REPORT OF THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEEEXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING
WASHINGTON, D. C.
April 4-7, 1971
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD:
CODE OF ETHICS
With the cooperation of the Area Vice-Presidents, a copy of the new Code of Ethics has been distributed to each probation office with the request that it be appropriately displayed.
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION The committee was assigned responsibility to develop a proposal to the Social and Rehabilitation Service to have someone available to each probation office for rehabilitation assistance. The Chairman has been in contact with the Chief of Probation concerning this matter and has requested that a meeting be arranged with the appropriate official in Washington at the time of our Spring 1971 Board Meeting.
PRIORITIES The committee was to prepare a list of priorities as to what the Executive Board might do for the membership. Recommendations were to be submitted to the committee by the various Area Vice-Presidents for comparison. None were received. (The Chairman's recollection is that the discussion of this subject at New Orleans was interrupted by the entrance of Bill Woodard.)
AUTOMOBILE RENTALS The committee Chairman was to contact The Administrative Office concerning the possibility of probation officers serving large districts being permitted to fly to remote areas and then rent a car for supervision and investigation purposes. Inquiry was made of Assistant Chief of Probation, Vic Evjen, who advised that this has been done in several districts. Probation officers wishing to do so should be prepared to show why personal vehicles could not be used and that the mode of travel is "in the interest of the Government", so indicating on the travel record. Specific questions concerning travel reimbursement should be referred to Mr. Evjen.
FEDERAL PROBATION INFORMATION BROCHURE A small brochure for information and recruiting purposes is being developed by the Probation Division. The committee has been cooperating with Don Chamlee by offering editorial comment, photographs and case history examples. Bill Pilcher in the Chicago office has kindly agreed to take a series of photographs for possible use. Authorization for expenses, not to exceed $50, is requested.As to the larger, more comprehensive document on the probation service, its development has been held in abeyance pending a meeting with Dick Chappell who is working on a history. Alex Rheiner has assembled and written considerable material on this project. The meeting with Dick Chappell is to take place in conjunction with our April 1971 Board Meeting.
GOALS FOR THE FEDERAL PROBATION SERVICE The committee was to have completed a statement on Goals for the Federal Probation Service which, hopefully, the Board might be able to adopt at this meeting. A great deal of energy and effort has gone into the task, particularly on the part of committee member Ted Wisner. The reaction of the entire committee and the Executive Board to the preliminary draft was sought, and final drafting scheduled prior to the Spring 1971 Board Meeting. However, the Chairman's schedule was altered by the more important task of working with the President on a project relating to manpower. The result, I regret to say, is that the "Goals" task will require a little more time.
PROBATION VOLUNTEERS This is not an assignment or project of this committee. However, the committee calls attention to the value of using volunteers and the number of different programs that are developing. (The District of Colorado has been asked to submit a resume of the project sponsored by the probation office in that District and, if received, it will be distributed to the Board.) The FP0A should consider the desirability of monitoring the various programs, disseminating information and developing guidelines.
DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN PROBATION AND PAROLE The committee is not involved in any project relating to differential treatment, but uses this means to call the subject to the Board's attention. The need to differentiate in services to probationers and parolees has long been recognized. Classification by risk categories has been tried, and various methods are in operation on an experimental basis at this time. But a reliable means to determine individualized supervision/ treatment services must be found if probation and parole are to be administrated effectively and efficiently. The District of Oregon has developed and is entering into a plan of supervision/treatment that (1) identifies the risk category; (2) identifies supervision/treatment needs on an individual case basis; (3) sets in motion a program to supply those needs. Believing that this project will be of interest to the FPOA, a statement relative to the plan is being attached to this report. As a matter of convenience to the Chairman, it is being presented in the form of a letter recently written to Chief U.S. Probation Officer Richard Nicholson, Sacramento, California. Substantial credit must be given to U.S. Probation Officer Patrick. J. Murphy for the development and implementation of this project.
SENTENCING GUIDES Again, the committee is not engaged in anything relative to sentencing guidelines, but this report is being used as a means to bring the matter to the Board's attention.The Courts are turning more and more to the probation officers for assistance in not only determining which kind of sentence to impose, but for advice about treatment resources under the various sentencing options. The standards for probation recently adopted by the A.B.A. put this responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the presentence investigators. There is an urgent need for probation officers to not only be fully informed concerning the various sentencing alternatives but, with the swing toward community-based programs, to actively engage themselves in the development of local resources. The sentencing manual, written some years ago, is out of date and out of focus. It would be appropriate for the FPOA to develop completely new guidelines. To do so would not only be an invaluable aid to the courts but would strengthen the role of the probation officer in an area that is properly his concern. The District of Oregon, with U.S. Probation Officer Palmer Lee taking the primary initiative, is working on a sentencing chart with guidelines at the present time. However, the task is one that should ultimately have application to the entire probation service.
Walter Evans Chairman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PROBATION 0FFICE.
Mr. Richard C. Nicholson Chief U. S. Probation Officer
1014 U. S. Court HouseSacramento, Calif. 95814
Dear Nick:
For several years we have recognized the need for a probation and parole supervision/treatment program that would be tailored to fit the needs of the individual case. Too long we have been locked into a traditional process stemming from a frequency of contact concept. In looking over the literature in the field, we discovered to our horror that in this age of enlightenment there is still no definition for "supervision." Referring to the statutes, we found three general areas of responsibility assigned to probation officers, and we have designated those as follows: (1) Legal requirements, (2) Observation of conduct, (3) Supportive services. Within those categories we have listed some of the usual techniques for carrying out the probation officers' duties, leaving latitude for assignment of special types of services in unusual cases. Each case is "programmed" for supervision/treatment on the basis of information available at the time of assignment. The "program" can be modified at any time during the supervision period. The point of the whole scheme is to define what the needs are in the individual case and then supply them. For example, if few are needed, few are provided; if no contacts are necessary, there will be none; if intense surveillance is required, it will be arranged; needed supportive services are identified and provided. It seemed to us that a good base to determine "risk" categories would be essential to our plan. In looking over the various classification systems in use, we decided that the prediction method used in your district would best meet our need. Thus, we adopted your scoring table. However, in examining the content of the table, we concluded, if arbitrarily, that cultural changes that have occurred within the last few years should be taken into consideration. We therefore decided that in connection with Item B which relates to opiate usage, we should allow some discount for persons who have engaged in drug abuse. Therefore, we modified the table to the extent that no points would be allowed under Item B for persons who have been abasing themselves by theexcessive use of the so-called dangerous drugs or marihuana. Those who have only experimented would be given 4 points. Our over-all plan for defining and programming individualized supervision/treatment includes recognition that there are some cases which require few services. Accordingly, we have arbitrarily determined that those "A" cases with a score of 67 or higher will be placed in a category of monitoring by a member of the probation staff in accordance with instructions given by the probation officer. For example, cases in a very low risk category where the only elements of concern might be subsequent arrest and restitution payments do not require other types of service, and the two elements mentioned can easily be monitored. Two other requirements must be met for the "A"-monitored category, and that is that the person under supervision must be employed and not be a drug abuser. It is difficult, you will appreciate, to give a comprehensive statement in a short letter. I am enclosing some samples of the format we are using to "program" probation and parole supervision/treatment. We have no illusions about achieving any sort of panacea, but do believe we are making a significant step forward in both case management and supervision/treatment programming. Because of your early concern with case management and, also, because I value your judgment, I would appreciate receiving your comments.
Cordially yours,Walter Evans
Chief U.S. Probation Officer
Extract of Sample Scoring Form that was presented in the original document:
Characteristics:
A. Arrest free period of five or more consecutive years. Total possible points: 12
B. No history' of opiate usage. Total possible points: 9
C. Few jail commitments (none, one, or two). Total possible points: 8
D. Most recent conviction or commitment does not involve' checks, forgery or burglary. Total possible points: 7
E. No family criminal record. Total possible points: 6
F. No alcohol involvement. Total possible points: 6
G. First arrest not for auto theft. Total possible points: 5
H. Twelve months steady employment within one year prior to arraignment for the present offense. Total possible points: 6
I. Four to eleven month’s steady employment prior to arraignment for present offense (If given 6 points on Item H, add also 4 points for this item). Total possible points: 4
J. No aliases. Total possible points: 5
K. Favorable living arrangement. Total possible points: 4
L. Few prior arrests (none, one, or two).
Total possible points: 4Total Points (possible): 76
SCALE FOR POTENTIAL ADJUSTMENT
C: 0 - 42
B: 43 - 56
A: 57 – 76
REPORT OF THE ECONOMICS COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING WASHINGTON, D. C.
April 4-7, 1971
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD:
As directed by the Executive Board at the New Orleans meeting, suggested letters were sent to President Meeker regarding mileage and parking and were included in President Meeker's overall letter to Merrill Smith. In addition, a subsequent suggested letter was sent to President Meeker regarding per diem, and after Board approval this too was sent to Merrill Smith. Your Chairman has knowledge of only one reply to the above letters and that from Mr. Sweeney regarding per diem which said, in part, that "No one is being denied reimbursement of expenses if such expenses are incurred and within the statutory maximum. All we ask is that expenses be itemized in support of claims in excess of $20." The Administrative Office conducted a survey which showed that out of a total of 4,733 travel days, only 132, or 3 per cent, represented claims on an actual expense basis. This low percentage is easily understandable when one contemplates the need to obtain receipts. However, it is your Chairman's understanding after consultation and a re-reading of the memorandum of November 12, 1969, Bulletin 392 Revised, Supplement 17, that receipts are needed only for lodgings and allowable expenditures exceeding $3. Receipts are not needed to prove cost of meals, although the cost must be listed on the reimbursement voucher. It, therefore, behooves each officer to figure any travel performed on the basis of both $20 and $25 a day, and then submit the travel voucher most beneficial to himself. One thing to remember is that the rate of per diem cannot be interchanged on any one single trip. It: would appear that the matter of per diem should be further pursued at the Washington meeting. Other Government agencies are allowed $25 a day without receipts. The list is impressive; the FBI, the Employment Placement Specialists, the Defense Department, the Bureau of Prisons, the Parole Board, to name only a few.
Mr. Sweeney's own letter shows the average daily cost of lodgings in the twelve largest metropolitan districts is $18 a day compared to $14 a day in smaller cities. Can anyone eat on $2, or even $6 a day? The Board further directed your chairman to ascertain the number of officers with over twenty years of service. Your Chairman had already begun this project but is still limited to using as a source "The Qualifications of Probation Officers" as compiled by Al Wahl in 1966. As near as can be ascertained, there are approximately 43 officers who have or will have 20 years of service in 1971 and who, it is assumed, have not reached the top of the journeyman JSP grade 12-10. These are officers who were appointed during the year 1950 or before and who did not receive appropriate salary re-classifications in 1955. In addition, I find there were five officers appointed in 1952, seven in 1953, nine in 1954, and forty-one-in 1955 who should be, but probably will not be, at the top of Grade 12 after twenty-one years of service. Actually, there will be many officers who were appointed before 1964 who will not reach the top of Grade 12 within the twenty-one year period. In Pittsburgh alone I have an officer appointed in 1961 and another in 1962 who are at the same salary level as two officers appointed in 1954. There is ample legal basis for an immediate adjustment and an appropriate grade increase for such officers under Section 5336 of Title 5. Section 5336, Title 5, United States Code, provides that in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission and within the limit of available appropriations, the head of each agency is authorized to grant additional within-grade increases in recognition of high quality performance above that ordinarily found in the type of position concerned. No more than one quality increase may be granted within any period of 52 weeks. Quality increases are in addition to within-grade increases granted under Section 5335 of Title 5, United States Code, to employees whose work is of an acceptable level of competence. Actually, Executive Order 11073, issued January 2, 1963, directs each agency to establish a plan for granting quality increases to its employees and directs the Commission to issue appropriate regulations and standards to govern agency plans. Your Chairman has no knowledge of the availability of any such plan in the Probation Service. In addition to the foregoing, an investigation was conducted into the obtaining of GSA cars by not only your Chairman but also by nine officers from Los Angeles. In Pittsburgh there would appear to be two methods available called Dispatch and Assignment. In Los Angeles there is only Assignment. In general, the following is true: All arrangements for leasing GSA automobiles will have to be completed between the GSA Office in Washington and our Administrative Office. This includes a statement as to the type of car requested, the use to be made of the car, and the approximate monthly mileage. The lease period for each vehicle can be for a specified or indefinite period of time. The vehicles themselves are unmarked four-door sedans with automatic transmissions. All vehicles incorporate all current Federal safety requirements. Under assignment, the rate charge for each vehicle is a flat $40 a month plus an additional four cents a mile. This rate includes all gasoline, service, and maintenance. Gasoline credit cards are provided with each vehicle and are good at any major brand service station. Minor road repairs can be charged up to a limit of $25. In Pittsburgh, however, there is a long waiting list for assigned cars and none can be promised. The driver of each vehicle is responsible for the vehicle as provided for in the Federal Property Management regulations, Subchapter G-41CFR101. An orientation lecture concerning these regulations is given to each individual prior to his being issued a vehicle. Each driver of a Government vehicle must possess a Federal Government driver's license. Upon authorization of the Administrative Office in Washington, a valid state driver's license will satisfy this requirement, and the Federal license will be issued automatically. In Pittsburgh, however, it is understood that in addition to possession of a valid state driver's license, the driver must pass a Government examination which includes both questions and a road test.Individual users of Government vehicles must still pay for their awn parking fees and traffic tickets. In Pittsburgh under Dispatch a car may be obtained for any number of days up to 30, when renewal is necessary. The rate is $2.50 a day, plus four cents a mile. A trip ticket is maintained and sent to agency headquarters for payment after approval by the local agency using the car. Finally, your Chairman has been informed that the Administrative Office has completed its review of the proposed Judiciary Salary Plan and will make its report to the. Probation Committee prior to the committee's meeting in February, 1971. No information can be disclosed by the Administrative Office until authorization to do so is received from the Probation Committee.
Logan A. Webster, Chairman
