History 1980 to 1986

CHAPTER IX

1980-1986: STRENGTH, WEAKNESS AND HOPE

Collectively, and as individuals, our own worst enemy is complaisance or the belief that constructive changes cannot be made in our bureaucratic non-system. FPOA has proven time and time again that the 'system' will be responsive to officer needs through timely, persistent, constructive and loyal opposition.
Robert L. Thomas, January, 1985

The strength of the Federal Probation Officers Association has been characterized, at least in part, by its persistence to its goals and ideals. Its weakness has always been a withdrawal of membership from active participation. Its hope is in the future and the capacity to endure and continue to be a meaningful organization. All three facets, strength, weakness and hope, are highlighted in the six years which complete this thirty year history.
While persistence in its beliefs was demonstrated by the Association throughout the eleven years of debate concerning pretrial services, i.e., from 1971 to 1982, there was another issue which had its origin in 1951 and was not resolved until a period of three times eleven years had passed. That was the matter of securing protection for probation officers, and more recently, pretrial services officers, under a statute which would make it a federal offense to assault or kill an officer. The Probation Division, as early as 1951, sought to obtain this protection from the Congress. The issue was also one of the earliest considered by the very first Executive Board meeting in Lexington, Kentucky in 1955. It was a matter pursued by every Executive Board since that time. That protection finally came in 1984, not by a fortuitous or beneficent act of Congress, but rather by a strong commitment of the FPOA and its members who made an enormous effort in this period of its history.

Legislation To Secure Protection

Within the first eighteen months of receipt of its charter, the New York-New Jersey Tri-District Chapter of the Association decided to make a federal protection statute one of its main goals. In February 1980 the chapter developed a definition of law enforcement officer which would include probation and pretrial service officers, and submitted it to the House Judiciary Committee under Robert F. Drinan (D-MA) that was considering revision of the United States Code. The first draft of the new code omitted federal probation officers from protection by statute. However, many members of the chapter wrote to the committee with the new definition, with the result that probation officers were, thereafter, included in the recodification by name.
The recodification bill did not pass that year, however, and thus, the Association was required to monitor each new year's legislation in order to determine if probation officer protection was included. In 1983, newly-elected FPOA President Ralph Ardito, wrote: "The Executive Board defined as its highest legislative priority the bill sponsored by Congressman [Edgar L.] Jenkins (HR812) that would amend Title 18, USC, Section 1114 to include U. S. Probation Officers as law enforcement officers." The effort to follow would not be in vain.
On March 23, 1983 William A Cohan, Chief of the Probation Division, wrote to President Ardito:

I write in support of efforts by the Federal Probation Officers Association to secure amendment to Title 18, USC, Section 1114. An issue that has been of serious concern to the Judicial Conference and the entire judiciary is the passage of legislation which would amend Title 18, making it a Federal offense to kill or assault a United States Probation Officer. At Judicial Conference meetings dating back to September 1951, the Conference has approved or reaffirmed approval of legislation that would afford protection to Federal Probation Officers.
The hazards faced by these officers have been highlighted by the shooting of three probation officers while in the performance of their official duties - one in Memphis in May 1973, one in the District of Columbia in June 1974, and the third, a fatal shooting on the steps of the Federal Courthouse in Laredo, Texas, in December 1978...."

HR812 was referred in the Spring of 1983 to Congressman Conyers' Subcommittee on Criminal Justice. FPOA Legislative Committee Chairman John Aman was chosen to draft a position paper on protection. Probation Division Programs Specialist Bill Hall meticulously reviewed six years of hazardous incidents that were reported. Later, Association members held meetings with aides of Congressman Jenkins (D-GA) and Congressman Hamilton Fish (R-NY), a co-sponsor. All FPOA members were called upon to write their Congressman in support of the legislation.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, S779 was introduced on June 15, 1983. It, too, would provide protection to federal probation officers. The Association met with legislators on the bill and on October 17, 1983 it passed the full Senate. The next step toward passage required that the Senate bill be referred to conference, and it was initially sent to the House Judiciary Committee. On December 5, 1983 President Ardito (DC), together with Chief Probation Officer John Costley (NJ), and U. S. Probation officers Joseph Napurano and Donald Inamorato, each of the Tri-District Chapter, met with Congressman Peter W. Rodino (D-NJ) regarding S779 which had been referred to the House. In the following month, on January 18, 1984, President Ardito, Assistant Chief of the Probation Division Donald Chamlee and Probation Division Programs Specialist Lorene Lake met with the staff of Congressman Conyers of the House Subcommittee on Crime. President Ardito also met with the Chiefs' Management Council to assure a coordination of efforts on securing protection.
On March 28, 1984 President Ardito testified before Representative John Conyers' subcommittee and in September, the subcommittee passed unanimously a bill providing protection to probation and pretrial services officers. Because of the unanimity of the Senate and House, the protection clause was added to the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. And, thus, in that year, 1984, with the passage of the Crime Control Act, protection was ultimately attained, fully 33 years since it was first sought.[i] Although the Association kept it a priority throughout the years, it was not obtained without the cooperative efforts and support of the Probation Division and the Judicial Conference. It will remain a symbol in history of what such cooperative and persistent activity can attain.

Accreditation and the Development of Standardized Practices

During this period in the Association's history the FPOA move toward standardized practices among the various districts preceded the consideration for accreditation but was, in turn, spurred on by it. In May 1980, for example, the FPOA volunteered to assist the Administrative Office in the development of procedural guidelines, especially the guidelines for Quality Step Increases. Several months later, draft guidelines were published in the Association's newsletter with a request for comments. The draft was also sent to the Probation Division for their own comments. In May 1981, Robert Garcia, Chairman of the Professional Standards Committee, submitted the finalized guidelines to the Board. Although the Probation Division reviewed them, the Division felt that they could not be distributed to the various district offices. The Division was of the opinion that each court should establish Quality Step Increase guidelines unique to their own court. However, the FPOA offered the guidelines to any office which requested them. 
The next step toward standardized practices occurred on June 17, 1982 with a visit by FPOA President Robert Ault and Association Secretary Ralph Ardito to the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections in Rockville, Maryland. Meeting with the Commission's Executive Director, Robert H. Fasen, the Association expressed the need for clearly defined and uniform standards throughout the district probation offices. Fasen agreed to discuss accreditation with the full board at its fall meeting.   (By this time the Bureau of Prisons had one half of it facilities accredited. One problem with accreditation in the probation system, however, was financing. The Division would have to approve and allocate funds in an amount which would not be insignificant).
At the time of the fall 1982 Board meeting, Robert Fasen addressed the group. Thereafter, Richard L. Martinez, then Chairman of the Professional Standards Committee, formed a National Committee on Standardized Practices and Accreditation. The committee would look into a number of areas which were subject to local differences including officer training, Quality Step Increase criteria, presentence disclosure, mid-level management training and promotions, specialized investigation and supervision units, specialized service units and adverse personnel actions. The committee was composed of the following members:
Richard Martinez, Chairman, NM
Robert Bryant, Vice-Chairman, MO/W
Larry Cowper, CT
Marvin R. Harrell, NC/M
Peter Haun, UT
Lewis Frazier, MO/W
James D. Sager, IL/S
Robert Ault, Committeeman-At-Large, VA/E
During the spring of 1983 the Ad Hoc Committee informed the Chief of the Probation Division, the Chiefs' Management Council and the Chairman of the Probation Committee of the Judicial Conference of its intent to pursue accreditation (Judge Tjoflat warmly replied, "As you know, the Probation Committee is interested in improving the professional standards for the Federal Probation System. To that end, we welcome the interest of the FPOA in uniform standards and practices...."). By November 1983 all committee members received a packet of material from the Committee on Accreditation containing their requirements. A preliminary questionnaire was developed and later sent to all Chief Probation Officers in the spring of 1984.
Although accreditation was not pursued after 1984, standardized practices were.[ii] By August 1984 seventy-five percent of the Chief Probation Officers surveyed earlier in the year had responded, identifying several major areas for standardization including standards on:
1.  Caseload audits
2.  Grievances and adverse actions
3.  Personnel selection and evaluation
4.  Search and seizure
5.  Quality training for clerical staff
On August 13, 1984 several members of the National Committee on Standardized Practices met in Kansas City, Missouri. They decided that they would prepare position papers on the most requested standards (the Committee had available to it, by this time, the results of the questionnaire distributed to Chiefs and the results of the same questionnaire which was directed to all members of the Association earlier in the year). The topics on which the committee commenced work were numerous and included caseload audits, grievance and adverse actions, probation searches, training for clerical staff, victim and victim impact, disclosure of presentence reports, collateral requests and responses and personnel selection and evaluation.
The work on standardization continues and, when complete, it is anticipated that a manual will be published.

Further Constitutional Revision

The Constitution of the Association was revised one more time in the period covered by this history. In 1980 Edgar Mallory and Robert Thomas were assigned the task of revision. One provision called for the removal of the Chiefs' Council representative based upon the creation of the Chief's Management Council, and the other created the function of Executive Secretary. It was believed at this time (1980) that such a function as Executive Secretary could provide the organization with a permanent address, replace the Newsletter editor, plan and direct a membership promotion program, bill and collect dues and maintain official minutes. At first, it was felt that a retired probation officer could fill such a position but it was later decided to use an established organization. Initially, there was some fear that such an organization might become a lobbying arm; conversely, some others hoped that it might. As it was proposed, however, lobbying was not permitted.
The proposed revisions were distributed to the field at the time of national elections in the winter of 1980 and were approved. After negotiations with potential offerors, The Administrators of Phoenix, Arizona was selected as the Executive Secretary effective March 1, 1981. In practice, the concept was not feasible, however, and on March 20, 1982, The Administrators resigned. Since then membership promotion and dues collection reverted back to the Treasurer's position in the Association and a new Newsletter editor was again selected.

The Judicial Salary Plan, Probation Officer Assistants and Probation Clerks

The Association's work in the revision of the Judicial Salary Plan was discussed in Chapter VI. However, that effort continued into the period of history with which we are dealing. In February 1980 the grade of JSP 13 for line officers and narcotics aftercare specialist was favorably recommended by the Probation and Personnel Divisions to the Judicial Conference. A proposal was also submitted to upgrade chiefs. Not only was this necessary in itself, but it was also necessary to relieve the "compression factor" described earlier. On June 2, 1980 that "factor" was lifted and chief probation officers and certain secretaries were reclassified upward. On June 10, 1980 the JSP 13 position was submitted to the Judicial Conference Subcommittee on Personnel for review.
With the assistance of William Cohan of the Probation Division, James Macklin and Darryl Schenck of the Administrative Office and members of the Judicial Conference, the JSP 13 position was accepted in September 1980.[iii] By May 1981 350 JSP 13 positions were requested in the 1982 Probation Division budget. At this same time, Probation Division Chief William Cohan asked the FPOA for position descriptions on "team leader" and “officer-in-charge". Unfortunately, despite the support of the Judiciary, the House Appropriations Committee denied funding in August 1981. However, in the fall of 1982, 185 of the 350 positions requested received the necessary funding.
As work progressed on the JSP 13 position, the Association was also involved in the status of Probation Officer Assistants. In November 1981 a survey of POA's was undertaken in order to determine their current job qualifications and career expectations. Some in the field felt that the POA position was being misused - instead of a career position for indigenous personnel who could relate to disadvantaged clients, it was believed that positions were being filled by overqualified individuals for future promotion to U. S. Probation Officer. The survey results of 20 POA's seemed to reflect the latter position:
Education
College work, up to Bachelor's Degree              17
High school graduate or less                                 3
                                                                         20
Expectations
Probation Officer                                               15
Remain POA                                                       2
Other                                                                  3
    20
It was the position of the FPOA that the original intent of the POA position should remain intact but that there should be a career ladder to follow. As late as April 1984 Glenn Johnson of the Personnel Division suggested that the FPOA rewrite the current position description of Probation Officer Assistant for review again by the Personnel Division.
At the Spring Executive Board meeting in 1985 POA Carol Freburger of the Southern District of Florida presented a draft position description for POA'S. It reflected a career ladder within the position and was not designed to lead to probation officer. Gil Montoya (NM), Chair of the Professional Standards Committee, was designated to work with Carol Freburger on a final version of the POA position description which would then be submitted to the Personnel Division of the Administrative Office.
Just as officers wished to have an additional grade and POA's sought an avenue for career advancement, so, too, did the clerical staff of probation offices seek an upgrade. Initially, the clerical staff, through Judy Gardner, Chief Clerk, Gulfport, Mississippi, sought to affiliate closer to the FPOA. On October 8, 1981 Gardner, as head of the Clerical Association Organizational Committee, sought an amendment to the FPOA constitution which would allow secretaries to become full active members. Ralph Ardito was designated to chair a committee to study the issue. (Gardner had previously communicated with the Chief of the Probation Division on May 31, 1981and outlined the need for a clerical association, pointing out that there had been an evolution from general clerical work to much more complex tasks. She added that a forum was needed for communication between districts, and that an association would engender a feeling of identity nationwide as well as enhance self-esteem and consequently foster more valuable contributions; finally, she noted that an association would be able to promote a system of upward mobility.) Gardner, in addition to seeking active membership, also asked for the creation of regional first-vice-presidents filled by secretaries, eligibility for all national officers and a change in name of the Association to the Federal Probation Personnel Association, Inc.
There was some concern as to a change in name for the Association. There were also some second thoughts about guaranteeing six seats on the Executive Board, with a potential for four more. This would amount to a possible 10 votes of a total of 16. If all probation officers (1600) were members of the Association, as well as all of the clerical staff (800), in theory, one-third of the membership could control two-thirds. The field was surveyed in the spring of 1982. The results indicated that a majority of members were opposed to active membership for the clerical staff under those conditions and more than eighty percent did not want a change in name.
In the late fall of 1982 the clerks themselves were surveyed and it was discovered that fully 77% wanted their own professional association. At the fall Executive Board meeting of that same year, financial assistance to the Clerks' Council was discussed as was possible affiliation with the FPOA. The matter was again discussed at the spring 1983 Board meeting and it was decided that the Association would await the development of a constitution, bylaws, charters and non-profit status before providing funding.
Meanwhile, clerical upgrading was still a paramount concern to the FPOA. In October 1982 the Executive Board called upon the Probation Division to consider upgrading the clerical staff inasmuch as the staffs of the Clerks of the Court were already upgraded. Several months later, in March 1983, the FPOA offered to assist the Chiefs' Management Council in rewriting and updating the clerical positions. By November 1983, the Chiefs' Management Council had forwarded position descriptions to the Division of Personnel. The next step would be field-testing of clerical upgrades in ten offices in five regions.
In August 1985, a survey reflected that a 17% turnover rate existed among the clerical staff. Of this amount, 29% of probation clerks were transferring to other agencies within the Court. Clerical upgrading was not resolved as this history ends but it continued to be pursued.

Weakness and Hope

It was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter that the major weakness of the Federal Probation Officers Association was in the withdrawal of membership from active participation. Given all that has been described up to this point, a decreasing membership seems to be an anachronism. But that is a reality with which the Association must deal. Since 1975, and more so since 1980, the percent of probation officers joining the Association, relative to the total possible number, has decreased substantially. It has begun to turn upward after 1983 but the upswing is almost imperceptible. Perhaps it is time for efforts such as Kennith Beighle and Robert Thomas had initiated in the past to bring the percentages back up.
In terms of hope, perhaps the single-most symbol has been in the creation of the "Federal Probation Officers Association Scholarship". Conceived in 1981, it was ultimately developed in 1985. It serves as a sign of trust in the future of the criminal justice system, in general, and in federal probation, in particular. It is both a symbol and a concrete gesture of the FPOA's investment in that future.
According to the Association:

The purpose of the scholarship program is the promotion of professional and educational development through financial support to students with intellectual ability and professional maturity who manifest a commitment to the field of probation, parole and/or criminal justice.
Eligibility requirements include that the recipient be at least a college junior who has a parent or grandparent who is an active or honorary member of the FPOA. The applicant must be currently enrolled in a college or university and have a personal commitment to criminal justice. The amount of the award is $500 annually.[iv]

Another award which was created and presented during this period was the President's Award. Its purpose is to recognize the contributions made on behalf of Federal Probation and Pretrial Services Officers by an individual outside of the field of Federal Probation. The first recipient of this award, in 1984, was Deborah K. Owen, General Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and previously the Minority Counsel to the House Subcommittee on Crime. Deborah Owen was particularly helpful in the passage of the protection statute and during the pretrial debate. Ralph Ardito stated, at the presentation of the award,
We will always recognize Ms. Owen as a professional dedicated to the Congress that she serves and the field of Criminal Justice.

The Important 'Other' Works

It is difficult to touch upon everything which has been attempted and accomplished by the Federal Probation Officers Association in a brief history. The work of some will draw attention but the efforts of many will not be recorded. As this history ends, it seems even more urgent to note the work that has been done during this period - and work which continues to the present. We can only mention these things briefly.
Certainly, one of the most important developments in recent history has been the presentation of the Federal Probation Officers Association's First Regional Training Conference held in Hollywood, Florida between October 14, 1986 and October 17, 1986. The Conference Committee was chaired by National Secretary Rory McMahon (FL/S). Entitled "Corrections In The Community - A New Wave," it brought 250 professionals together including 100 federal probation officers and 150 state, county and local officers to hear and participate with nationally recognized leaders in the field of criminal justice.
Earlier, in 1980 the New York-New Jersey TriDistrict Chapter hit upon the idea of lapel pins to identify members and popularize the Association. A national treasury advance of $459.54 in that year has brought in some profit but even more attention. In another context, Certificates of Appreciation were created to recognize those individuals who have assisted the Association over the years and have been awarded since 1981. A national safety training program has been advocated by the Association and has been developed by the Federal Judicial Center as part of its curriculum.
 
The Association has developed a public relations program with guidelines for national and district action. It is concerned with retirement issues and issues of the retired. It has responded to a direct request from the United States Sentencing Commission for information and guidance through the presentation of position papers on April 15, 1986 and December 7, 1986 through Susan 1. Smith, (VA/E) Chair of the Legislative Committee and Rory J. McMahon, Secretary, respectively. It remains affiliated with the American Probation and Parole Association and has sponsored numerous national workshops. It supports hazardous duty retirement. It communicates with the Probation Division, the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, the Judicial Conference, the Federal Judicial Center, the Parole Commission and the Bureau of Prisons. It continues to represent its members and will do so for as long as it exists.

---

[i] On September 22, 1986 U. S. Probation Officer Thomas E. Gahl (Indianapolis, Indiana) was killed in the line of duty while making a home visit. A trust fund was established for his children toward which the FPOA and numerous individuals have contributed.

[ii] In February 1984, the Chiefs' Management Council determined that there was no evident benefit from accreditation at that time and the matter was tabled both for them and for the Association.

[iii] It is important to add that position descriptions for JSP 13 had been worked on by various FFOA members since 1976 including Morris Kuznesof (NY/S), Paul Chandler (CA/N), Robert Thomas (AZ) and Chuck Mandsager (SD).

[iv] The first recipient of the award, announced in 1986, was P. Douglas Mathis, son of Perry Mathis, Chief Probation Officer, Kansas City, Missouri.