FEDERAL PROBATION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Executive Board Meeting - Spring 1971
April 4 through 8, 1971
Washington, D. C.
The Spring Meeting of the Executive Board of Federal Probation Officers Association commenced at 2 p.m. on April 4, 1971, in the Palm Room at Hotel Continental, Washington, D. C. Present were President Ben S. Meeker; Vice-President Walter Evans; Secretary-Treasurer Bertha J. Payak; and Regional Vice-Presidents Logan A. Webster of the Northeast Area, Henry P. Long of the Mid-Atlantic Area, Ezra Nash of the Southeast Area, Lloyd E. Hubler of the Great Lakes Area, Kennith O. Beighle of the Central States Area, and J. Eldon Mincks of the Western Area. Also present was Brayton B. Crist, former Secretary-Treasurer, who was in attendance until the afternoon of April 7. Vernon A. Heitman, Editor of the Newsletter, was unable to attend the meeting because of the pressure of his official duties.
Before proceeding with the order of business, President Meeker extended an official welcome to the two new members of the Executive Board, Mr. Mincks and Miss Payak, and conveyed the Board's pleasure and appreciation for Mr. Crist's presence.
Since copies .of the minutes of the October 1970 Board meeting had been distributed to all members, reading was bypassed. However, Mr. Webster had submitted a correction about the operational costs of an automobile in his Economics Committee report and recommended the substitution of a new paragraph at the bottom of Page 2 of the preliminary draft. Upon motion of Mr. Evans, the minutes as amended were approved. Discussion of the minutes afforded the Secretary-Treasurer the opportunity to inform the Executive Board of the excellent work performed by Mr. Crist and John F. Rimelis in preparing the archive files. To maintain their excellence, the filing of original copies, particularly the Committee reports, was suggested and recommended by President Meeker.
The Treasurer reported that receipts for the period, January 1 to March 31, 1971, totaled $5,203.93 with expenditures of $662.48 for a balance of $4,541.45 in the checking account. Adding the balance of $5,943.75 in the savings account results in a net worth of $10,485.20. A question posed by Mr. Long about the savings account in the Franklin Savings and Loan Association in San Francisco revealed that it pays a favorable interest rate, so the Board had previously determined to continue utilizing that bank. As there were no further questions, the Treasurer's Report was accepted and filed on the motion of Mr. Hubler.
The Secretary-Treasurer requested and the Board authorized payment of, the, legal retainer fee of $1.00 to Richard A. Chappell and payment of ten subscriptions to the Civil Service Newsletter. Although there was some discussion about granting the Chairman of the Legislative Committee the privilege of changing subscriptions to any comparable publication, it was the consensus of the Board, that the Civil Service Newsletter was the most comprehensive and pertinent source of information. President Meeker's contribution of a $30 memorial gift in the memory of Mrs. Walter E. Hoffman in the name of the Board was called to the attention of the Board, and on a private basis, each member shared in the gift.
The remaining business item regarding financial matters was the acknowledgement of gifts to FPOA by the persons mentioned in the Treasurer's Report. With approval of the Board, the Secretary was directed to extend its appreciation with a personal letter.
Before discussing official correspondence, Mr. Meeker distributed the roster of the Judicial Conference and members of the respective committees. He verbalized hope that the chairman of the Committee on Administration of the Probation System, Honorable Francis L. Van Dusen, is cognizant of the needs of the probation service. Although that committee's review of the Judicial Salary proposal has not been made public, it was Mr. Webster’s opinion that Judge Van Dusen might be receptive to the new plan. To substantiate his appraisal, he informed the Board that Judge Van Dusen had made a special point of attending the ceremony presenting the Doyle Award to Eugene DiCerbo. When the composition of the committees on Supporting Personnel and Budget was enumerated, it developed that membership on these committees includes judges who have personal acquaintance with President Meeker and other Board members, so having support for FPOA’s functioning is encouraging.
With the assistance of several Chief Probation Officers, including Board members Evans and Webster, President Meeker had directed a letter to Rowland F. Kirks, Director of the Administrative Office, calling attention to the chronic manpower shortage in the Probation System and detailing all the duties added to the service since 1942. As an indirect means of securing his support also, a copy of this communication was sent to Judge Van Dusen when he was congratulated upon his appointment as Chairman of the Probation Committee. On March 26, 1971, congratulatory letters were also sent by President Meeker to other members of the Probation Committee soliciting personnel expansion.
Correspondence shared with the Board included: Henry P. Chandler's acceptance of the Board's invitation to luncheon on April 6; Richard A. Chappell's acknowledgement of congratulations as recipient of the Roscoe Pound award; George A. Gilpin’s appreciation for the Associate life Membership; the transmittal of the Certificate of Appreciation to James Elmo Turner to whom a greeting card will be secured by Mr. Hubler and sent from the Board; and the letter from Victor P. Tyne of the New York City office who explained his boycott of FPOA membership as the result of the Administrative Office's failure to implement specialized services. In his reply to Mr. Tyne, Mr. Meeker advised that the problem may have resulted from the definition of the term “program” utilized by Merrill Smith and called attention to the fact that the Judiciary is not authorized to operate the programs he believes pertinent. The letter prompted a discussion on some “maverick” tactics other officers from that office have utilized, many of which may result simply from lack of information about the functioning of the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office.
Reviewing the agenda of the meeting, President Meeker reported that the meeting with Richard Velde, Associate Administrator of LEAA, had been rescheduled to 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 7. He explained that the meeting with Director Kirks was rescheduled to the afternoon of April 8 because Mr. Kirks will not return to Washington until 10:30 a.m. that day. Although Director Kirks has been informed of the functioning of FPOA through correspondence from President Meeker, the members concurred that personal acquaintance with him is of vital .importance. Therefore, meeting with him as an entire Board without making any particular demands warranted the extension of the Spring Meeting an extra day. If, however, he is not available on April 8, a delegate group, including President Meeker, Mr. Webster, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Hubler, could meet with him on April 9.
President Meeker next shared two areas of concern: the site of the October meeting and the succession of officers of FPOA, particularly the offices of President and Vice-President in view of the complexity of problems with which the Board concerns itself. In regard to the former, Mr. Crist and others suggested the advisability of scheduling the meeting to coincide date-wise and locale-wise with the meeting of FPOA Alumni scheduled from October 7 to October 10 at Las Vegas. Although not eliminating the States of Washington and Oregon, from which two Board members travel, it was tentatively agreed to schedule the fall meeting in Denver, Colorado, from October 3 through October 6, 1971. However, the Secretary-Treasurer was directed to furnish a comparison of costs before the final choice between Denver or Seattle is made.
The possibility of “going through the chairs” for the office of President prompted considerable discussion about the functioning of the Nominating Committee, which the Constitution directs is comprised of the Regional Vice-Presidents. The membership misconception that FPOA is a "closed corporation" was verbalized, as well as the consequences of one of the Vice-Presidents, in fact, nominating himself for the elevated position of President. Mr. Evans attributed some of the discontent about the Executive Board's composition to lack of communication with the membership, some of whom do not appreciate that "union tactics” are not feasible to insure continuity in the services performed by FPOA. So that there may be communication with the membership prior to election, an administrative decision directs that the President will appoint the Chairman of the Nominating Committee a year in advance, or at the fall meeting. Hopefully, the Committee would give consideration to having the nominee for the presidential position be either a member of the present Executive Board or a former member in order to guarantee the continuity of FPOA's objectives and programs.
President Meeker then reported on the proposal of former Secretary-Treasurer Crist to separate the position of Secretary-Treasurer and expand the Executive Board to include both a recording and corresponding .secretary. It was his suggestion that the Editor of the Newsletter could be designated Corresponding Secretary to enjoy all the privileges of Board membership other than voting. In reality, Mr. Crist’s proposal would only increase by one the officers privileged to attend Board meetings. If adopted, however, the proposal would require Constitutional amendments.
The discussion which followed revealed that several members had never been furnished with copies of the Constitution, which has not been updated since perhaps 1962. The Board determined that the Constitution should be revised and/or rewritten to include all the amendments passed since its original adoption, so the Legislative Committee was directed to implement the proposals of Mr. Crist for action at the Fall meeting. Mr. Evans suggested the advisability of introducing some flexibility as far as the regional structure is concerned since future training groupings may possibly not be set along conference region lines. A circuit basis rather than the present six geographical areas could be adopted. It is not possible to predict what the Federal Judicial Center may do with respect to training as the Education Director's position is vacant at this time. For the membership's information, the 'Newsletter should mention that the FPOA Constitution will be brought up to date and that each member will be furnished a copy.
Before the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m., Vice-President Mincks extended a compliment to former member, Marshall McKinney, whose assistance will be sought in the Constitutional revision, for the duty guidelines he has prepared for newly-elected Board members.
MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1971
Before committee reports commenced with the 8:30 a.m. session on April 5, the Board agreed that the luncheon for Mr. and Mrs. Chandler on April 6 be held at the Hotel Continental where a large table could be requested.
Presenting the report of the Economics Committee, Chairman Logan A. Webster advised that letters had been sent to the Division of Probation regarding mileage, parking, and per diem. The only response was that of Assistant Director, William R. Sweeney, who stated that the Judiciary has the option of claiming a per diem allowance of $20 or actual expenses not to exceed $25. However, claims in excess of $20 must be substantiated with the itemization of expenses. According to an A.O. survey, Mr. Sweeney reported that only three per cent of the travel days represented claims on an actual expense basis. The Committee, therefore, recommended calculation of travel expenses by both methods and utilization of the rate most beneficial but concluded that a standard allowance of $25 per day should be pursued.
The Committee's special assignment of determining the number of probation officers with over twenty years of experience revealed that 43 officers who will have reached this period of longevity in 1971 have not as yet reached JSP grade 12-10. Appointed in 1950 or before, these officers did not receive appropriate salary reclassifications in 1955. Concluding that there will be many officers appointed prior to 1964 who will not reach the top Grade 12 within the 21-year period, an adjustment for longevity is justified and could be resolved with utilization of the provisions of Section 5336, Title 5, of the United States Code. This provides for within-grade increases for high-quality performance, the implementation of which Executive Order 11073 issued January 2, 1963, directed.
If, of course, favorable consideration has been given to FPOA's proposal to approve the grade of JSP-13 for senior officers, no problem is encountered. If this classification is not approved, the Board determined that implementation of the quality within-grade increases to senior officers could be its strategy. The plan could provide for the Chief Judges of the 43 involved probation officers to write to the Administrative Office to grant within-grade increases in recognition of high-quality performance. Should this plan become a reality, Chairman Webster will make personal contact with the probation officers and their Chiefs to explain the provisions of Section 5336 and the procedure recommended by FPOA as appropriate compensation for longevity.
Utilization of GSA cars was also explored by the Committee because of the request of several Los Angeles officers, and the prevailing procedures detailed in the written report. Mr. Webster related the experience of a probation officer who had rented a car and who was paid after an
A.O. challenge and his voucher marked “Paid from existing funds.” Although travel is to be -performed in personally-owned vehicles, reimbursement is made when other means is “of benefit to the Government” to save time, per diem expenses, or because of urgency. This is the situation when large geographical distances are involved such as in Oregon where Mr. Evans said he has traveled by plane and rented a car upon reaching-his destination. According to Mr. Meeker, polling at the Training Center reveals it is a small but vocal group of officers which is pursuing the availability of GSA cars. Appreciating the problems which have been encountered by officers in the metropolitan areas, the Board believed that nothing should be initiated to jeopardize the prevailing practice of using privately-owned cars, particularly since the issue of parking is being pursued. However, it was agreed that Mr. Smith can be requested if a contract might be secured with GSA for specific offices where this type of arrangement might be practical, provided it would not jeopardize present practice.
After a motion by Mr. Evans, the Board accepted the report of the Economics Committee for filing.
In his presentation of the Legislative Committee Report, Chairman Henry Long summarized the status of pending legislation which would be of interest to the Board and concluded his report with information that Chief of Probation Smith had appeared before the Committee on Appropriations the latter part of February, at which time he requested funds for 60 additional probation officers based upon the responses received from the Chief Judges. This stimulated further discussion on personnel needs requested from the Chief Judges on December 7, 1970. President Meeker related his experience that the request had not been given his Chief Judge’s attention and that the Clerk of Courts did not know of the new procedure. To assist the Chief Judges in their projections, particularly pending the appointment of Court Administrators, he suggested the advisability of Mr. Kirks’ sending a copy of his letter requesting the projected personnel requests to the division heads involved; the Board concurred that this suggestion should be conveyed to the Administrative Office.
Of most significance in the Mikva Bill is the provision for the establishment of a Federal institution for the training of federal, state, and local probation officers. Pending the functioning of Judge William Campbell's committee on long-range training and the appointment of an Educational Director at the Judicial Center, the Board concluded that the training provision of the Mikva Bill should be supported and a further report be submitted in October.
Mr. Long presented the provisions of the F.B.I.'s liberalized retirement plan which would permit retirement after 20 years of service regardless of age, compute annuities at 2.5 per cent of three-year high salary for the first 20 years and 3 per cent for each additional year, and provide a $50,000 lump-sum payment to survivors of officers who lose their lives in line of duty~ Should this legislation be passed by Congress, the Board, may-wish to initiate action even though probation officers are included in the hazardous provisions by the Civil Service Commission. Therefore, the Committee was requested to report on the developments at the next meeting. Congressman Poff's final draft of the revision of the Federal Criminal Code is not expected for five years. It is Mr. Long's opinion that the American Bar Association's study, "Standards Relating to Probation," will be utilized as a guideline in the revision of Title 18. In this regard; President Meeker advised that he had been selected to serve on 'the Council of ABA's section on Criminal Law. When requested to serve as Chairman of the American Correctional Association's Ad Hoc Committee on Probation, Mr. Meeker suggested Merrill A. Smith as alternate; it is his understanding that Mr. Smith accepted.
To resolve the question of appeal rights of probation officers, Section 3656 of Title 18, was cited. It states that a court may remove a probation officer at its discretion. Since the Committee determined that appeal procedure has not been an issue with the Judicial Conference, it was suggested that perhaps Legal Counsel Carl H. Imlay might be asked about a "politic” approach on appeals.
A motion by Mr. Webster resulted in the acceptance and filing of the Legislative Committee report.
Before adjourning the morning session, the Board considered the items which might be discussed with personnel of the Administrative Office and noted the following: personnel for 1972, the Probation Committee's reaction to the alternate JSP proposal, expansion of the A.O. staff, the general area of travel, the F. B. I. IS retirement bi11, and a progress report on the Poff committee. Mr. Sweeney could be asked about the 1973 budget provisions for per diem and the "feedback" on the JSP proposals.
Upon meeting with the Chief of Probation at 1:30 p.m., Merrill A. Smith conveyed Judge Van Dusen's regret for not acknowledging Mr. Meeker's letter, advised that the meeting with the Board of Parole has been rescheduled to the Main Justice Building, 10th and Constitution, in the Andretta Room, and conveyed Mr. Kirks' regret for cancelling his scheduled appointment with the Board on April 7.
He reported that the mileage rate is still under study by the Business Administration Division which is sympathetic to an increase. Although the actions of the Judicial Conference cannot be released until after the next conference meets, Mr. Smith was given authority to advise the Board that the Probation Committee scrutinized the proposals of the Judicial Salary Plan and determined that the following changes might be accomplished within the framework of JSP when funds are available: reclassification for certain clerical positions where organizational units exist in the office; and increase in grade for those probation officers who are in charge of branch offices and who are supervising three or more other probation officers. The Committee was firm in its decision that no sweeping changes in the present JSP should go forth, as this would "open up the bag for other court personnel,” but agreed that changes which may effected within its present framework should be considered first.
Deputy Director Sweeney reported that the results of personnel requests will not be known until May but advised unofficially that the personnel increases will be granted. In regard to increase of mileage to 12 cents, the A.O. is sympathetic "if we can raise it without an uproar" and willing to request-such an increase if it determines that future appropriations will permit such increase to be continued. He conceded that Internal Revenue's utilization of the 12-cent figure was a good argument for the increase.
The increase to the $25 per day per diem was not favorably received, as some agencies still function on the $16 daily figure. He explained that furniture requests are handled by G.S.A. on a regional basis and forwarded to the Central Office. Normal furniture requests should pose no problem, so the A.O. should be contacted if one does arise. This year, however, because of the judicial appointments, G.S.A. is approximately $200,000 short.
While conceding that the poor response by the Chief Judges on projected personnel needs may be due in part to the newness of the procedure, Mr. Sweeney expressed concern because the judiciary apparently was not aware of the three to five-year predictions of the Department of Justice. Consulting the Appendix to United States Government Budget Request, he quoted the following figures: In 1969, 36,800 criminal cases were filed and 39,800 filed in 1970, but the 1971 estimate is 44,872 and 54,500 in 1972; in 1969, 135,600 criminal complaints were filed but the estimate for 1972 is 221,000; and in 1972 it is estimated that prosecution will be declined in 97,000 cases compared with the current figure of 89,000. Personnel-wise, the Department of Justice estimates an increase from 3,221 positions in 1970 to 4,769 in 1972. Since these projections will increase the workload of the Judiciary, the Chief Judges should project their personnel needs on a comparable basis.
To answer the question about the supplemental Justice budget, Mr. Sweeney explained that this was successful because of the enforcement of security measures for the judiciary, for buildings, etc. In regard to parking facilities, he did not believe that judicial requests dictated G.S.A. policy but rather that G.S.A. was autocratic in its determination of spaces allotted. Offering his assistance to FPOA, Mr. Sweeney was most cordial in his reception to the Board.
When the Board next met with Carl H. Imlay, he advised that his department maintains a small legislative service to report on the status of any pending legislation, elaborating that he is still much concerned about getting a probation officer protection bill passed. When the Dangerous Drug legislation becomes effective May 1, Mr. Imlay anticipates a problem in defining the term "prosecution” for those cases which" have already been initiated. Much work is being done, he reported, on the Criminal Justice Act to formulate the Federal Public Defender System or the Community Defender organization. Under the first system, the defender is a government officer, staffed and maintained on federal premises with the same salary as a U. S. Attorney. To qualify for this system, there must be 200 court-appointed attorneys in a given year. Another matter of interest to the legal Department is decreasing the size of civil juries to six, already provided for in five districts.
After summarizing the duties of the magistrates, Mr. Imlay stated that an attempt to "downgrade” penalties to permit trial by the magistrates has not been successful. Although a defendant can now elect to have a trial by the Court even in misdemeanor cases, it is Mr. Imlay's judgment that the magistrates should try all petty cases. To date the magistrates have been most useful in screening habeas corpus applications and working on prisoner mail. It is his feeling also that assistance should be rendered prisoners at the institutions in preparation of one "good, clean petition," elaborating that pre-printed forms have been developed.
William E. Foley, Deputy Director, with whom the Board met at 2:30 p.m., commented on the difficulty experienced in having Chief Judges submit projected personnel needs by May 1 and concurred with President Meeker that this situation might be facilitated if copies of the original request would be sent to other court personnel involved: the referees, the clerks, magistrates, and Chief Probation Officers. Hopefully this year’s requests from the Court will be comparable to the A.O.’s calculations based upon criminal filings, possible convictions, defendants placed on probation, etc. Advising that there are pending two additional staff positions in the Division of Probation since more supervisory personnel is needed, Mr. Foley feels that Congress is “beefing up the A.D. on a gradual basis.”
He extended his and Director Kirks' interest in the probation service and concluded that perhaps one of the "main jobs" of Court Administration should be the task of personnel projections.
Meeting with Chief of Probation: The remainder of the afternoon session was devoted to discussing with Mr. Smith the proposals adopted and submitted by the Executive Board after its October meeting. In regard to the recommendation that management institutes at the Judicial Center be extended for one day to permit the discussion of administrative problems, Mr. Smith stated that this time will be allotted in the future. In regard to having the Judicial Center authorize attendance of at least two field officers from each of the area regions to attend educational institutes, the Center has agreed to pay for attendance at the NICD Institute annually but will be concerned with the area that is being served by the meeting. One officer from each office in reasonably close proximity will be authorized to attend; from a large office, two officers may be given authorization. However, the Center, with whom Donald L. Chamlee will be working, will have jurisdiction over the selection, as it should be officers who may be scheduled for up-grading and supervisory positions. Assuring the members that there would be “balance” in the selection, the same attendance arrangement would prevail for the A.C.A. meeting in Miami.
Mr. Smith digressed at this point advising that he had accepted the chairmanship of that association's Ad Hoc Committee on Probation which had met in Colorado Springs in February. He advised that the Committee is working toward "getting probation built into ACA," and will co-sponsor one of the sessions at the August meeting.
Recommendation No.3 resulted in the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Probation Training by the Judicial Center. Honorable William Campbell was designated as chairman with President Meeker serving on the committee. Until the scope of this committee's functioning is determined, it was Mr. Smith's suggestion that further action on this recommendation be deferred.
In regard to the recommendation that an hourly session, preferably from 8:30 to 9:30 a.m., be incorporated in future Regional In-Service Training Institutes, Mr. Smith reminded the Board that the area FPOA meetings are not a part of training programs, and that allotting such time would subject the Administrative Office to criticism. He, however, approved that regional business could be scheduled from 8:30 to 9:00 a.m. prior to the regular training program.
Mr. Smith doubted the wisdom, of a joint meeting between SRS, the Bureau of Prisons, and the Probation Service as a follow-up of the Federal Offenders Rehabilitation Project, but agreed to schedule a meeting with James Jacks, coordinator of Research, Social and Rehabilitative' Service. Implementation of the findings and recommendations of the project would be dependent upon the policies set forth by the various states.
Proposal No.6 recommended a top-level joint conference on the NARA program. Because the Division of Probation is involved with the seminars for the newly-appointed judges and sentencing institutes, nothing has been done about a conference. However, Mr. Smith stated that a better relationship exists with the three divisions of correctional services than ever before, as each division is apprized of a situation as it develops. The Bureau of Prisons is convening various seminars at institutions which have incorporated the NARA program and have invited probation personnel. He mentioned at this point the ABA volunteer support program for parole where young attorneys are appointed parole officers on a state level to bolster manpower.
In regard to the proposal to increase the number of position descriptions for secretaries and clerks, Mr. Smith explained that reducing from twelve to six the number of metropolitan areas with the implementation of the Judicial Salary Plan was a discretionary matter. There is no discretion in the plan, however, to change the classifications of JSP 4 and 5 to 5 and 6. He reiterated what he had mentioned previously that by utilizing the broader spectrum of “supervisory,” a higher grade for clerical positions where organizational units exist in medium or large offices would be considered. Advising that there is no provision for quality promotions, he stated that there is no provision for placing a Chief Probation Officer above Grade 15. Preferring not to comment further about salaries, he called attention to the fact that promotions are automatic, that an officer advances from JSP-9 to the op of JSP-12 in 18 years, and that JSP-13 is reserved for supervisory positions.
Calling attention to the survey by the Civil Service Commission which reported that probation office personnel was properly graded and “over graded,” he conceded that the salaries of the clerical positions in the probation service is a “real problem.”
Discussing the proposal for the Division of Probation to furnish guidelines for the preparation of presentence reports to meet the test of full disclosure, Mr. Smith stated that procedures could not be formulated because of the discretionary inclusion of the judges. This means that procedures would need to be developed by the respective courts. He deemed the proposal in (b) for a survey of' the districts where disclosure is practiced to be "unworkable,” and suggested that when disclosure is practice, the Probation Officer should convey this information when requesting a presentence investigation of another district. The proposal in (e) that the Judicial Conference on Rules of Practice and Procedure incorporate “such reports may be made part of the record, but shall be sealed and opened only on order of the court” in the proposed rule change of Rule 32 (c) was presented to the Probation Committee on February 5, approved, and referred to the Secretary of the Rules Committee.
Since the matter of mileage increase had previously been discussed, Mr. Smith commented no further but continued with Proposal 10, funds for clients, and 11, emergency welfare funds. As the Probation Service is under the Judicial Branch and the proposal is requesting the power of an Executive agency, his answer was “no chance." The best avenue for funds is the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. Hopefully, there will be encouragement from SRS to get funds made available to be used as the result of the FOR" project.
Mr. Smith concluded that there is no need for a judicial study in an effort to standardize procedures for the direct admission of offenders to institutions because of the legal resistance which may develop. Direct admission is already being accomplished in some areas as probation officers, judges, marshals, and U. S. Attorneys have developed communication so that this procedure "is not shot down in legal technicality.”
To answer specific questions, Mr. Smith advised that nothing definite can be reported about the number of increased personnel. To implement the supervision guidelines of the Parole Board, he believed that between 300 and 400 additional officers would be needed. As he would have no way of determining the reaction of the Business Administrative Division, it was his suggestion that the issue of GSA vehicles be posed specifically.
The meeting with Mr. Smith was terminated at 5:05 p.m.
TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1971
The meeting convened at 8:30 a.m. so that areas of discussion with the Bureau of Prisons and the Board of Parole could be formulated: certification of county and state facilities for commitments on the Judges' recommendations, the alternatives to the CTC for probationers, the current policy regarding furloughs and work release, expansion of aftercare facilities, justification for the coded material incorporated with the study cases, the advisability of direct communication with the Board of Parole if specific information has not been shared with the institution, the Board's policy regarding preliminary hearings, etc.
Meeting at Bureau of Prisons: The 10:00 a.m. meeting with Norman A. Carlson, Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and his staff was held at the HOLC Building. To enhance the atmosphere of cordiality extended, coffee and rolls were served during the informal group meeting. After introducing the staff members present which included Gerald M. Farkas, Executive Assistant to the Director; Richard J. Heaney, Deputy Director; Mark S. Richmond, Assistant Director of the Community Services Division; Joseph B. Bogan, Assistant Director of the Institutional Services Division; David C. Jelinek, Assistant Director from the Administrative Services Division;
Dr. Garland S. Wollard, Deputy Associate Commissioner for Education; Dr. Harry W. Weller, Deputy Medical Director; and Eugene Barkin, Legal Counsel, Mr. Carlson discussed the current status of the Bureau's operations.
Institutional population totals approximately 21,000. An upward trend is indicated because there are now 4,000 defendants awaiting trial and due to the expansion of criminal responsibility as the result of recently-enacted legislation. All institutions, accordingly, have reached capacity population or have surpassed it. However, relief is anticipated in the acquisition of the Fort Worth Hospital which will be transformed into a Federal Correctional Institution with a capacity of 400. Population components will be the narcotic-treatment cases, NARA II and others, earmarked at 200, 100 geriatric cases which require out-patient medical care, and 100 male and female psychiatric cases. This facility will also be available for diagnostic studies. The relatively-new warehouse facility at the Florence, Arizona, site will be activated into a temporary prison camp for the Mexican immigration offender. This facility, which can accommodate a maximum of 180, will have no program. Also, since the juvenile commitments to Morgantown have decreased to 187, effective June 1, 1971, it will become a co-educational facility with the transfer of Y.C.A. cases from Alderson.
In terms of long-range goals, the Bureau has requested a 50 per cent increase in funds and an increase of 685 in personne1: 400 correctiona1 counselor positions and 200 professional positions.
Construction of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City is scheduled for this fall. In addition to providing detention and diagnostic facilities and housing the Community Treatment Center, it will provide office space for the Department of Justice. The Chicago Community Correctional Center is a joint venture with General Services Administration, so the plans stipulate a federal garage at this downtown location with the Community Treatment Center to be housed on the top floors. The Behavioral Research Center at Butner, North Carolina, will provide diagnostic and treatment services for the emotionally disturbed will include two living units for research activities on specific offenders, such as the- narcotic offenders or the particularly assaultive, in an effort to develop typologies, and provide facilities for training of the Bureau1s professional staff. Target date for this project is 1974. Long-range plans also include the construction of Metropolitan Correctional Centers at San Diego, Houston, El Paso, San Francisco and Philadelphia.
Mr. Richmond reported that the initial experience of utilizing the Community Treatment Centers for probationers, presently totaling 15, has been satisfactory. Until a better assessment can be made, the Bureau would prefer not to authorize the use of contract agencies. He also advised that the Bureau has initiated a plan to eliminate specialty areas with the utilization of geographical areas, thus combining the services of supervision of Community Treatment Centers, jail inspection, EPO positions, etc. The geographical separation is the same as that of LEAA, and at the present time the Associate Warden at Seagoville provides all the community services for that area.
Mr. Heaney advised that to relieve the female overpopulation, in which there has been the greatest increase, the Bureau has women housed in state institutions in Oregon, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Washington. Although the transfer to Morgantown and Fort Worth will help alleviate this population problem, the Bureau is desirous of knowing of other state institutions which might be utilized. He believed that the Bureau's most significant development is the new Training Center at El Reno.
According to Mr. Jelinek, the Training Center at El Reno is the first of five such centers, one being planned at Atlanta in 1971. While the Center does not subordinate institutional-level training, it will focus on training of new Bureau employees, conduct in-service training, become involved in new programs and new techniques, and hopefully will become a two-way exchange with the Probation System. An important aspect of the training program will be the philosophy of corrections for both the correctional counselors and the professional staff.
The Center is also involved in automatic data processing for a criminal information system. It is projected that within 15 months, the computer terminal will be linked with the Department of Justice.
Mr. Barkin reported that his department, which is scheduled for expansion, is handling law suits regarding conditions of confinement, determining whether procedural aspects of confinement involve due process, working on the revision of the Federal Code, etc. He advised that the Attorney General has appointed a nine-man task force to study the treatment of mental deficients which could result in a commitment to H.E.W. on a verdict of Not Guilty by reason of insanity. As the Judicial Conference has endorsed the committee's recommendations, they may be equally applicable to those on probation.
Mr. Bogan informed the Board that institutional population of women and the older offender has increased more than the youth commitments. While the number of Dyer Act commitments is decreasing, bank robberies constituted 20 per cent of all commitments, the greatest increase according to offense.
Dr. Wollard merely mentioned the "Crossroads Projects" in Washington, and Dr. Weller commented on the expansion of psychological and psychiatric services and stated that the Bureau is also expanding treatment for those narcotic offenders who are not sentenced under NARA II.
Mr. Farkas stated that there is pending a proposal that the aftercare programs could be utilized in non-NARA cases. Reporting on NARA II’s progress, he advised that 70 per cent of those released to the community are still under supervision and have been “out” from six to seven months.
Answering specific questions, Mr. Carlson advised that every effort will be made to provide information about Mandatory Release cases in advance of release and that the coded portion of study cases will be eliminated. Earlier in the meeting he had displayed the Bureau1s new clothing issue for institutional staff: sport coat and a blazer and no cap, which have been well-received. He called attention to special emphasis in the training programs to teach the proper attitude about employment. Advising the Board that reactivation of the Inter-Agency Conference has the Bureau's approval, the meeting was concluded with his agreeing to have "Monday Morning Highlights" placed on the mailing list of the Probation Service.
Meeting with Board of Parole: George J. Reed, Chairman of the U. S. Board of Parole who presided at the meeting which convened at 2:30 p.m. in the Main Justice Building extended an official welcome and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to talk about mutual problems. Noting that Walter Dunbar is no longer a member of the Board, Mr. Reed introduced the following Board members: Dr. William E. Amos, Gerald E. Murch, William T. Woodard, Jr., William F. Howland, Jr., Mrs. Paula A. Tennant, and Curtis C. Crawford. Also presented were James Neagles, Staff Director; Joseph A. Barry, Legal Counsel; James R. Pace, Parole Executive; and his Senior Analyst, James W. Jones; Claude S. Nock, Jr., Youth Division Executive; and his department’s Senior Analyst, Robert Wiggins; and Hearing Examiners, Joseph Doneghy, Bernard Wrenn, Dennis R. Skeens, Steve D. Johnson, Arnold J. Vodvarka, Gerald Rudolph, and Robert J. Alex. Representing the Division of Probation at this meeting was Donald L. Chamlee.
Mr. Reed reported on two new Board publications: “Rules of the U. S. Board of Parole-1971,” which he believed had al ready been mailed to the probation offices; and “You and the Parole Board,” the booklet furnished to newly-admitted inmates.
The Guidelines for Parole Supervision distributed in January which had been formulated by representatives of the A.O., the Probation Offices, and the Parole Board, was discussed by Mr. Neagles. After noting the objectives, he mentioned the seven factors (attitude, residence, education, employment, community services, avocational/leisure, interests and activities, and special conditions) which should be incorporated in a release plan. After the initial interview, each parolee is to be placed in an initial supervision category, if the Board has not already specified such, and the date for the first review determined by his supervisor. Supervision contacts include the four types of personal contact, collateral contact, group contact, and the monthly report.
Criteria for determining the type of supervision category are the type of offense, prior record, and social and personal factors. Maximum supervision would be required for crimes of violence, organized crime offenses, and for crimes with high violation rates; where there is an extensive or serious criminal history; and where any of the ten social and personal factors are applicable. The criteria for minimum supervision would be the offenses involving liquor violations, selective service violations, or white-collar violations, the absence of extensive or serious criminality or physical violence, and over-all stability and maturity. A minimum of three personal contacts per month and the report were recommended for the maximum category; one personal contact and a report each month for medium supervision; and one personal contact and a supervision report per quarter would signify minimum supervision.
Because of the present lack of manpower, no effective date has been set to implement these guidelines. Surmising that such guidelines may also be utilized for the supervision of probation cases, he suggested an educational program for judges to program for this type of supervision.
Since a request had been made that Chief Probation Officers advise the Chief Judges that their personal projections should provide for the implementation of the recommended supervision, Mr. Woodard asked about the judges' responses. Three responses revealed that a 50 per cent increase was indicated. Mr. Chamlee advised that the responses received to date are for increases of from 35 to 40 per cent.
Mr. Evans verbalized his belief that the supervision contact approach was incorrect, since he believes that a client's needs and not contacts should be the determinants for supervision services. Mr. Meeker evaluated the Parole guidelines as a progressive tool.
Dr. Amos reported on the LEAA research project, "Parole Decision Making," being conducted by N.C.C.D. at Davis, California, for three years with a grant of $500,000. Initiated because Parole Board members desired a scientific tool for decision making, an objective method which would withstand research and scrutiny, the project has been in progress a year. N.C.C.D. Staff are now in the process of coding materials from three samples: a 10 per cent sample from fiscal 1967-68; a 10 per cent sample from 1965-66, which consists of about 500 each on a random basis; and all the decisions that had been made in September of 1970, which approximate 800. These will be correlated with the uniform parole statistics at Davis, about 83,000 cases from the 50 states, and coded for 27 elements, such as a job at release time, relationship between age, training, and skill, etc.
Commenting that Parole Boards have been reluctant to utilize tools or techniques which might intrude on their judgments, Dr. Amos and Board members believe that the results of the research will be valuable as it will result in a set of standards.
Dr. Amos continued that an Advisory Committee has been established, consisting of three persons with experience in parole and three persons who have professional respect in the research field, to present the findings of the project to the 50 State Parole Boards for utilization. At the present time, there are 18 observing states.
Coding for one sample has been completed and the second figures almost completed, so some base expectancy scores are anticipated soon. Mr. Howland commented on the interest and cooperation of J. Edgar Hoover in this project. At this point, Mr. Reed invited inspection of the data collection and distribution center for criminal information, advising that the terminal is in. Upon completion, criminal information should be available in 45 seconds.
Legal Counsel Barry discussed the amendments to the Criminal Justice Act, effective February 11, 1971, giving specific attention to the provision that alleged parole and mandatory release violators may request the appointment of counsel to represent them at their revocation hearings.
The appointment of counsel by the District Judges for this purpose is discretionary, however, and may be made only “if the interests of justice require it” and if the alleged violator is financially unable to obtain counsel. The Probation Service has already been furnished with guidelines for the Courts when CJA Form 22 is filed. The Board's criteria is that a Court would not appoint counsel if an alleged violator has been convicted or admits a violation of supervision conditions.
It was his recommendation that Probation Officers execute CJA Form 22 first at the preliminary interview and reminded the officers that Parole Form F-2 must be completed in each case. He also suggested that if an alleged violator admits violating or has been convicted and chooses not to be represented by counsel that this information be incorporated in correspondence with the Board, as this can then be construed as the basis for denying the services of counsel if this representation is requested at the institutional revocation hearing. Mr. Barry concluded with the Board's criteria for a local revocation hearing: No local hearing will be held if an alleged violator admits violations of the conditions of supervision or if he has been convicted.
Discussing the general functioning of the Board, Mrs. Tennant and Mr. Crawford, newly-appointed Board members, made brief comments.
Mr. Reed noted that Board members spend about one-third of their time in the field and that the Examiners spend about two-thirds of their time in the field. The functioning of the analysts assigned to the Parole Executive, Mr. Jones, and to the Youth Division Executive,
Mr. Wiggins, was discussed. It was suggested that emergency requests, particularly warrant requests, might be more expeditiously handled if direct contact were made with these-two gentlemen.
This meeting was concluded at 4:20 p.m. in anticipation of the Social Hour scheduled at 5:30 p.m. at the Hotel Continental.
(Continued in Part 2)
