Ronald P. Corbett Jr., Ed.D., is matter-of-factly looking beyond
the troubles of the Massachusetts Probation Department to restore
its former practices, when the department was nationally recognized
as an innovative leader. No stranger to the legal community or
state government, commissioner Corbett is swiftly applying his
management know-how to get the fraud-riddled department back on
track in the interest of public safety.
Corbett, a former deputy commissioner of the department in the
1990s, was named interim commissioner, to serve a two-year term, in
January. This transition involved a move from serving as executive
director of the Supreme Judicial Court -- a position he held since
1998, when he lost the bid for commissioner to John J. O'Brien,
around whom the department's recent controversy swirls. In addition
to his role with Probation, the Harvard-educated Corbett has taught
at University of Massachusetts Lowell since 1979 and is currently
an adjunct professor in the Department of Criminal Justice
there.
Corbett served as a guest speaker at the February meeting of the
MBA's Criminal Justice Section Council only weeks after being named
commissioner. Following that meeting, he sat down with MBA Director
of Media and Communications Tricia M. Oliver to provide further
insight. The following Q&A provides highlights from that
interview.
Lawyers Journal: What does it feel like
to return and now lead a department that is very different from the
time you left it?
Corbett: It's a homecoming of sorts. During my
previous 26 years at the Probation Department, I developed a strong
bond with the department and its staff. About 70 percent of the
staff are the same, so I am in familiar territory. I previously
served as deputy commissioner, so I am used to many of the
administrative issues. The difference is that, now, as
commissioner, the buck stops with me. If you are the agency head,
it falls to you to make the complex calls, the tough ones. I'm also
getting used to the new duty of acting as spokesperson.
Lawyers Journal: When you were part of
the department initially, it was heralded as a national model. What
were the components or characteristics that provided that stellar
reputation?
Corbett: There was a big push in the 1990s for
community-based supervision and participation with clergy, police
and others. Projects such as our "Operation Night Light" were
recognized nationally. Officers who were doing the work were great
innovators. We were developing a new model for many probation
departments to follow. We basically took the office-bound, 9 to 5
work schedule and blew that up. We had some success and gained some
media attention. President [William J.] Clinton made a visit in the
1990s to highlight our work as well. The lion's share of the credit
goes to the officers who stepped forward to do something
differently. I think the combination of that - superb innovative
work at the line level - and national involvement from the top
administrators, garnered the favorable reputation.
Lawyers Journal: Now poised at the helm, what
vision/mission do you have, and are holding all others to, in the
Probation Department?
Corbett: It is all driven by focusing on three
key objectives -- reducing re-offending, promoting compliance with
court orders and meeting the informational needs of the court in a
complete, reliable and timely manner.
Lawyers Journal: How do you shake the
recent culture and history of an embattled Probation
Department?
Corbett: I advise against looking backward and
suggest instead focusing on the work at hand. There is no profit in
focusing always in the rear view mirror. We want rather to bring
attention to the good that is being done. I think many people have
turned the page, as have I.
Lawyers Journal: What are your thoughts
regarding in which branch of government the Probation Department
resides?
Corbett: I strongly believe that, in
Massachusetts, it should be in the judicial branch. Beyond that,
the most important question is, "How is the agency performing?" You
can look across the nation and see success in both branches
[executive and judiciary] -- the key variance is how the department
is administered and led.
Lawyers Journal: Would the close
collaboration exist between probation officers and judges if the
department were to move to the executive branch?
Corbett: I don't think that close collaboration
is likely to survive such a move. We gain a lot by having all the
members of the courthouse team working for the same entity.
Lawyers Journal: You've said those who
are cut out to serve as probation officers should ideally have a
strong mind and big heart. Why is that combination so important in
probation?
Corbett: When I was asked at a meeting of
probation officers, "Are we supposed to be cops or social workers?
I answered with another question -- "How many of you are parents to
teenagers?" I asked those that raised their hands, "Would you say
you were a cop or social worker?" One of those that raised his hand
said, "At different times, I was both." Bingo -- the combination of
both is necessary. Probation officers need to set and enforce clear
boundaries (that is, they must be strong minded) but they also need
to promote rehabilitation and connect offenders with the services
they need to make life changes (that is, they must be big
hearted). One-handed probation doesn't work. We are not the police,
but we have a strong law enforcement responsibility. Most Americans
are willing to give offenders a break if they warrant it, but most
are not willing to give them a free ride. We purchase the moral
authority to do treatment in the currency of enforcement and strict
accountability. If we do not meet our enforcement responsibilities,
we lose credibility on the treatment piece.