History Appendix H: Assn Response to NY Times 1965

FEDERAL PROBATION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
San Francisco, California
October 4, 1965
Editor New York Times
New York City, New York

Dear Sir:
This has reference to the news item which appeared in your issue of August 24, 1965, headed as follows: "A Unified Correction System Studied by Justice Department" and your subsequent editorial of August 29, 1965 under the caption, "Patronage and Probation."
This organization is unaware of the source of the information for the news item which appeared. The Attorney General, in his speech, did not refer to the matter of patronage as a reason for reorganizing the Federal Correctional System, nor did he, in any way, imply that federal probation officers were not qualified by training and experience. It is with disappointment that we note the New York Times, with its long reputation of fairness and of getting the facts, did not bother to ascertain the actual situation before printing the story and, even worse, commenting editorially on the matter.
Since it is inferred by your article and, even more so, by your editorial that U. S. Probation officers are political appointments without adequate qualifications, you should be advised that in September 1942 the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended to the District Courts that the minimum standard for the appointment of U. S. Probation Officers be an A.B. degree from a college or university of recognized standing, plus two years of graduate study in the social sciences, or two years full-time paid experience in personnel work for the welfare of others.
In September 1961, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted mandatory minimum standards which are similar. Thus, under existing regulations the salary of a new appointee cannot be paid unless these are satisfied. Additionally, it can be pointed out  that the requirements are equal to, or higher than, most local and state probation and parole systems, including those of New York.
Thus, any inference that probation officers are not professionally qualified is an erroneous one, and has thrown an unjustified shadow on the professional reputation of the Federal Probation Officer. It is unfair to the many officers now in the service who have received an advanced degree in one of the social sciences. It is unfair to the dedicated men of the service who have been appointed without any political consideration.
 The Federal Probation Officers Association has gone on record against consolidation of the Federal Correctional Services in the Department of Justice because more than 75 percent of our work is directly for the Courts and, for this reason, should be Judicially administered. We also feel that there is a close relationship of trust and confidence between judges and Probation Officers under the existing administration and it is of the highest importance that this be continued.
We are strongly of the opinion that the agency which is responsible for prosecution should not be guiding probation recommendations under our system of criminal justice.
The Times has a long record of presenting all the facts and we sincerely hope that you will take the necessary means to correct the erroneous impression which has been given about the qualifications of Federal Probation Officers. That these officers are career employees is evidenced by the fact that only about twenty vacancies occur annually. One of the traditions of the Federal Probation Service is to work closely with the United States Board of Parole and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
In closing, we are pleased with the attention being focused on crime and corrections by the President's committee and pledge cooperation, in every way possible, in attaining the broad objectives which the President has outlined for the Committee’s consideration.
Yours very truly,
ALBERT WAHL
President