History Appendix I: Memo to Field Opposing Consolidation with Justice Department

San Francisco, California
October 29, 1965
TO: CHIEF U.S. PROBATION OFFICERS AND
        U.S. PROBATION OFFICERS IN CHARGE:
Enclosed herewith is material which is being provided you in connection with the proposed consolidation of the federal correctional services in the Department of Justice. We are sending you herewith the original position paper prepared in June 1965; a copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors at Kansas City, Missouri on September 29, 1965 and a copy of a letter which was sent to the Editor of the New York Times, in response to the story and editorial which appeared in connection with the proposed consolidation, Also enclosed is a copy of the story which appeared in the Kansas City Times on Wednesday, September 29, 1965, this latter being forwarded as a suggestion for your use in local newspapers if and when legislation should be introduced, and the revised copy of the Professional Standards of the Association.
The purpose of this material is so that each office will have the same information and we can make a consistent approach in opposing any proposed legislation which calls for consolidation in the Department of Justice. I am enclosing for your information a copy of the original article which appeared in the Times on August 24, 1965.
After the article appeared in the Times I wrote to the Attorney General of the United States and asked that he investigate the source of the information and do whatever was necessary to correct the erroneous impression which it created. While I heard from a confidential source that the Attorney General was going to reply to me, this letter has not, as yet, been received. However, he did indicate to my informant that the Times' reporter dug this information out from a source in the Department of Justice and that the material was not the subject of an official release. While we have our own suspicions of the source, without verification I am not going to name names.
This same informant advised me that the Attorney General indicated that no legislation would be introduced until after the recess. For your information, none was introduced prior to the recess. However, in January 1966, when Congress reassembles, it is possible that proposed legislation, which Mr. Katzenbach referred to in his speech before the American Congress of Corrections in Boston, will be presented to one of the appropriate committees. Since the Congressmen and Senators are now at home, I feel there is a possibility that you or members of your staff may have personal acquaintance with your local representatives in Congress. If the opportunity presents itself I certainly believe you should discuss this proposal and express your opposition. While the Association, itself, will concentrate on the respective Judiciary Committees, since it is believed this is where the matter will be presented, I can see no harm in providing background information to any member of Congress at this time. Your Court may be able to provide valuable assistance in this regard.
I think you will be interested in the following statistics:
In 1940 under the Department of Justice direction, the average caseload of a Federal probation officer was 148 and presentence investigations were performed in 41.8% of the cases. Probation was used in 35% of the cases. Twenty-four years later, under Judiciary administration, the caseload had been reduced to 74, the percentage of presentence investigations of convicted offenders had risen to 85% and probation use had risen to 50% of the cases.  In 1940, 233 officers supervised 34,562 persons, while in 1964, 522 officers supervised 39,600 persons.
Another item which I am sure will be of interest is that probationers during the fiscal year 1965 reported earnings of seventy-three and one-half million dollars, or an average of $3,373 per probationer. Add this contribution to the economy of our country and to the fact that imprisonment costs, roughly, ten times the amount of probation supervision. Then take into consideration the fact that the person on probation is spared the degrading experience and stigma of abnormal prison environment and to allowed to live normally in a free community with his family and friends and the fact that his family is not dependent on welfare, the benefits of probation are obvious.
Finally, it is interesting to note that nearly 5,000 persons were employed by the Bureau of Prisons in 1964 and the total average Federal prison population in that year was 23,661. The Federal Probation Service, in the same year consisted of 522 officers and 387 clerk/stenographers or a total of 909 with responsibility for 39,600 probationers, parolees and M.R.'s.
Many of you have expressed concern about the proposed consolidation and your Association has taken a strong stand against this proposal. Now, it is incumbent on you to give us all the support you can at a local level in support of this opposition.
I am sorry that I must resort to the mimeograph for this communication, but obviously, I cannot write each of you individually, much as I would like to.
Sincerely
      ALBERT WAHL
            President
      ENCLOSURES