THE meaning OF this survey study was to examine customers' attitudes toward the services provided by means of the United States Pretrial Services Office for the District of Nebraska.

THE meaning OF this survey study was to examine customers' attitudes toward the services provided by means of the United States Pretrial Services Office for the District of Nebraska. This office was established as a separate agency from the U Probation Office in July 1992 Its primary mission is to "preserve the presumption of innocence, while ensuring the protection of the community" (Connor, 2000) The services provided by dint of U.S. Pretrial Services are diverse and its mission is to attend multiple customers, including judges, U Marshals, United States and defense attorneys, U Probation, alcohol and medicine treatment staff, and defendants. Although the agency has existed for eight years, this was the first time clients' satisfaction and quality of services were formally assessed.

An extensive review of the literature indicated that assessment of client satisfaction with U Pretrial Services agencies had either not been formally convoyed or not been published. This research contributes to the existing literature according to addressing that deficiency. It is unique for several reasons. First, it provides a archetype for formal survey assessment of quality of services and client satisfaction that does not commonly exist. second, it assesses multiple clients' attitudes toward the services provided by means of U.S. Pretrial Services. Seven separate contemplates were developed to assess the protoplasts of services provided to each client cluster Third, an independent research consultant was used to administer the measure and estimates and analyze the results. To make secure respondent anonymity, U.S. Pretrial Services staff did not have access to the raw data.

This close attention should benefit not only to the U Pretrial Services Office in the District of Nebraska however other agencies interested in assessing quality of services and client satisfaction. In addition, the Federal Judicial Center may use the findings of this studious mood to target training needs within the U Courts.

Methods

The research means used to conduct this research was a cross-sectional, descriptive review Survey methodology was particularly appropriate for this contemplation because of its focus onward assessing clients' attitudes about the services provided on the U.S. Pretrial Services office. It provided an opportunity for clients to assess the quality of U Pretrial Services anonymously.

The sample for this reflection was seven customer groups serv through the Lincoln and Omaha U Pretrial Services offices, including referees defense attorneys, U.S. attorneys, U marshals, U probation officers, physic and alcohol treatment center staff, and past and now passing defendants. Multiple sampling strategies were used to identify potential respondent Census sampling was used to choose judges, U.S. attorneys, U.S. marshals, and U probation officers. All individuals in these clusters were surveyed because of the small number in each of these four client assemblages Since the population of defense attorneys was larger, they were fix uponed using systematic random sampling to such a degree the number of participants equaled the number of prosecuting attorneys. Treatment staff were single outed purposefully, by identifying staff members who regularly worked with U Pretrial Services staff and could chiefly accurately assess the services provided on the U.S. Pretrial Services office. The sampling frames used for these six client assemblages were current rosters maintained according to the U.S. Pretrial Services office. Defendants were gooded using systematic random sampling from a list of individuals who had worked with U Pretrial Services staff in the last three years. The sampling frame used to identify defendants was the PACTS database classification (Probation Pretrial Services Automated case Tracking System) The original sample size for all seven client clumps was 254; however, due to the difficulty in obtaining existing addresses for defendants, 44 take a view ofs were returned "undeliverable." This reduc the total sample size to 210 Of those 210 125 usable scans were returned for a 595 percent replication rate. Table 1 identifies the number of scrutinizes mailed and responses by client group

Seven separate inspects were designed to rate the services provided by the agency of the U.S. Pretrial Services office specific to each client collection The survey items were designed by way of U.S. Pretrial Services staff, with the assistance of an independent research consultant. The inspects had between 18 and 28 items. views for all seven client assemblages had five common demographic questions. There were also nine universal items on all seven client dispose surveys. Surveys for each of the seven client assemblages were specifically tailored to assess the protoplasts of services provided to each assign places to The surveys had between four and fourteen items specific to each client group

The greatest in number common response set on the views was a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, earnestly disagree). In some cases, respondent were asked to rate the quality of services using a different scale (excellent proper average, below average, poor) or assess a "report card" grade for the services provided at the U.S. Pretrial Services office (A-F).