truly try to be apolitical. So, it does become an issue from time to time, but I try not to make decisions based on politics, because we're supposed to be a neutral entity. So, I always try to fall back on what's the best decision for the department first and then the court. It doesn't always work out, because they can overrule me.

INTERVIEWER: Do you have any examples?

MRS. PERRY: Well, let's use the pre-sentence investigation example. So, one of the judges started waiving them and although they are entitled to waive them, he's certainly entitled to do what he wants to do, and that's fine, I had concerns, because when you are working with this population and as many pre-sentence reports that were being waived, were. I had concerns for you guys not having the information. You would go out into the field and you wouldn't know anything about these offenders like you should. And you may walk into a situation you are not prepared for. So, I went and discussed it with the judge, he was not very receptive, but I think eventually, he did substantially, decrease in waiving them. And I think House Bill 86 helped that as well. So, you know, there's a fine balance there because the law does state, you can only waive a PSI if somebody is going to prison. So, in essence, everybody should have a PSI. And again, how am I going to have the judge agree with me if he doesn't want to? It's a predicament. So, at the end of the day, I think we came to a pretty decent result.

INTERVIEWER: It sounds like you did it professionally and although you don't have control over the judges, that you can state your case and they decide what to do with it.

MRS. PERRY: And I like to think that we stand our ground for the most part and we did even there. When he was waiving them, we were still doing post-investigations so that we could make sure that safety was an issue being addressed.

INTERVIEWER: I have heard you mention that you have been around for two very big sentencing reforms, so the first one would have been Senate Bill 2 and the more recent one was House Bill 86. Can you tell me how these have affected the criminal justice system in Ohio from your perspective?

MRS. PERRY: Yes. Both of them or you want me to compare them to each other?

INTERVIEWER: Compare them to each other please.

MRS. PERRY: Ok. Well, when House Bill 86 was passed, the reasons it was passed was two-fold, really. One was that they, they being they general citizen, I guess, felt eventually there was a disparity in sentencing between African Americans and the Caucasian population. So, I think crack cocaine had a lot to do with that, because at that point, the federal law, the weight on crack cocaine and cocaine was much more harsh if you had crack cocaine on you, which was clearly an inner city drug. Although, at the end of the day, cocaine is cocaine. There was that disparity that grew. And as a result, I think our prisons became over populated with drug users, predominately again there was a higher population of African Americans in prison. So, if you looked at the statistics, really, although there are more Caucasians in prison, proportionately, African Americans are incarcerated more often.

INTERVIEWER: Sure.

MRS. PERRY: So, that was, I think, you know, the basis of looking at Senate Bill 2. As a result, the legislature decided that they were going to pass Senate Bill 2 which altered the sentencing resources, really. So, under old law before Senate Bill 2, you used to have to sentence people to ranges. So, for example, you could go to prison for five to twenty-five years and you could earn good time. So, if you were sentenced to five to twenty-five and you are a model prisoner and you get credit for time served, you could've been out in two years. So, they felt if they did away with open ranges and went to definite sentences, somehow that would reduce the prison population. Well, fifteen years later, it's done the exact opposite and I think again, it was predominately because of the drug users. So, they ended up incarcerating. I don't think they planned very well for how many drug offenders there would be. They ended up incarcerating everybody for a definite sentence. The prison population just swelled. So, here we are fifteen years later and they are saying what are we going to do about the overcrowding. The population has never been so high. So, they passed House Bill 86 now where they again implemented that you get some credit for time served, there's programming you can do in prison to get out early, there's eighty percent reduced time, and so they are going back, I think, to pre Senate Bill 2 days. Not as extreme as they were, but definitely they are imposing some of the same practices.

INTERVIEWER: Right and so with not so many people being sent to prison, as a result, the probation departments have become busier.

MRS. PERRY: Right.

INTERVIEWER: How have you seen this change over the past years that you have been involved in probation?

MRS. PERRY: Well, I don't know that has honestly changed a whole lot, because whether it was pre Senate Bill 2 or post Senate Bill 2, I mean, probation is always the one who ends up having to implement more programming, with our without, regardless of which house bill was passed or is in place. Probation still has the same responsibilities and the biggest issue and challenge always is and has and will be, where do you get the funding for this programming. So, in that regard, you know, House Bill 86 is allegedly is better, because they are floating some money out there to assist us with the programming. But, as you know, you have to have good programming in place to make it effective and you have to have the entire collaboration with the court and the community to really make it what it needs to be.

INTERVIEWER: Sure, and sometimes that's difficult to get everyone on the same page.

MRS. PERRY: Often times, yes.

INTERVIEWER: And then, talking about the funding, we have grants here in the probation department, one more recent than the other, can you tell me about those?

MRS. PERRY: Yes, the Probation Improvement Grant is the grant they gave us to help reduce the prison overcrowding. So, the idea is if we give you money to implement programming, then you won't be sending as many people to prison. So, it's a little soon to see how effective that is going to ultimately be. Hopefully, it will be somewhat effective.

INTERVIEWER: And then what is the other grant we have?

MRS. PERRY: The Community Corrections Act grant?

INTERVIEWER: Yes.

MRS. PERRY: The grant you work on?

INTERVIEWER: Yes, I'd like to add that to my article as well.

MRS. PERRY: Well, truly, the Community Corrections Act grant is probably the equivalent to what the Probation Improvement Grant is. So, at the time, when they were first implementing Community Corrections Act grants, it was as a result of some of the things that were happening with Senate Bill 2. So, I think this is their mirrored plan, really. It's a duplicate of the grants they feel we need to get the job as far as meeting the legislative requirements.

INTERVIEWER: Definitely. It makes sense too, of why we have another one so recently right after House Bill 86.

MRS. PERRY: Right, right. So, ultimately, whether it's pre or post House Bill 86, the goal is always to reduce recidivism. So, as you know, better than most people, the general supervision, only had an expectation of 50 percent success rate. ISP was a little bit better, I think it was 70 percent. I think with the Probation Improvement Grant, it will be interesting to see how many programs are implemented and how effective they are.

INTERVIEWER: Sure. How do you stay positive during the implementation of these sentencing reforms?

MRS. PERRY: Because I actually, love change. It does not bother me. It actually keeps me thriving and I also take the law very seriously. So, I'm not in a position, if the legislature said this is going to become law now, this is what we have to do. We have no choice, but to rise to the occasion.

INTERVIEWER: Right.

MRS. PERRY: But, I actually find that energizing. I think in a field that is as gray as ours is, I don't think that you should ever expect that there wouldn't be change.

INTERVIEWER: This is going to be a closed ended question, but do you have any opinions on how the prison system can lessen how many people are going or staying in prison and to save money?

MRS. PERRY: I do, actually. I think that House Bill 86 is on target when they are saying do not send low level offenders to prison. I think that a lot of the felony fives, especially the drug abusers, I don't think that they are violent and I don't think that they should necessarily be incarcerated for as long as they have been. I think, maybe, there should be a method to the madness, some should be incarcerated probably, longer, if at all, than others. I don't think it's across the board.

INTERVIEWER: What is an interesting experience or story you have from your career in probation?

MRS. PERRY: As a line staff officer or?

INTERVIEWER: For both, if you have them.

MRS. PERRY: As a line staff officer, we were talking about hoping that you're gratified and hoping that you make a difference. I had an offender who used to come back every year and thank me for saving her life. Quite frankly, I had no idea what I did differently with her than anybody else. And again, that was under old law, so really you couldn't point to anything. It's not like I could say, oh, I put her through this cognitive behavioral program and we did all these wonderful things and it really worked for her. I do remember talking with her at great lengths, but for some reason, she was a successful candidate. She was very involved. She was a crack user and, at some point, in the course of her probation, she stopped using, which was wonderful, but she then started acting in a play. And I think the name of it was, My Name is Cocaine, actually. And so, every Friday night she would have a live performance for a couple months out of the year and so, every time she came in she would ask me to go watch her play. And I've always been sorry that I didn't go, but there was no way at that point, that I was going to go on a Friday night or on a Saturday night into Kinsman by myself. I couldn't really get anybody else that was willing to go. That was really very interesting, because she came back, probably for eight years, and she would come to the front desk and she would ask for me. And every time she came back, she would say I just want to thank you again, you saved my life. I'd think, okay, well, something I said resonated with her, but I don't know what that is exactly. I know you have that same experience, because I read your reviews and I know that you are very helpful and compassionate and a good advisor to the probationers. So, it's hard to know exactly what it was.

INTERVIEWER: Sometimes, I think it might be just taking the time to talk to them. Sometimes, everyone else in their life doesn't have the time to listen to what they have to say.

MRS. PERRY: I think that's very true. Also, I think most people in their life, probably, are in similar patterns of destruction. So, I think, maybe, you just showing that you care and maybe being a more valid resource to them is helpful.

INTERVIEWER: Sure, I think it's surprising sometimes too, because they don't expect that from what they might have heard from other people about what it's like to be on probation. So, I think it's a surprising experience for them to be able to talk to you.

MRS. PERRY: I agree and I think that one of the most interesting things to me, and probably to you guys, I'm going to assume, is when we try to implement, and we did implement the probationer reviews; where they review you at the end. I know there was so much push back initially by the staff, you know, comments like, "Oh, now they're going to review us." I think the biggest surprise has been how 98 percent of them are positive. It has just been, incredibly, encouraging, I think.

INTERVIEWER: Exactly, I think it's a great addition to have their input, although it might not always be used,  and sometimes it may be inappropriate, it can be helpful.

MRS. PERRY: Right, it validates them, I think. It shows them we care and listen.

INTERVIEWER: Right and those are going somewhere.

MRS. PERRY: Right.

INTERVIEWER: Any other interesting stories?

MRS. PERRY: Um, yeah. Going back to being a line staff officer, of this next story, it involved a judge and an executive committee. I think it's a good example of how we help each other or we can help each other. So, I think you know, being in a probation department, especially, when I started, I think maybe, it was a male dominated field. Maybe, a third or so of the staff were women. So, with that said, there's been a lot of changes I've seen through the years. Whereas, now were probably close to 50/50, which is nice. Some of the challenges at that time and also working in a large urban county were, unfortunately, then and probably still now, maybe not so much, there was a lot of nepotism. So, a lot of people were appointed to their positions because of who they knew. I did not know anybody, as I told you earlier, coming in, but I did take a pay cut. So, I think we all paid a price one way or another, but I don't regret it. Once I started working there, about two years later, I got pregnant. I was in the pre-sentence investigation unit and there was a gentleman next door to me, an officer, who was in law school in the evenings. We had thirty pre-sentence reports in the jail per month that we were responsible for. I had already had 32 or 33 that month and I hear my supervisor stop next door and say, "Hey Gary, you're up next." Then Gary said, "Well, I already have 20," and the supervisor said, "Oh, ok, I'll give it to Perry." So, he turned around, came into my office and, again, I was pregnant, but nobody knew it. He came in and he said, "Here, Perry you get the next one." I said, "Ok. I'm ok getting the next one, but why is Gary getting cutoff at 20, I'm curious?" And he said, "Oh, Gary goes to law school at night, so he can work reduced hours." I said, "Oh, we can do that?" And my supervisor was a wonderful man. He was very kind and very apolitical. He was completely apolitical. And he goes "Yeah, you can do that." I said, "Oh my god, that's great."

I had thought I had hit the lottery, because this was my second kid and I thought oh my gosh, I can't afford to keep working with two in daycare, but if I could work reduced hours it would be great. So, I went and asked the chief, after a couple months went by and I was showing, asked him if I could work thirty hours. And he said we didn't do that in our department. And I said, "Oh, ok." He said, "I'd rather you job shared," because there was another woman that was pregnant as well. I said to him that I was okay job sharing, but the other woman couldn't, because only one of you gets the benefits and we both needed them. So, I thought alright, well, you know, I'm going to just -- and at one point he said, "I would rather you job shared, but, you know, we don't that in our department, but if you want to talk to the court administrator about it you can." I said, "Ok." So, I went up and I asked the court administrator, at the time, I said, "I'm pregnant and I would like to know if I could work thirty hours." And at that point, I had found out that we had about six men working 30 hours in our department. One was coaching St. Ed's baseball team, so he got to work 30 hours for whatever reason. And the remainder of them were predominately in law school. So, I went and I asked the court administrator if I could work 30 hours and he said that we didn't do that in my department. And I said, "Oh, well, I beg to differ, because we do, do that in my department. And you know it and I know it." He looked at me and he said, "Well, Veronica, if you're going to have kids, somebody has to raise them." And I said, "Oh, ok, Mr. So and So, absolutely," I said, "but I don't have the luxury of, you know, financially, of staying home. So, I'm hoping to work it out." So, I got nowhere with him. So, I left. I went on maternity leave. I determined that I was not going to come back.
I just couldn't. It wasn't worth my while financially to get two sitters, err, a sitter for two kids. So, I went on maternity leave and now this becomes political from this point forward.

INTERVIEWER: Did they give you a hassle about taking time off to have the baby?

MRS. PERRY: No, no that was a policy and I was very lucky. I had six months off with both of them. Well, the second one was only supposed to be four months, but that's part of the story.

INTERVIEWER: Oh, ok.

MRS. PERRY: So, I was at home. I had resigned myself. I am not going to go back to work. I had not resigned officially, because I wanted to keep my options open just in case. I don't know, you know, my mom retired and wanted to watch my kids. So, I randomly get a phone call from a female judge at that time. She calls me and she lived in my area. So, she calls me and she said, "Veronica, this is Judge Gaughan," that is G-a-u-g-h-a-n, when you go to write it. And she said, "I heard a terrible rumor and I'm not one to dignify rumors, but I had to call you and ask you." Now, I had only been in Judge Gaughan's courtroom, maybe two times the entire time we worked there. So, I did know  that she was a crusader. So, um, she says, "I heard this rumor and I need you to tell me if it's true." I said, "What is that." She said, "You asked to work 30 hours and you were denied." And I said, "Yeah, that's true." She said, "Do you mind if I stop by on the way home and come talk to you." I said, "Ok, that would be great." Of course, I'm panicked. I have these two infants and I'm thinking, oh, my gosh, I'm nervous, she's a judge and I don't know her.

So, she comes over and she looks at me and she says, "Are you familiar with section seven of the civil rights code?" And I said, "Not, at all." She said, "Oh, look, I just so happen to have a copy." And I said, "Ok." And section seven of the civil rights code said, I will never forget it, in black and white, you cannot grant somebody a leave for non job related travel, education, and not do the same for childcare. And, um, so she said, "Now, that you've read it, what would you like to see happen?" And I said, "I would like to work 30 hours just like the people who go to law school. So, maybe for four years." And she said, "Ok, well we have an executive committee, which consists of seven judges and I will take it back to vote and see what happens." She was an unopposed judge all the time and she was well respected and liked. Then she did say, "However, I won't be surprised if they threaten to run a women against me at the next election." She was half joking. When she was leaving, I looked at her and I said, "Judge, if this gets ugly, I really appreciate what you're trying to do, but you can just drop it. It's fine." She said, "Drop it?!" She said, "I have a daughter. If us women never do something, it will never change." I said, "Ok." So, then she went and proposed it to the executive committee and about a week later she called me and she was practically in tears, which was unheard of for her. So, she called me and said we had an executive committee meeting and they accused me of being a flag waiving feminist and threatened to run another woman against her at the next election if she decided to push this through. And I said, "Judge, I absolutely appreciate what you're doing, but you can back out." And she said, "Absolutely not, no way I'm going to back out." So, what she did was, she waited until the three males were on vacation, and they were the ones opposing it, ironically.

And so, she put it to vote, because you only had to win by majority. The four females voted for it and so they passed it. It was not an easy, comfortable environment to come back to. However, the women passed it and this was in the day of old voice mail boxes. We had gone out as a family that night and I saw the voicemail flashing and I thought, "Oh, who is this?" And I play it and it was her. And her message was, "Veronica, I just want to tell you I proposed this to the executive committee and it passed today." She said, "And there's no cap on it, you don't have to for four years, you can do it as long as you want to." And I thought, ok, that's awesome. So, I called her the next day and I said, "Oh my God, thank you so much." And she said, "Yeah, you know, it was something that needed to be done." She said, "I don't know that I would have advocated just for that cause, if six other people weren't doing it and they all happened to be male and for non child care." She said, "You know, you're my pioneer. When you go back, it's going to be very ugly. This is not a popular policy." So, at that point maternity leave was only four months. So, it happened to be that the family medical leave act passed at the same time in that summer. It was August and I was due back to work, probably, within a week. But I couldn't go back to work, because at this point, because this took so long and by the time that it came to fruition, I was due back in two weeks or something. So, she said to me, write a letter to the court administrator. I told her that I called the court administrator and I had said, "Look, I need an extension, because this policy passed and I would like to take advantage of it." He said, "You cannot have an extension. Either you come back to work in two weeks or so be it, you can't come back." I said, "Ok." So I called her and she said that the family medical leave act passed and under the family medical leave act it said, anybody under maternity leave during the time that it passed, currently, could take an additional 12 weeks from the time that they are due back at work.

INTERVIEWER: Wow.

MRS. PERRY: She told me to put that in writing and to tell him that I want to enact my federal right. She said, "I'm pretty sure you're going to get the extension." So, I did. I put it in writing and he was furious.

INTERVIEWER: You must have been nervous.

MRS. PERRY: I was very nervous. Very nervous. I was not a contentious person. I did not have that reputation at work and I was really nervous about going back. When I came back, which I did, the court administrator would not speak me for about a year. Every time I saw him, I would say hello and he would ignore me. I had a woman stand in my office, who told that she thought it really stinks that I got to do this and she didn't. I told her that she could do it and she said that she couldn't, because she was an attorney. She said that she already went to law school and that she wasn't going to have any kids. I told her that she better hope for hardship, because it was for education, hardship, or child care. Ironically, today that woman is a judge today too. She left the probation department and ran. And then, you know, from there on I had, probably, the first year of people just making comments. There was a supervisor who used to say to me, because I went back working three ten hour days, so he would say to me, on the days that I would come in consecutively, I would work two consecutive days, had one off, and then worked another day.

So, when he saw me on my third day of work, he would taunt me and say, "Oh, you're here for your third day of work, are you tired today? Oh, you must be really tired, you worked three days." It was a lot of comments like that. It was awful, really.

INTERVIEWER: How inappropriate!

MRS. PERRY: Yeah. It was inappropriate, it was harassment, and it was terrible really. But at the end of the day, all I really wanted to do was just make this work now, because I felt like I had a dog in this fight. Ultimately, the end of it is, I ultimately, get promoted to supervisor. Probably, three or four years after that and management couldn't utilize the policy. You know, it was probably five years after that, because my youngest was going into kindergarten. I got promoted to supervisor and Judge Gaughan got appointed to the federal bench. So, when she got appointed to the federal bench, she called and she was having a party in her chambers, and she called me and said, "Please come on up." So, I came up and she said, "Isn't this the best? You get promoted to supervisor, I get to go to the federal bench and we both get to walk out of here with our heads held high." So, that's my story.

INTERVIEWER: What a great feeling. To have made an example and you went through so much and made a difference for all the women after that.

MRS. PERRY: I did and Lindsay, thank you. I did and I usually would be a little bit more modest about that, but in this case, I can tell you that I did and it was a very tough time. I'm very glad they had to put the policy on the table for everybody. There have been plenty of women using it and it's still in effect today. There have been plenty of women using it who were very grateful.
So, when I came here, I just have to say, it's a different dynamic, because it's a smaller department. When you work in a really large department like Cuyahoga County, it doesn't stop operations if one person is working 30 hours or even if maybe ten people are working 30 hours. It just doesn't affect them, but here, if we had two or three people working 30 hours, it would definitely be a challenge. However, I am very committed to that policy, so when I came over here I asked the judges if I could implement that policy and they said yes. And, so we do have that policy. It's a little bit different than theirs and I'm happy to support it.

INTERVIEWER: That's great. It's good to know that. I think that it allows a woman to still be focused at work by knowing she can also be at home too.

MRS. PERRY: Absolutely. I will tell you honestly, the idea is, that you are supposed to get your case load reduced by 25 percent, because 30 hours is a 25 percent reduction.

INTERVIEWER: Ok.

MRS. PERRY: So, your pay gets reduced by 25 percent and your work load gets reduced by 25 percent. My work load never got reduced, which was fine. I came in on Saturdays to make sure things were good, because I had something to prove. So, you know, the long and short of it is, it depends on how much you want it. There is no guarantee that your work load is going to stay at that reduced, but we would certainly give it a try.

INTERVIEWER: Wow, that's a great story. I'm really glad you shared that.

MRS. PERRY: That's my favorite story.

INTERVIEWER: Switching over now, do you have any memorable probationers?

MRS. PERRY: Other than the one whose life I saved? I do have a lot of memorable probationers. I have one who I had to arrest, because he was a drug addict and I really liked him. He was a really nice guy. So, it was really paining me to arrest him and when he came in, his name was Larry White, I still remember, probably 20 years later. I said, "Larry, I really hate to do this, but I have to arrest you." You were positive again and he stood up and he thanked me and said, "Thank you, Mrs. Perry, I need it." I said, "That's great." You know, just a great guy and he knew he was drug addicted and he just knew he needed to get off the street. So, when he got out and he finished treatment, he did very well. I don't know if he relapsed again later, but he didn't while he was on probation. He did very well. Then, that's my positive memorable story and then I have several negative, well not necessarily negative, but probably horrific stories.

INTERVIEWER: You have told me before how you would get all the trans genders on your case load?

MRS. PERRY: Oh, the trans gender case load. That was a funny one. Policy really is once you have somebody with a different name, whether it's trans gender or transsexual gender change or maybe they got married after being put on supervision, policy is that you have to go with the person's court name. However, I, for some reason, was always assigned the trans gender, cross dressers in Cuyahoga County. I understand now, at times, why I was, because I was pretty much oblivious. It didn't matter much to me and so I was kind've oblivious and they thought it was funny that I would get all these people.

So, I had one guy, his name was Alfred Harrison, and I think that was his name, and he always dressed as a woman. And so of course, by the time, I would see him as a woman, I would feel awkward calling him Alfred. So, he asked me, if I could please call him Diane Buford. Could I please call him Diane. So, I started calling him Diane, because he dressed as a woman and was actually going through some of the hormonal changes, but still had not had the operation.

INTERVIEWER: Ok.

MRS. PERRY: One day, Diane disappears, and I had to get a warrant for her and we had our holding cells on our floor. So, a deputy came in, in the morning and said you have an Alfred Harrison in your lock up. And I told them that I didn't have an Alfred Harrison. This was before computers, so you're pretty much going off of your notes and your memory. I told him I didn't have anyone on my case load named Alfred Harrison and I didn't bother to check, because I was so used to thinking of him as Diane, so I knew most of my people on there. So, I told him that he had the wrong officer. That was probably at nine or ten in the morning. Four o'clock in the afternoon, he comes back and he asked if I was going to see my person or not, because they insist that you are their probation officer. I went back and I took a look and it was Diane. And I thought, "Oh, my God." I told her I was so sorry. So, she ends up going to treatment and ends up getting kicked out of treatment, because she went to an all male group, because she was still a male, but she was disruptive and wanting to talk about female issues, is how they put it. So, they threw her out. Eventually, we got her back on track and so she was coming in. So, one day she comes in and she says, "Mrs. Perry, I'm getting married. I'm so excited. I want you to come to my wedding."

I said, "Diane, I'd love to come to your wedding, but I really can't, it's against policy." So, now at this point, I'd probably supervised her for about three or four years, so we definitely had a rapport. I told her that I had to ask and I had never done this before and I had never pried into her personal life, but I asked Diane if she was marrying a man or a woman. She said that she was marrying a man and I told her that I was just curious, since I knew she was still a man from waist down. So, she gets married and goes off into the sunset. Then I become a supervisor and one day I get a phone call. It was from her, now, estranged husband, they weren't divorced yet, and he calls me and says, "I'm Diane Buford's husband, and I just want to tell you that she is using again," and she's this and that and he's just trying to get her in trouble. I said, "She is finished with supervision and even if she was not, I wouldn't be the officer on the case anyways." So, the more I'm trying to explain to him that we don't have jurisdiction over her anymore, the madder he is getting. So, eventually, he is yelling at me saying that I have to do something. Eventually, I got frustrated and said, "Listen, there's nothing I can do and besides, you're the one who married her, not me, it's your problem. Good luck with that." So, that is my Diane Buford story. Last I heard, according to him, she was using again. That is unfortunate, but I have no idea how that ended up.

INTERVIEWER: Wow. It's definitely an interesting story. I don't have any like that yet.

MRS. PERRY: Not yet. Not yet. I've often said I should have kept notes, because it would have been an interesting book at this point. And not to make light of it, I mean really. That's probably my funny probationer story, but it's sad, whatever happened at the end. And then of course, there's the murders, you know, especially, the child murders will especially stay with me. I think in a negative way.

INTERVIEWER: Do you have any of those that you would want to share?

MRS. PERRY: I'll tell you the one that was when I was pregnant with my second child. So, my first one was 18 months old. It was a Caucasian woman and she was about five feet tall. She had murdered her 18 month old, which really resonated with me because I had an 18 month old. So, I was doing the pre sentence investigation on her. When she came in for her interview, she was as pregnant as I was and nobody had told me that. And it really startled me. She came in and she was probably the most frank, open, honest probationer, I have ever ever interviewed. She came in and she was a tiny little thing, maybe five feet tall, maybe 95 pounds, even pregnant. I mean she was tiny. So, she came in and she sat down and I was just shocked and I said, "Wow, I didn't know you were pregnant." She said, "Yep, I'm seven months." I was also seven months pregnant. So, the story goes that she was with an African American man and that's who was the father of both of her children and they lived in a house, but they couldn't afford their life really. They had to get a roommate and the roommate had four children. The defendant's boyfriend and this other woman, the mother of the four children, would go to work and it was this woman's job to take care of all five kids. Her own included in that and hers was the youngest and he was 18 months old. She said that because she was with an African American, her family had ostracized her and they had absolutely no support. They had to do everything on their own. She said she would get overwhelmed during the day watching five kids and she said nobody understood how stressful it was.  So, she said for some reason she thought it was okay to take it out on my kid. She said she never harmed her kids, but because he was hers, she thought it was ok.
She said she would be giving him a bath and if he was crying, she would slam him into the tile floor. She said, in the day, they had walkers that did have wheels on them, so she said if he would be crying and she would be frustrated, she would take his walker and whip it into the wall and he would hit his head. She would take him and would slam him into the hard wood if he was crying. And ultimately, she killed him by throwing him against the wall where there was a bed pushed up against the wall and he fell on the bed and had cardiac arrest and died.

INTERVIEWER: Oh my God.

MRS. PERRY: She was unbelievably honest and she said I know what I did was wrong and I don't even have a defense. She said, "I don't know why I did it, other than I wasn't thinking straight and I was overwhelmed." I said to her, "What are your plans for this pregnancy, because you're going to prison." And she said, "Well, I'm going to give the custody to my sister," who she had just told me is a severe schizophrenic. I said, I don't think that's going to happen. I said,  "I'm going to make sure you don't give custody to your sister." I wrote to the court and it was under old law, so the judge who had the case, also had four children, so I thought this was going to be great. Her penalty phase was five to twenty-five years, so I felt very strongly that she needed to stay in prison for longer than five years.

INTERVIEWER: Right.


MRS. PERRY: So, I included that in my recommendation and included the horrific facts and the fact that she's pregnant and wants to give her new child to her schizophrenic sister who is not on medication, she had said. Anyways, ultimately, the judge sentenced her to five years in prison.

INTERVIEWER: Aw.

MRS. PERRY: She was probably, literally, out within 18 months, because she had served so much time in county jail. I went home and had nightmares. I had nightmares that it was my kid, because I was pregnant and everything was really emotional, at that point, about that case to me. I think that's probably the most negative one that sticks with me. The most traumatic one.

INTERVIEWER: Sure, that must have been devastating.

MRS. PERRY: I don't know. I was just so startled when she was as pregnant as I was, even that she was just pregnant and let alone that our children were the same ages. So, it really really rang home with me.

INTERVIEWER: It seems unfair that someone like that has control over children's lives. It seems like it would be hard to swallow.

MRS. PERRY: I always meant to track that case to see when she really got out and what happened to the baby. There's just so many cases and it just got away from me.

INTERVIEWER: Well, it seems like, at some point, you probably had to let it go?

MRS. PERRY: Yeah. Right.

INTERVIEWER: Well, I'm sorry you had to go through that.

MRS. PERRY: It's alright. It's very interesting, because I've always been grateful that I've had the opportunity to work in Cuyahoga County for that reason. It's a very urban population and there were a lot of different issues that would come up. I was almost embarrassed when I came to Medina and was reading pre sentences. I said just give me a good murder. I cannot stand, what I considered at that point, to be boring cases. Since then, I've really come to realize that it's just an entirely different demographic and, I mean, we still have our heinous crime here, just not as often.

INTERVIEWER: We're definitely not as used to it.

MRS. PERRY: No and you do, you get a little bit hardened, jaded maybe, when you see it so often.

INTERVIEWER: Unfortunately.

MRS. PERRY: Yeah, it is unfortunate.

INTERVIEWER: Well, thank you for sharing those stories.

MRS. PERRY: Your welcome.

INTERVIEWER: How do you think probation makes the biggest difference with offenders?

MRS. PERRY: I like to think that they realize how fortunate they are, because probation is a privilege.
I like to think that they will recognize, if they haven't, that we have a lot of resources for them now, and the reason is that we want them to live productive lives and not come back into our world. And I think that, if you have good programming and good probationers who care, then I think we can make a big difference.

INTERVIEWER: What do you think is one of the biggest misconceptions about the field of probation?

MRS. PERRY: I think that people think that it is soft on crime, sometimes. I think that's a big misconception. I think that people do not understand  that we do not have the ultimate say. It's always up to the judge. I think those are probably the two biggest misconceptions, I see. I don't think it's soft on crime. I think that the probationers, if they want to succeed, have to work really really hard and we usually know who they are, because we usually say if we work harder than they do, then it's not going to work out.

INTERVIEWER: Then it's not worth it. I agree with that for sure.

MRS. PERRY: Yeah.

INTERVIEWER: And this goes along with that, if you could would you tell the public anything about probation or the court system that they might not know?

MRS. PERRY: I would tell them that these are your neighbors and as much as you think that the best place may be prison, they're going to come out and they are going to live right next door to you again, or down the street, or in your community. So, I do not think, you are solving the problem by sending them to prison. I think you are putting a band aid on it.

I like to think, hopefully, maybe the good that will come out of House Bill 86 will be the continuity that they're trying to implement between the programming in prison and the programming in probation. So, I think, ultimately, I think the community should play a greater role than they do. I think they are a little bit uninformed.

INTERVIEWER: That's what I was thinking.

MRS. PERRY: Yeah.

INTERVIEWER: And that's disappointing, because they are the ones that are sometimes the victims in these cases. It would be helpful if they could understand better how this process works.

MRS. PERRY: Right.

INTERVIEWER: How has your perception of crime changed over the years?

MRS. PERRY: Of crime or the criminals?

INTERVIEWER: The criminals.

MRS. PERRY:  Good question. I think I'm more apt now to believe that people can make mistakes and not be bad people. Whereas, initially, I believed that they were just bad people. So, I think now I'm a little more hopeful that they'll learn from their mistakes and not become career criminals necessarily.

INTERVIEWER: It sounds like you give them more of the benefit of the doubt?

MRS. PERRY: I think, also, though, reflecting on what I just said, I think that I probably have the luxury of thinking that's the case now, because I have been in Medina for the last twelve years. And Medina does have a different population and they have a much greater support system than the average offender in Cleveland. So, I don't know that I would necessarily be feeling that way if I was in Cleveland. I like to think I would, but they definitely recidivate a lot more often and they have less family support. There's a greater, well I don't know if it's greater, just different drug use. Different drugs that they choose.

INTERVIEWER: In the inner city?

MRS. PERRY: Yes.

INTERVIEWER: Am I not covering anything of importance that you can think of?

MRS. PERRY: No, I think you're hitting them. Although, I think it's very interesting as we're talking, though, to me, there's a clear delineation, between when I'm line staff and when I'm management  and the way you have to handle things. It's just different. I don't know if I'm explaining this to you correctly, I have to look at it from different angles. Like from a line staff officer, you're always looking at the person, you know, the immediate facts of the case. Whereas, an administrator, I'm always looking at policy first instead of the person. So, that's been an interesting transition in jobs as far as that goes, because, you know, I got into the field originally to work with people and make a difference
.
INTERVIEWER: But, it can't be the person that you look at now.

MRS. PERRY: No, now I have to look at, unfortunately, resources and programming and staff and hopefully I make greater decisions, or good decisions in those policies where they will ultimately affect the probationer positively.

INTERVIEWER: Right. You can't just look at those things straight on. You have to look outside the box. That takes a skilled eye to see all the options, as opposed to wanting to solve the problem quickly or easily.

MRS. PERRY: Yeah, I thank you. It does take a skilled eye, but you don't get that overnight. That's a process. So, I can't say to you I was that skilled person, right off. We have all been through that. And I think, also, it helps that I went to get my masters and it helps that I taught criminal justice classes at a university, because it also forces you to take another look at the principles involved. It makes you take the time out to stop and consider things and get you different perspectives.

INTERVIEWER: Let me ask you about that, how did you decide you were going to teach?

MRS. PERRY: I was actually approached by the department chair, because I had met with him when I had come to Medina County early on. I can't remember why. I met with him through the course of work. I don't know exactly what drew us together. So, they had a class vacancy, and he had called me and asked me if I wanted the position. And I took it. And I did it for three years and I enjoyed it, but for me it was just too much of a commitment. I would leave home at seven in the morning and the on the days I taught, I would not get until 9:30p.m./10:00p.m at night. I was just not willing at that point in my life to sacrifice the time away from my kids and family. So, I enjoyed it.

I don't know if I would do it again. They actually called last year and asked me to come back again and I thought about it, but last year was chaotic, it was House Bill 86. I guess if I had the time and it was all I was doing I would do it again, but I'm glad I tried it and it was fulfilling while I was doing it.

INTERVIEWER: Yeah. Where was it at?

MRS. PERRY: Baldwin Wallace.

INTERVIEWER: So, it sounds like that may be an open door for you down the road?

MRS. PERRY: Possibly.

INTERVIEWER: What would you tell your children if they wanted to work in probation?

MRS. PERRY: I would tell them that it's a very interesting field. There's never a dull moment. I would definitely explore the reasons that they want to do it and hope that they're doing it because they want to make a difference. Which I think, most everybody, hopefully, comes into the field for that reason.

INTERVIEWER: I think some people don't come in for that reason, but I think they soon figure out what type of a person it takes. Like you said earlier, they end up weeding themselves out.

MRS. PERRY: That's true. That is true.

INTERVIEWER: Did you have a mentor as you have gone through your career?

MRS. PERRY: Not so much in the department, but I would say Judge Gaughan was my mentor and still is my mentor. I think she's an amazing woman.

I've shared this with you, she's taught me that if you make decisions for the right reasons, there are never the wrong decision. If you can support it and believe in it, you know, for example, she had a very contentious case. I don't know if I told you this before about the Ku Klux Klan?

INTERVIEWER: Yes, but please tell it again.

MRS. PERRY: Ok. The Ku Klux Klan were coming to march in Cleveland and they wanted to change into their gowns in the justice center. The police union filed a grievance and they wouldn't let them. They said you're not permitted and the Ku Klux Klan filed a lawsuit in federal court that they have an absolute right to change, because it's a public building in the justice center. And Judge Gaughan got that case. It was a very high media case, very contentious. Since I personally know her, she has told me that she had the police chief visit her and try to influence her decision and so it was very political and emotionally charged. And she ruled that you absolutely have to grant them the right to change in the justice center as unpalatable as it might be. So, I had actually talked to her shortly after that and I said to her, "Wow, must have been a difficult decision for you to make." And she said, "Oh, no, that wasn't difficult!" And she said, "You know Veronica, if you make the right decision and the decision you believe in, it's never the wrong decision." If you believe in it, how could it be, you know?

INTERVIEWER: She sounds like a really great woman to learn a lot from.

MRS. PERRY: She is. And I did, yeah.

INTERVIEWER: You said she came into your life unknowingly to you, by finding out about the situation you had when you were pregnant in Cleveland. How do you think that relationship got to be like it is now?

MRS. PERRY: Well, I think that we had some commonalities by being women, mothers, and both being in a man's world, even though she was a judge. I think I was more of a crusader than I realized and I think that she's crusader. I think we had that in common and I think I know I was a hard worker and she told me that although we didn't know each other she checked my reputation before she went to bat for me. So I think she's wise. I don't know. I think I've always been grateful to her. I feel indebted to her still. So, I don't know. We just made it a point, when she went to federal court, she was actually one of my recommendations for this job, my present job. So, when she went to federal court we always made it a point of staying in touch. So we probably see each other once a year or twice a year max. But the community is so tightly knit, I still always hear good things about her. I think she's just a very upstanding woman and judge. Just a side note, when she was in common pleas court -- the way they do it in Cleveland -- because there's so many judges, is -- there's thirty-four judges so, you're on a rotation to go to the arraignment room, you have one judge do arraignments only, for one week.

INTERVIEWER: Ok.

MRS.PERRY: So, with a lot of the other judges -- she had great integrity, which is where I'm going with this. So, with a lot of the other judges, attorneys who wanted appointments would all flock to the arraignment room, depending on which judge was in there.

But when she was the judge in the arraignment room, she would put a fish bowl on her bench and make them drop business cards in and she would draw a business card to give them the appointment. Well, apparently, they didn't like that very much, because when she got appointed to the federal bench and had that party in her chambers, she said to me that day, "Can you believe, that there were a couple defense attorneys," that were together -- a couple approached her, and said, "You know what Patty, it's not like we're going to miss you. You never gave us assignments anyways."

INTERVIEWER: Oh wow! That's some gull that they had to say that.

MRS. PERRY: Right. Right. So, that's why I feel like I have learned a lot from her. I think she has really  good integrity and I think she does things for the right reason. She's just very inspirational to me
.
INTERVIEWER: And very fair.

MRS. PERRY: Yeah, she's very fair -- she's very firm. They used to tease that her name was Judge Gone, Gone, Gone, G-O-N-E. Because she was firm, but she is firm and fair.

INTERVIEWER: That's great and it must be nice to have a relationship with the support she has given you, especially early on.

MRS. PERRY: Right. And I guess I should say from a female's perspective, and maybe a mother's perspective, not only is she passionate because she has a daughter, she adopted her son and on the same day that she adopted her son, she found out she was pregnant with her daughter. So, I think that is probably part of the reason that she was so empathic and so compassionate about the causes, because I think being a mother is probably most important to her.

INTERVIEWER: It hit so close to home for her. And at that time, you had talked about leaving the profession because it wasn't going to work out for you. What do you think you would be doing now if you had left?

MRS. PERRY: That is a great question, Lindsay. I don't know. Well, I will tell you, with the exception of sounding dramatic, when I was not going to go back, when I was living on maternity leave, with no pay, for the remainder of the time, it was very very financially difficult. And I remember standing at the grocery store with cookies in my hand for my older one, thinking, "Oh, my god, do we really need these? I should put these back." So, it would have definitely changed my life, our life, if I had not gone back. I don't think I would have remained a stay at home mom entirely, because quite frankly, we needed the money (A), and (B), I really always loved what I did. So, I wanted to go back. I always felt I would be a better mother if I was working. So, I'm glad it worked out that way, but I really can't tell you what I would -- I have no idea what I would have been doing. It's not like I was pining to be doing something else, so I saw it as an opportunity to do a rewind.

INTERVIEWER: It doesn't sound that way.

MRS. PERRY: Yeah, I really don't know. It would have been interesting.

INTERVIEWER: Well, you wouldn't have been here if it didn't happen the way it did.

MRS. PERRY: Yeah.

INTERVIEWER: What is something that most people might not know about you?

MRS. PERRY: Well, I'm trying to think. I was going to say, most people here probably wouldn't know that I was crusader -- not just in that story. But also, I think I mentioned earlier, being on the union negotiating team and then so I found myself always being in a position -- I was always advocating for the underdog. And I'm very defensive of my own and very protective of my own; including you guys, I think, when things happen. But I don't know if that's something people don't know? I don't know, I think I'm kind've an open book. I don't know that there is anything. We have an open door policy. You know that and we digress so many times and just talk off the cuff about things and I don't think that I'm very mysterious.

INTERVIEWER: Right. We are very open here. I have one more question. Where do think you see yourself in the next ten years?

MRS. PERRY: Well, I am eligible to retire in eight. I will probably do something else at that point, just because I think working in any field for thirty years -- I think it's been gratifying, it's been interesting, I'm very grateful I've had the opportunity, but I would like to try something different.

INTERVIEWER: Ok.

MRS. PERRY: I always felt like there is a creative side to me that I've buried and I've always thought it would be fun to see if that comes out.

So, not quite exactly what that would be, but I would be interested in doing something different --just for the sake of -- I told you I like change and for me to do something for thirty years is a long time.
INTERVIEWER: Well, in an ever changing profession though.

MRS. PERRY: Yes, that has helped.

INTERVIEWER: That is the reason I came into it as well, because I knew it would never be boring
.
MRS. PERRY: Right.

INTERVIEWER: Is there anything you can think of that you would like to add?

MRS. PERRY: I only thing I think I could add, is if you surround yourself with good people like I have, you being, absolutely one of them -- I think, not only are you more successful, but it just makes you happier in your job and I trust all of my staff and I think they are very hard-working people and I'm very proud of them.

INTERVIEWER: Thank you.

MRS. PERRY: Your welcome.

INTERVIEWER: I want to thank you for letting me interview you for this oral history. I definitely appreciate the time volunteered, your stories, and all the input you have, because it's definitely respected in my eyes and I'm sure many others.

MRS. PERRY: Well, thank you.

INTERVIEWER: Thank you again. It is now 1:34p.m.

DISCUSSION

Women working in probation and criminal justice has increased tremendously over the years. The early histories of the probation service confirm that both men and women were employed in the early years of probation, although there was a clear preponderance of male probation officers (Annison, 2009). Probation officers were mostly retired law enforcement officers and many of them were unpaid volunteers. For women probation officers their role within the developing organization was firmly located within a welfare framework, particularly in relation to the supervision of women and young offenders (Annison, 2009). It was believed that men should supervise men and women should supervise women. However, women were also permitted to deal with juvenile offenders as well. The gender balance of probation gradually changed over time, with more women probation officers being appointed through the 1980s, until in the 1990s the traditional male staffing predominance within the organization was overturned (Annison, 2009). Conveniently, Mrs. Perry was present for this transformation and was soon to be a leader in the probation community.

Over the years, women have not only become more visible in probation, but they have quickly moved into management roles. Probation officers and Correctional Treat-ment Specialists are projected to grow, at least 11 percent between 2006 and 2016 or slightly more than 1,000 staff per year, which is about as fast as other oc¬cupations (Nink, 2008). It was 1989 when Mrs. Perry began her career in probation. She indicated she decided to learn all the areas of probation and wanted to gain experience when she had the opportunity.

Those who want to be leaders have to rise above the organizational issues and find ways to gain experience that will enable them to demonstrate their leader¬ship qualities (Nink, 2008). As a line staff officer, Mrs. Perry gained additional experience in an elected position when she worked to put a better pay scale in place while on the union negotiating team. She was a part of the union for a couple years and then left when her experience rewarded her with a promotion in 1997. As a part of management, she was no longer permitted to support the union in an elected position.

One of the most significant and moving topics during the interview with Mrs. Perry was how she helped pave the way for women's rights when she worked in the Cuyahoga County Adult Probation Department. During her second year at the department, she became pregnant and quickly realized she would not be able to keep her career and pay for child care. It had come to her attention that men co-workers were taking advantage of thirty hour work weeks so they could attend law school. Mrs. Perry assumed she would be able to take advantage of the same benefit while raising her children. In contrast, she was advised during a meeting with the court administrator that she was not eligible for the reduced work week and would have to figure out another way or resign. The disadvantaged situation of mothers does not necessarily occur only in comparison to non-mothers but also, more importantly, in comparison to fathers (Biernat & Gungor, 2009). Reluctantly, she had made a decision to resign.

Prior to resigning, but while on maternity leave, Mrs. Perry received a visit from a courageous woman who ended up changing her life forever. The woman was Judge Patricia Gaughan, who at the time, worked for the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and served on the executive committee there.

Later, she was elected and is now Federal Judge Gaughan in Ohio. Judge Gaughan introduced Mrs. Perry to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., prohibits various forms of discrimination in employment, proclaiming: [I]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Trivedi, 2012). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act clearly states it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to their terms or conditions of employment based on the individual's sex. It was apparent and unethical when the men were given the opportunity for reduced hours for law school, but women were not permitted the same opportunity when they had children.

Judge Gaughan supported Mrs. Perry through an extremely difficult time and encouraged her to stand up for women's rights. Women who occupy correctional leadership roles use their ability to collaborate and inspire others to implement their initiatives as well as reflect on how they impact policy and practice (Nink, 2008). It took the collaboration of the women on the executive committee to go against the men who wanted to vote against the opportunity for women. It was an unexpected experience for Mrs. Perry, but she held her ground.

She did this in order to obtain equal treatment for men and women working in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Women pioneers working in corrections worked hard to earn a place in the profession (Nink, 2008).Consequently, Mrs. Perry was able to keep her position as a probation officer and open the door for other women who came after her. Seeing women who are very successful and who have already achieved success in the corrections workplace as role models is very important to other women entering a corrections career (Nink, 2008). Due to Judge Gaughan and Mrs. Perry achieving a tremendous victory for women's rights, Mrs. Perry has had a long and successful career in probation.

Mrs. Perry stated she originally got into the field of probation to work with people and make a difference. Her excitement to help others, motivation and her ease in dealing with change has led to great success. When Mrs. Perry began her career in probation, she indicated that there really was not any training as to how an officer should approach their offenders. At the time, officers did what they thought was best. Many adjustments to probation have occurred since Mrs. Perry was a line staff officer. After probation was highly criticized in the 1970's, it was apparent modifications were needed.

Community supervision has been criticized and sometimes viewed by the public as easy on offenders. Joan Petersilia reported that in certain community corrections jurisdictions, offenders routinely indicated that they felt probation and parole was more punitive than prison or jail (DeMichele, 2008). It is effortless for an offender to be incarcerated, but they have to put a lot of energy and ambition into working on themselves in the community.

Unfortunately, funding for community corrections programs has not kept pace with growing community corrections populations and the related increase in community corrections officer workload (DeMichele, 2008). Probation officers use the resources they have and try to keep offenders from recidivating.

One change in probation has been to focus on the officer and the offender relationship. This is one factor that has the potential to influence the outcome and recidivism of probationers. A meta-analysis of core correctional practices found that the establishment of open, warm, and enthusiastic communication styles and the development of mutual respect and liking between the offender and the criminal justice professional administering treatment is associated with lower recidivism (Delude, Mitchell, & Barber, 2012). Subsequently, the goal is also not to be lenient on the offenders either. Probation officers need to find a common ground between someone who holds authority and who the offenders feel comfortable with. Sainsbury et al. (1982) found that probationers would have welcomed greater rather than less firmness, which they interpreted as demonstrating concern (Rex, 1999). Officers should maintain an even level of power with offenders. Rex (1999) found that offenders felt more committed to stopping their criminal behavior if they were positively engaged in the relationship with their probation officer (Delude, Mitchell, & Barber, 2012). As a result, if an offender has a negative relationship with their probation officer, they could be more likely to disengage, which may lead to more crime.

Stress could result in a negative relationship between the probation officer and the offender. Inadvertently, the officer could fail to maintain a positive relationship with the offender, if they are swamped with other responsibilities.  Coupled with being inundated with paperwork, probation officers were frequently faced with tight suspense dates on reports and with extremely high caseloads, which all translated into a lack of time to get the job done (Colbert, Slate, & Wells, 2006). It is important for officers to manage their paperwork and face time with offenders appropriately. According to Colbert, Slate, & Wells, (2006) female probation officers had a greater level of physical stress than male probation officers, but internal stress, job stress, and personal stress were greater among male officers than among female officers (Colbert, Slate, & Wells, 2006). At times, probation officer's can deal with high levels of stress and they need to take of themselves in order to effectively help the offenders they supervise.

It has also become evident that the officer and offender relationship needs to have a focus. Some of the most recent academic literature on the reduction of re-offending suggests that the processes of personal change in thinking, attitudes, and perceptions of self are as important as services to meet offenders’ practical needs (Annison, Eadie, & Knight, 2008). An offender's process of personal change could positively or negatively impact their conduct while on supervision. For instance, a relatively new supervision practice encourages officers to use linguistic techniques and interaction styles common to the substance-abuse field, known as motivational interviewing, to motivate offenders to change their thinking and action patterns away from crime (DeMichele & Payne, 2012). Motivational interviewing encourages using open ended questions in order to stimulate conversation.

These four techniques (sometimes referred to by the "OARS" acronym, for Open Questions, Affirm, Reflect, and Summarize) will help an offender think about change, and help to gather better quality information so we can assist the person in planning (Clark, Walters, Gingerich, & Meltzer, 2006). An officer cannot force someone to change if they do not want to, it has to be the offender's decision. It represents a turn to moving probation departments into the "business of behavior change" (Clark, Walters, Gingerich, & Meltzer, 2006).Probation officers using motivational interviewing have had to completely shift their old interviewing techniques. It places the officer into the listener role and allows the offender the opportunity to think through their decisions and contemplations. Research strongly suggests that motivational interviewing techniques, rather than persuasion tactics, effectively enhance motivation for initiating and maintaining behavior changes (2004).

Another change and essential topic Mrs. Perry discussed was the importance and correct implementation of evidence-based practices. Identifying interventions with good research support and realigning the necessary organizational infrastructure are both fundamental to evidence-based practice (2004). It consists of restructuring the entire probation department in order to accurately utilize evidence-based practices. Evidence-based practice implies that 1) there is a definable outcome(s); 2) it is measurable; and 3) it is defined according to practical realities (recidivism, victim satisfaction, etc.) (2004). As a result, the tools and skill implementation have been tested and proven to succeed.

In relation to evidence-based practices, the implementation of risk and need assessments has been a requirement in many departments.  Risk and needs assessments classify individuals into different offender groups or types based on combinations of observed characteristics and behaviors (DeMichele & Payne, 2012). Not every offender is the same and they should not all be supervised the same. The point here is that risk and needs assessments are developed by measuring the relationship between certain individual characteristics—for example, unemployment, substance abuse, multiple violent arrests—related to recidivism to define certain types of offenders (DeMichele & Payne, 2012). Offenders can be classified as high, moderate, or low risk offenders, which indicates their likelihood to recidivate. A major impetus for the use of risk and needs assessments was the finding that lower risk individuals—those with jobs, more education, and less violent behaviors—needed less supervision (DeMichele & Payne, 2012). A low risk offender does not need as much supervision as a high risk offender and they should not be supervised as such. This is what Lucken (1997) refers to as the “piling up of sanctions,” and it has led others to recommend educating the judiciary, releasing authorities and policymakers on the impact of supervision conditions on offenders and agencies (DeMichele & Payne, 2012).  Preferably, all agencies would work together on the best practices for reducing offender recidivism.

Collaboration with all agencies in the criminal justice process does not always happen. Mrs. Perry shared that even probation departments across Ohio do not operate on the same page. Each state needs to be responsible for their own laws in which everyone needs to follow, but they should also help the disadvantaged as well.

This is the essence of the theory of State-obligated rehabilitation: the State’s demand that citizens should obey the law derives part of its moral legitimacy from the extent to which the State accepts an obligation to prevent extremes of poverty or deprivation, and to promote opportunities and resources which make crime-free living a realistic and achievable aspiration (Raynor, 2012). Some crimes occur due to the offender's inability to access resources for housing, drug and alcohol treatment, and employment. As a result, the offender reoffends, because it has always been their way of life. If offenders have had limited opportunities to lead crime-free lives or to learn how this is done, action by the State to improve these opportunities puts them on a more equal basis with other citizens rather than on a privileged basis, provided that they are prepared to reciprocate through a serious attempt at self-rehabilitation (Raynor, 2012). When an offender is prepared to change their behavior, it is crucial for the state to provide resources for them to be productive citizens. Without this help, criminals may never have a fair chance away from misdeed.

In 2011, Ohio began an effort to reconstruct the criminal justice system, starting with prisons and probation departments. It is an effort to reduce prison overcrowding and get all probation departments in the state on the same page. State leaders came together to enact comprehensive, data-driven legislation using a justice reinvestment approach(Coombs, 2011). About half of the offenders entering prison consisted of property and drug offenders who were serving short prison sentences. Most of the time, these offenders are non-violent and could be managed by community supervision. This change could lead to an extreme savings for the state. Outside the prison walls, Ohio's probation system—a patchwork of 187 independent agencies—lacked consistent policies and minimum standards (Coombs, 2011). As a result, offenders were being supervised differently, depending on which county they committed their crime. No statewide data existed, making it difficult to know how many were on probation. Research showed some programs were increasing recidivism rates because they used no criteria to filter out participants who would not benefit from the intensive programs (Coombs, 2011). It had become evident that low risk offenders did not need as much supervision as high risk offenders. The adoption of statewide risk assessment instruments means community supervision and treatment resources will be consistently targeted toward offenders who need them the most. The state will reinvest $20 million over four years to improve felony probation supervision, providing incentive funding for agencies that reduce recidivism (Coombs, 2011). Ohio has started an effort to improve its' criminal justice system and it may take some time, but it could be a fresh start.

Another suggestion to help improve the likelihood of probationer's success is to lessen the occurrence of probationers dealing with many supervising officers. Clark-Miller and Stevens (2011) indicate that offenders who are supervised by a few officers are more likely to complete probation successfully than offenders who are supervised by many officers (Clark-Miller & Stevens, 2011). When a professional and comfortable situation is disrupted, it could cause the offender to digress. Shifting from one probation officer to the next requires a renegotiation of the rules of probation—not in the technical and legal rules established in the conditions of probation documents, but in the social rules that develop between two participants involved in a relationship (Clark-Miller & Stevens, 2011). Officers do not all supervise in the same manner and an offender has to readjust when changes are made.
Research shows that the risk of probation failure declines with time served. We suggest that early disruptions in officer continuity have a greater impact on the likelihood of success than changes that occur later in the period of supervision (Clark-Miller & Stevens, 2011). Therefore, multiple officer changes are more likely to decrease offender success when the offender is a new probationer. The evidence does not relate to all cases and sometimes changes need made in the probation department due to hiring, resignations, case load changes, etc. Subsequently, it is preferred if officers can maintain supervising the same offenders, especially in the beginning of the offender's probation term.

A common theme during the interview with Mrs. Perry was how she transitioned from a subordinate to become a leader of her peers and then the leader of an entire probation department. Only leaders (rather than managers) can formulate an inspiring vision for an effective probation system, and influence and transform probation personnel from passive into active participants in building a more effective system, eventually engendering public support and positively promoting public safety (Lee, Koenigsberg, Davidson, & Beto, 2010). Mrs. Perry has succeeded in her efforts to keep all of her staff on board with new ideas and changes. She has her department working as a team in order to efficiently supervise offenders in the community. The executive's skills and abilities, his sense of mission and dedication to duty, are decisive in determining how—and how well—an organization runs” (p. 187). That is, an effective leader is one who can focus individual motivation and group involvement on organizational vision, mission, and goal (Lee, Koenigsberg, Davidson, & Beto, 2010). Mrs. Perry is honest, diligent, and charismatic which makes her staff trust her decisions and feel comfortable in following her direction.

Not only does Mrs. Perry have to ensure she guides the probation staff to follow her mission, but she also has to focus on the probation department as a whole. Also known more generically as performance measurement, results-driven management requires that managers and their organizations be able to demonstrate both what they are doing (compliance and accountability) and what they are producing (outcomes or results) (Burrell, 2005). Performance measures are a more recent addition to the expectations of probation departments. In the past, they were not expected to prove if their tactics and techniques were working to reduce recidivism. The point to be made, however, is that not all programs are grounded in policies and practices that militate towards reductions in offender recidivism – some have no effect and a few appear to abridge public safety by producing slightly higher recidivism rates (DeMichele & Paparozzi, 2008). Many probation departments receive funding from the state and if they are not meeting specific criteria, the state, in many cases, could deny the department funding in the future. Failure to adopt rational principles for producing and measuring meaningful results will keep the probation and parole profession unfocused with regard to its purpose (DeMichele & Paparozzi, 2008). If probation departments increase recidivism rates, they are doing more harm than good. Managers and staff must engage in a regular examination and discussion of outcomes and must make those reports available to those outside the agency, who can use this outcome information in determining resource allocations (Burrell, 2005).  It can be a very complicated process, especially when some departments do not have adequate technology to obtain the information. Being able to demonstrate operational efficiency or cost-effectiveness helps; but those agencies that somehow project an image of essentialness are in an enviable position when budget cuts become the order of the day (Harlow & Nelson, 1986). Probation has proven to be an asset to the criminal justice system, but each department has to show its' effectiveness separately.

CONCLUSION

The goal for probation departments, has always been, to successfully supervise offenders in the community, reduce recidivism and incarceration, and protect the public. Over time, what has changed has been the process. At one point, it was believed that locking up offenders for long periods of time would deter offenders and others from committing more crime in the future. Ultimately, locking up offenders without helping them change their behavior and attitudes only led to prison overcrowding. That theory was abandoned for the concept of rehabilitation, which implies offenders can be treated and helped to change their criminal beliefs. It does take more effort to establish programs to help the offenders, but it is worthwhile if the offenders utilize the resources. The idea is to help the offender, and in turn, protect the public and save money.

This study covered the history of probation, women in probation, changes to the field, and the responsibilities of probation officers and probation management. During the oral history with Mrs. Perry, I was able to follow her journey from a line staff officer to her current status as a chief probation officer. She overcame the hardship of being a woman in a predominately men's profession during the 1980's.

Mrs. Perry is a successful, determined, and independent woman who has prevailed over some difficult obstacles during her career. She has welcomed the changes in her life with enthusiasm and has become a role model in her field. In addition, she has been able to experience working in multiple areas of the probation department in order to effectively manage her own department. Mrs. Perry has learned to view every situation outside the box and has become skilled at looking beyond the obvious answers.

Mrs. Perry's contribution to this oral history has given an interesting perspective into the field of probation. It was fascinating to gain her point of view of probation since she has acquired a wealth of experience. She also possesses the ability to compare current day practices in probation with that of when she first began in the field over twenty years ago. The only downfall could be Mrs. Perry's inability to remember the events as they occurred. However, she is still working in the field and the events seemed to be fresh in her mind during the interview. The oral history presented here is one of personal experience and cannot be replicated.

REFERENCES

Annison, J. (2009). Delving into the probation journal: Portrayals of women probation officers and women offenders. Probation journal, 56(4), 435-450.

Annison, J., Eadie, T., & Knight, C. (2008). People first: Probation officer perspectives on probation work. The journal of community and criminal justice, 55(3), 259-271.

Biernat, M., & Gungor, G. (2009). Gender bias or motherhood disadvantage? judgments of blue collar mothers and fathers in the workplace. Sex roles, 60(3-4), 232-246.

Burrell, W. D. (2005). Trends in probation and parole in the states. American probation and parole association, 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/TPP.pdf

Clark, M. D., Walters, S., Gingerich, R., & Meltzer, M. (2006). Motivational interviewing for probation officers: Tipping the balance towards change. Federal probation, 70(1), 38-44. Retrieved from http://www.buildmotivation.com/pdfs/28 mi-2 federal probation.pdf

Clark-Miller, J., & Stevens, K. D. (2011). Effective supervision strategies: Do frequent changes of supervision officers affect probationer outcomes. Federal probation, 75(3), 11-18.

Colbert, S., Slate, R. N., & Wells, T. (2006). Gender matters: Differences in state probation officer stress. Journal of contemporary criminal justice, 22(1), 63-79.

Coombs, R. (2011). Justice reinvestment approach increase public safety, cuts millions in spending. Capital ideas, 54(6), 38-39.

Delude, B., Mitchell, D., & Barber, C. (2012). The probationer's perspective on the probation officer-probationer relationship and satisfaction with probation. Federal probation, 76(1), 35-39.

DeMichele, M. (2008). Community corrections: A powerful field. Corrections Today, 70(5), 68-72.

DeMichele, M., & Paparozzi, M. (2008). Probation and parole: Overworked, misunderstood, and underappreciated. The Howard journal of criminal justice, 47(3), 275-296.

DeMichele, M., & Payne, B. K. (2012). Measuring community corrections' officials perceptions of goals, strategies, and workload from a systems perspective: Differences between directors and nondirectors. Prison journal, 92(3), 388-410.

Harlow, N., & Nelson, E. K. (1986). Management strategies for probation in an era of limites. National institute of corrections, Retrieved from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/010347.pdf

(2004). Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: The principles of effective intervention. Crime & justice institute, 1-21. Retrieved from http://www.doc.ks.gov/community-corrections/resources/Implementing EBP in Community Corrections_ The Principles of Effective Intervention.pdf

Lee, W., Koenigsberg, M. R., Davidson, C., & Beto, D. R. (2010). A pilot survey linking personality, leadership style, and leadership success among probation directors in the u.s. Federal probation, 74(3), Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FederalCourts/PPS/Fedprob/2010-12/leadership.html

Nink, C. (2008, August). Women professionals in corrections: A growing asset. Retrieved from http://www.mtctrains.com/public/uploads/1/2010/10/WomenProfessionalsInCorrections-Aug08.pdf

Parenti, C. (2008). Lockdown america: Police and prisons in the age of crisis. London, England: Verso
.
Petersilia, J. (1998). "probation in the United States" part one. American probation and parole association , 30-41. Retrieved from http://www.appa-
net.org/eweb/Resources/PPCSW_11/docs/sp98pers30.pdf

Raynor, P. (2012). Is probation still possible?. The Howard journal of criminal justice, 51(2), 173-189.

Rex, S. (1999). Desistance from offending: Experiences of probation. The Howard journal of criminal justice, 38(4), 366-383.

Teague, M. (2011). Probation in America: Armed, private and unaffordable?. Probation journal, 58(4), 317-332.

Trivedi, R. (2012). The murky legal waters of workplace appearance codes, part two. Minority trial lawyer, 10(2), 15-20.