Minutes of the Board - 1968 - 10/09 - 10/11 (One report only)

FEDERAL PROBATION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Board Meeting - New York City, New York

October 9 to ll, 1967

REPORT OF THE LIAISON COMMITTEE - Ben S. Meeker, Chairman

1. Consolidation: So far as is known at this writing no immediate action is contemplated on Senate Bill 916 which in its present unamended form would place the Probation Service under the Department of Justice. We were recently advised that the Bill with the proposed amendment approved by the United States Judicial Conference might be up for hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. As amended, this would merely change the title of the Bureau of Prisons and authorize the creation of the Correctional Advisory Committee. This amendment, of course, had the previous approval of the Judicial Conference and the Association. How­ever, continuing contact with the staff of both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees should be maintained.

1. Action on Senate Bill 915: Proposing the creation of the Judicial Train­ing Center appears to be stalemated at the moment. The Bill was approved by the House Judiciary Committee, but is still being held up in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It appears that there has been some controversy over a recommendation of the Chairman of the sub-committee of the Senate Judi­ciary Committee studying this Bill, or as to whether the membership on the administrative board of the Training Center should be expanded. The Judi­cial Conference has indicated a preference for limiting the membership to the Judiciary, whereas proposals apparently have been submitted suggesting that the membership be expanded to include representation from the Bar or other legal membership organizations.

1. At the September 1966 meeting of the Board, the Liaison Committee noted that the staff of the Federal Probation Training Center in Chicago had been asked to assume additional responsibility for planning the Regional Inservice Training Institute. Since that time, specific guidelines have been developed and the Chicago Center has assumed a greater degree of responsibility particularly for the selection of the sites and the physical arrangements for the Institutes. In general, the guidelines now in effect provide that the Administrative Office staff will continue to initiate general suggestions for the program; will handle liaison arrangements with the Bureau of Prisons, Parole Board, Public Health Service, or other related Federal Agencies as far as securing participants for program assignments, while the Chicago Center will be responsible for putting the program toget­her; for soliciting suggestions from the field as to site locations for the institutes; and will undertake to co-ordinate and follow through on the technical arrangements for housing, special events and program details. The Center staff hopes to involve the probation officers host regions, not only in site selection, but in program generally.

1. Joint cooperation with the Bureau of Prisons and the United States Board of Parole on the long-range Community Treatment Center programs is con­tinuing at an expanded rate. During the period of September 25 thru 27, a seminar jointly sponsored by the Administrative Office and the Bureau of Prisons convened at the Chicago Training Center to which the Chief Probation Officers from the major metropolitan areas of New York City, Brooklyn, Detroit, Chicago, Kansas City, Atlanta, Los Angeles and San Francisco were invited to meet with the Pre-Release Guidance Center and Community Treatment Center Directors for the same metropolitan areas. A number of Employment Placement representatives also attended as observers.

It was apparent to those of us who attended this seminar that there was a desire to reach agreement on the basic issues involved in coordinating the work of the field probation officers in these areas with the specialized services which are becoming available through the Community Treatment Centers. Assuming passage of the Bill, now in Congress, which proposes that the Treatment Centers be made available for selected probation cases, one of the most significant problems considered by the group at the seminar was an attempt to anticipate how the field probation officers might best use the Centers for selected probationers. The need to set up some guide­lines regarding eligibility for referral of probationers to the Center was evident. It was presumed that the courts will need considerable guidance in the selection of probationers who may be placed on probation on condi­tion they enter the Treatment Centers for specialized observation or treat­ment.

Another significant area of discussion was the matter of clarifying the roles of the probation officer and the Treatment Center staff. It was evident, however, that the experience gained in the past few years with the Pre-Release Guidance Centers has demonstrated the great willingness on the part of the Probation Office staff and the Bureau of Prisons per­sonnel to avoid conflict situations by sitting down together and working out specific problems.

During the course of this seminar, some evaluation was also given to the experience probation officers have had with Employment Placement personnel. It was clearly evident from the experience reviewed that the stationing of Employment Placement personnel in the community rather than working out of correctional institutions has proven efficient and valuable. It was also evident that having the Employment Placement officer housed in the Proba­tion Office had proven efficient.

Although availability of space is sometimes a practical obstacle to station­ing the Employment Placement officer in the Probation Office, there appeared to be a consensus that the services of the Employment Placement officer would be most efficient when the officer is most accessible.

5.   Another recent development, which particularly involves the metropolitan probation offices but which is also apparently becoming more of a problem generally, is the impact of the New Narcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966. During the week of September 5 thru 8, a special training insti­tute for newly recruited Public Health Service officers assigned to this new program was convened at the Chicago Training Center. Mr. Glenn Petty, whose new title is Deputy Chief, Narcotics Addict Services Section, National Institute of Mental Health, and Richard Lindblad conducted the training program which focused attention not only on the specific provisions of the Act, but explored the whole area of developing community resources and furthering cooperative Federal-State relationships in the treatment of addicts.

On September 26, a luncheon meeting was convened by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, to which all the Federal District Court Judges, the United States Attorney, the Director of the Federal Defender's Project in this district, and the administrative staff of the Federal Probation Office were invited to attend. The purpose of this meeting was to explore further the responsibilities placed upon the courts and the office of the United States Attorney for implementation of the Narcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act. Speakers at the program were: Dr. Sherman N. Kieffer, Director, Field of Investigation, NIMH, Mr. Robert Graham, Attorney, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Mr. H. G. Moeller, Mr. Eugene N. Barkin, Mr. Merrill A. Smith and Mr. Glenn C. Petty. On the following day, the representatives of the Bureau of Prisons and the Department of Justice also discussed this Act with the participants in the joint seminar.

The implications of these meetings suggest that Federal Probation Officers will be looked to more and more for consultation on the provisions of Title II of this Act. The Department of Justice representative, Mr. Graham, agreed to prepare an addenda of guidelines for the application of the various Titles of this Act.

BSM:rg 10-5-67