oversight

Probation and Parole Activities Need to Be Better Managed

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-10-21.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                           DCCUMENT; FESUME
 03768 -   B2994242]
 Probation and Parole Activities Need to Be Better Managed.
 GGD-77-55; B-133223. October 21, ;977. 45 pp. + 4 appendices
                                                              (28
 pp.).
 Report to the Congress; by Elmer B. Staats, Ccptroller
                                                          General.
 Issue Area: Law Enforcement and Crime Prevention: Treating
     Criminal Offenders (503).
 Contact: GeneLal Government Div.
 Budget Functicn: Law Enforcement and Justice: Pederal Judicial
     Activities (752).
 Organization Concerned: Administrative Conference of the
                                                           United
     States; Department of Justice; Parole Commission.
 Congressional Relevance: House Committee on the Judiciary;
     Senate Committee on the Judiciary; Congress.
           Probation and parole were designed tc protect the
 community by reducing the incidence cf criminal acts by
 previously convicted persons. As of June 30, 1976, about
 offenders were in Federal corrections programs;             92,000
                                                   about 64,000 of
 these offenders were on probation or parole. A review was
 conducted of the operations of five probation
 districts--California Central, Georgia Northern, Illinois
 Northern, Washington, D.C., and Washington Western--to evaluate
 how the system was providing supervision and rehabilitation
 service.. A sample cf both open and closed probation and
                                                             parole
 cases was reviewed.   Findings/Conclusions: In the closed cases,
 about half of all offenders removed from supervision either
 their probation or parole revoked, had absconded, were convictedhad
 cf new crimes, or were awaiting trial. In the open cases,
 similar trend was developing; however, the final             a
                                                    results were
 not available. The high percentage of offenders
crimes while under supervision indicates problemsconvicted    of new
                                                     either in the
selection of offenders to e placed on probation or parole
the programs for supervising and rehabilitatirg them, cr       or in
Although probation officer contacts with offenders have     both.
increased somewhat, probation officers are not meeting minimum
standards established by the Administrative Office of the
                                                              U.S.
Courts. Studies have shown that professional treetment of
medical, vocational, family, and other problems can help
probationers and parolees to move cut of the criminal justice
system. Federal supervision programs are not providing
professional treatment, and rehabilitation services often enough
                                                              are
not available in the ccmmunity from public service organizations
or Government programs.    Recommendations: The Administrative
Office, in cooperation with the Parole Commission and probation
officers, should review the present level cf supervisory
contacts. Definitive guidelines shculd be issued to probation
officers on what parole violations constitute sufficient
                                                            grounds
for the Commissicn tc issue a warrant. The processing time
required to issue warrants should e reduced, and the
 warrantless search and seizure needs
 should be reviewed. District probationof probation officers
                                         offices should improve
 their rehabilitation programs by: preparing
 which translate identified needs irto         rehabilitation lans
                                        short- and long-term
 treatment goals for each offender,
                                    referring cffenders to needed
services, and following up to see that
services. The Administrative Office      offenders receive needed
                                     should: evaluate probation
district offices routinely for program
effectivenesz, and shortcomings; provideimplementation,
Judicial Conference and the district       written repo+rs to the
the results of evaluation efforts; andchief  probation officers of
                                         followup to insure that
corrections are made. (Author/SW)
                      REPORT TO THE CONGRESS
so


           ., h -BY       T'HE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
     - .              .'OFTHE UNITED STATES




                      Probation And Parole
                      Activities Need To Be
                      Better Managed
                  The Federal Probation System does not pro-
                  vide adequate supervision and rehabilitation
                  treatment for offenders.

                        --About half of all offe'r'; released on
                         probation or parole at 'me five proba-
                          tion districts reviewed either (1) had
                          their probation or parole revoked, (2)
                          absconded, (3) were convicted of new
                         crimes, or (4) were awaiting trial.

                        Offenderswere neither being contacted
                        frequently by probation officers nor
                        receiving needed rehabilitation treat-
                        ment.

                  The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
                  has not adequately managed or monitored
                  probation activities. To irrprove the system,
                  (1) more emphasis should be placed on
                  supervising and rehabilitating offenders and
                  (2) district probation offices should be more
                  efficiently monitored and evaluated.




                  GGD-77-55                                        OCTOBER 21, 1977
               COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF' THE UNITED STATES
                          WASHINGTON. D.C.   20a48




g-133223




To the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives

     This report describes shortcomings in the operation
and administration of the Federal Probation System. The
report shows that the Federal Probation System is not ade-
quately providing supervision and rehabilitation treatment
to probationers and parolees.   If supervision and rehabilita-
tion efforts are to become more effective, the Administra-
tive Office of the U.S. Courts must begin to adequately
manage and monitor probation activities.   In addition, more
assistance and guidance is needed from the U.S. Parole Com-
mission if Federal probation officers are to effectively
carry out their responsibilities in supervising parolees.
We suggest ways in which the judicial branch as -,ell as the
executive branch can improve the Government's efforts.

     We made our review pursuant to the Accounting and
Auditing Act of 195, (31 U.S.C. 67) and the December 1968
agreement between the Director, Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, and the Comptroller General provided for in the
September 1968 resolution of the Judicial Conference of the
United States.

     Copies are being sent to the Director, Office of
Management and Budget, and to the heads of the departments
and agencies discussed in this report.




                                    Comptroller General
                                    of the United States
COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S                     PROBATION AND PAROI.E ACTIVITIES
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS                    NEED TO BE BETTER MANAGED


           DIGEST
           About half of the people convicted of Federal
           crimes and released on probation or parole in
           five probation districts reviewed were revoked,
           were convicted of new crimes, were awaiting
           trial, or had absconded. Neither the Federal
           Probation System nor its administration by
           the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
           is adequate.

           While probationers and parolees who stay
           out of trouble justify their releases,
           those who backslide point out the inade-
           quacy of supervision and rehabilitative
           activities. Because statistics on whether
           probationers and parolees adjust back into
           society--the scorecard of probation officers'
           achievement--are not kept, GAO sampled
           both open and closed probation and parole
           cases in five Federal probation districts:
           California Central, Washington, D.C;
           Georgia Northern, Illinois ortherr, and
           Washington Western.
           FROBATIONERS' AND PAROLEES'
           SUPERVISION PROBLEMS
           Both the courts and the United States Parole
           Commission assign general and special con-
           ditions to which an offender must agree to
           be released. General conditions, which
           apply to all offenders, include not viola-
           ting any laws, maintai.ing regular employ-
           ment, having no firearms, and maintaining
           contact with probation officers. Special
           conditions may require that probationers
           and parolees participate in drug, alcohol,
           or mental health treatment programs or,
           in the case r obationers, pay fines or
           make restitL    ,.

           An offender's   _f e can be revoked ir
           conditions at      ret. A person violating
           some general cc ditions (committing additional

                                                          GGD-77-55

  T
cor   pib.
       *WF Upon beremowvl,
         fshould           t report
                    noted hmaon.      i
 crimes or carrying firearms) is subject to
 immediate arrest.
 Standards on supervisory contacts
 not observed

A probation officer, assigned to supervise
each probationer and parolee, must maintain
personal contact with the offender and his
family, friends, and associates. These
contacts inform the probation officer of
an offender's activities, and thereby help
the officer spot problems that could pose
a threat to the community.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
and the U.S. Parole Commission require
that probation officers personally visit
offenders. Depending on the risk offen-
ders pose to the community, visits may be
made from once every 3 months to three
times each month.
For the average active cases, only minimum
risk offenders were being contacted as
frequently as called for by the standards--
four times a year. Principal reasons for
the limited contact with igher risk of-
fenders were:
-- At some probation offices otheL duties,
   such as making presentence investiga-
   tions, prevented more contact.
-- Other o'fices had established their own
   standards which required less frequent
   contact. (See ch. 3.)
Parole Commission policies
handicap robationofficers'
supervision of parolees

Although the U.S. Parole Commission is
ultimately responsible for parolees,
probation officers are responsible for
supervising them. However, probation
officers have difficulty doing this be-
cause the Parole Commission has:




                     ii
       --Often delayed issuing requested arrest
         warrants, causing (1) probation officers
         have a "who cares" ttitude and to not al-to
         ways report violations or request warrants
         promptly and (2) offenders to remain at
         large and sometimes commit additional
         crimes.
       --Not effectively dealt with the problemi
         of warrantless searches and seizures
         which confronts probation officers.
         (See ch. 4.)
       Supervision programs not providing
       for rehabilitation
      Studies show that professional treatment
      (medical, vocational, etc.) can help
      probationers and parolees move out of
      the criminal justice system. Federal
      supervision programs are not providing
      enough professional treatment, and some
      probation officers were not spending the
      time necessary to plan for offenders to
      receive needed professional help. They
      should.
      Rehabilitation services often were not
      available in the community from public
      service organizations or Government
      programs. Each probation district
      should know about and use services
      that are available and provide those
      that are not. (See ch. 5.)
      SUPERVISION PROBLEMS
      MUST BE DEALT WITH

      Problems in supervising probationers
      and parolees are not new--GAO's review
      included cases closed as far back as
      January 1973. Although the Administra-
      tive Office of the U.S. Courts is
      generally aware of the problems, it has
      not reacted satisfactorily. This may
      have been due to

      -- a lack of data on the seriousness of
         the problems and

Iu.                          2Shej
                             iii
--the Administrative Office of the U.S.
  Courts not having full management control
  over the supervision program.
GAO makes various recommendations to the
Judicial Conference, Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts, and to the Parole Com-
mission designed to improve the Federal
Probation System.
These recommendations are contained in
chapters 3 through 6 and point out the need
to identify and implement ways to improve
supervision and rehabilitation treatment
programs and the overall management of the
system, including establishing goals and
an adequate reporting system.
AGENCY COMMENTS

The Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts shares GAO's concern with the defi-
ciencies found in providing services to
offenders and in the management and direc-
tion provided to district probation of-
fices. The Administrative Office agrees
that the Probation System's effectiveness
can be improved. The Administrative Of-
fice's planned and proposed actions to im-
prove supervision, rehabilitation, and
management are discussed in chapter 7 and
are contained in appendix II.

The U.S. Parole Commission agrees that
(1) supervision guidelines should be re-
evaluated and (2) a thorough study should
be made to assess whether search and
seizure authority should be given to pro-
bation officers. The Commission also re-
cently developed and adopted a set of
guidelines for warrant issuance.  (See
ch. 7 and app. III.)
The Department of Justice generally agrees
with the report's findings and recommenda-
tions, especially the recommendations to
increase emphasis on the rehabilitation
and supervision of persons released from
Federal prisons; to establish standardized


                     iv
          procedures and specific definitions of
          responsibility where multiple a"encies are
          involved; and to arrange cooperative meet-
          ings between the U.S. Parole Commission, the
          Judicial Cnference, and the Administrative
          Office of the U.S. Courts to improve anage-
          ment techniques.   (See ch. 7 and app. IV.)

          The Administrative Office and the U.S.
          Parole Commission were concerned over the
          success-failure statistics developed by GAO
          since these statistics mlight be construed
          as reflecting the overall success-failure
          rates of the Probation System. GAO's
          success-failure rates were only intended
          to provide insight into how well the sys-
          tem was functioning and to identify areas
          needing improvement. The need for improve-
          ment was clearly demonstrated by the re-
          sults of GAO's work, a conclusion both agen-
          cies endorsed by their substantive actions
          taken on GAO's recommendations.    (See ch. 7
          and apps. II and III.)




 Sheetv
Ter
                       Con tents
                                                        Page
DIGEST

CHAPTER
   1      INTRODUCTION
              Federal Probation System                   1
              Judicial Conference of the United
                States                                   3
              Administrative Office of the U.S.
                Courts                                   3
              U.S. District Courts                       4
              U.S. Parole Commission                     4
  2       PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES OFTEN HAVE
            DIFFICULTY ADJUSTING BACK INTO SOCIETY       5
              Conclus ions                               7
  3       MORE EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PUT ON SUPERVISION     9
              More frequent supervisory contacts
                needed                                   9
              Court and parole conditions are not
                met                                     10
              Two reasons for limited supervision       12
              Techniques which might improve
                supervision                             15
              Conclusions                               16
              Recommendations                           16
  4       U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION POLICIES LIMIT
            PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS                       17
              Parole Commission does not issue
                warrants promptly                       17
              Probation officers' inability to
                make warrantless searches and
                seizures of evidence from parolees
                promotes problems                       19
              Conclusions                               21
              Recommendations                           21
  5       OFFENDERS ARE NOT BEING PROVIDED
            RENjABILITATION SERVICES                    23
              Identified needs are not usually
                treated                                 23
              Rehabilitation planning receives inade-
                quate emphasis                          25
              Probationers and parolees do not always
                receive needed services                 26
 CPAPTER                                                  P
       5        Some offenders refuse services                28
                Some districts' programs to improve
                  offender treatment                          28
                Conclusions                                   30
                Recommrndations                               30
       6    THE FEDERAL PROBATION SYSTEM SHOULD
              BE BETTER MONITORED AND EVALUATED            32
                Supervision and rehabilitation goals
                  and standards are needed                 32
                Systems to monitor and evaluate
                  performance are needed                  33
                More research and technical assistance
                  are needed                              34
                Judicial district management and
                  monitoring should be improved           36
                Conclusions                               37
                Recommendations                           37
       7   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION             39
               Administrative Office of the United
                 States Courts                            39
               U.S. Parole Commission                     41
               Department of Justice                      43
       8   SCOPE OF REVIEW                                44
APPENDIX

       I   Characteristics of probationers and parolees
             included in our samples                      46
  II       Letter dated September 14, 1977 '.rom the
             Director, Administrative Office of the
             U.S. Courts                                  49
 III       Letter dated July 29, 1977, from the Acting
             Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission             60
  IV       Letter dated September 6, 1977, from the
             Assistant Attorney General or Administra-
             tion, Department of Justice

                             AbBREVIATIONS
CUSPO      Chief U.S. Probation Officer
GAO        General Accounting Office
PSI        presentence investigation
                           CHAPTER 1

                       INTRODUCTION

     Probation and parole were designed to protect the com-
munity by reducing the incidence of criminal acts by pre-
viouslv convicted persons. Probation permits a convicted
offender to remain in the community instead of being in-
stitutionaiized. Probation is a correctional approach to
the offender, as opposed to the purely punitive approach.
It was designed to maintain the unity of society by holding
families together and strengthening the individual's concept
of social responsibility and attempts to bring all of the
community resources to bear on the offender's proble.    Parole
returns an institutionalized offender to the community under
certain conditions before completion of his or her sentence.
As of June 30, 1976, about 92,000 offenders were in Federal
corrections programs; about 64,000 of these offenders were oil
probation or parole.
     Our review was directed at determining how well the
Federal Probation System was working. We reviewed the opera-
tions of five probation districts--California Central, Georgia
Northern, Illinois Northern, Washington, D.C., and Washington
Western--to evaluate how the System was providing supervision
and rehabilitation services. These five districts contained
17 percent of all offenders on probation and parole during
fiscal year 1976. In addition, we sent questionnaires to
chief judges and chief probation officers at 91 U.S. district
courts and to 22b probation officers. (Ch. 8 discusses the
scope of our work in more detail.)
FEDERAL PROBATION SYSTEM

     The ederal Probation System, established in 1925, con-
sists of 91 probation offices under the overall administra-
tive direction of the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts. Chief U.S. Probation Officers (CUSPOs) provide
day-to-day operational direction for each of the district
probation offices. The Federal Probation System also serves
the U.S. Parole Commission and the Bureau of Prisons but has
no direct organizational affiliation with them.
     The Federal Probation System, according to the Admini-
strative Office, does not exist as an independent system
solely responsible for the sucess or failure of the offenders
that come into contact with it. The Administrative Office
is quick to point out that offenders come into the system as
failures having been convicted of criminal violations. They


                               1
bri g with them a varying degree of social
                                            problems and it
is fot surprising that many of them experience
ficu ty while in the system or after having     further dif-
                                             left it.
     As shown below, the Federal Probation System
duties require coordination                       employees'
                            with many organizations.


                        FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM



                                                                                    PROOATIONER RESUMES
                                                                                  3POSITION INCOMMUNITY

                                                COUR            T
                                           I(JUDICIAL   IBRANCHI)




               U.S.                                                                  RISO
                  ATUTS.NEYPROBATION                                              DEPARTMENT   OF
           DEPATMENTOF                         SERVICE                  \ \           USTICE
                                               (JUDICIL)

                                                 ND
                                           COMMUNITY BASED
                                         TREATMENT AGENCIES




                           LAW
                       E         MnFORCEENT                           PAROLE
               IDEPARTMENT OF IJUSTICE                               (US PAROLE
                  AND TEASURY)                                      COMIlSSlON




                                                                                   RESUMES POSY 'O
                                                                                     IN COMMUNITY


  OFFFXD              ENTERS CRIMINAL
                       JUSTICE SYSTEM




                                                2
     The key to successful probation and parole is effective
supervision which will protect society while rehabilitating
offenders. Probation officers give this supervision by coun-
seling, guiding, and referring offenders to rehabilitative
service agencies. These officers also prepare presentence
investigation (PSI) reports on persons convicted of Federal
offenses to provide the courts information on the character
and personality of these individuals as well as on their prob-
lems and needs. These reports assist judges in sentencing,
probation officers in supervising, and institutions in devel-
oping rehabilitation treatment plans. (See app. II for de-
tailed informatiom on the workload of the Federal Probation
System during fiscal years 1971 to 1976.)
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

     The Judicial Conference of the United States establishes
the administrative policies of the ederal judicial system.
The Conterence customarily meets semiannually to set policy
and review court operations including those of the Probation
System. Its membership consists of the Cief Justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court, the chief judge of ach circuit court,
the chief judge of the Court of Claims, the chief judge of
the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and a district judge
from each district elected by the circuit and its district
judges.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS

     The Supreme Court of the United States appoints the di-
rector and a deputy director who head the Administrative Of-
fice of the U.S. Courts. The director is the administrative
officer of all U.S. courts except the Supreme Court.

     Under the direction of the Judicial Conference, the di-
rector is required to
     -- evaluate and submit reports on probation
        officers' work,

     -- prescribe record forms and statistics to
        be kept by probation officers, and

     -- formulate rules for and promote the ef-
        ficient administration of the Proba-
        tion System.
     The Probation Division of the Administrative Office ir
responsible primarily for providing direction to and evaluat-
ing the operations of the Federal Probation System.

                             3
U.S. DISTRICT COURTS

      There are 89 district courts in the 50 States and 1
each in the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. Each State has at least one district court
and as many as four. Each district court has a chieL judge,
clerk, magistrate, bankruptcy judge, CUSPO, and support
staff.

     The district judges have direct control over the CUSPOs.
CUSPOs, however, manage day-to-day probation operations and
are required to

     -- establish policies and procedures concerning
        the overall work of the probation office,

     -- handle investigative work for the courts and
        supervise probationers and parolees,

     -- make reports on administrative expenses and
        supplies,
     -- establish and direct inservice training, and

     -- develop liasion with community service groups.
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION


     The U.S. Parole Commission consists of nine members
appointed by the President with the advice and consent
of the Senate. These members serve 6-year terms and can be
reappointed.  In general, the Commission is responsible for
supervising, through Federal probation officers, Federal
parolees and for prescribing and modifying the terms and
conditions governing parolees.

    The Commission's principal functions are to
    -- determine the date of parole eligibility for
       adult prisoners,

    -- grant parole,

    -- prescribe terms and conditions to govern the
       prisoner while on parole,
    -- issue warrants for the arrest of parole violators, and

    -- revoke parole and modify the conditions of parole.


                            4
                        CHAPTER 2
     PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES OFTEN HAVE PROBLEMS

              ADJUSTING BACK INTO SOCIETY

     Statistics on the probationers and parolees who adjust
back into society--the scorecard of probation officers'
achievement--need to be upgraded substantially if they are to
be used for management purposes. To obtain some indication
of the system's success, we sampled both open and closed pro-
bation and parole cases in five Federal probation districts.

      In the closed cases, about half of all offenders removed
from supervision either had their probation or parole revoked,
had absconded, were convicted of new crimes, or were awaiting
trial. For the latter two categories, arrest and conviction
data was obtained for the offenders' probatioi or parolee
periods and for a followup period which exten .d to June 1976.
In open cases, a similar trend was developing; however, the
final results are not in on these cases.
     Our randomly selected sample included

     -- 491 cases (356 probationers and 135 parolees) from
        the 10,101 cases closed in 1973 and 1974 and
     -- 482 cases (302 probationers and 180 parolees)
        fror the 9,307 cases under active probation or
        parole supervision on or about March 1, 1976,
        and which had been on supervision before
        September 1, 1975.
(The method used in selecting and analyzing these cases is
discussed in Ch. 8.)
     On the basis of a detailed analysis of the 491 closed
cases, we projected for the 10,101 closed cases that:
     --3,273 offenders (about 32 percent) failed--
       1,216 offenders (about 12 percent) had their
       probation or parole revoked; /and 2,057

1/The return of a parolee to prison for violating conditions
  of release which could result from a new conviction or from
  technical violations or the resentencing of a probationer
  following violations to serve a prison sentence. The de-
  cision to revoke is a responsibility that rests with the
  courts for probationers or with the Parole Commission for
  paroles.

                            5
         offenders (about 20 percent) received additional sen-
         tences of 60 days or more or fled supervision.
     -- 788 offenders (about 8 percent' had been convicted of
        new offenses and received sentences of less than 60
        days or were wanted for new violations.
     --465 offenders (about 5 percent) were awaiting trial.
Thus, about 45 percent of the offenders experienced diffi-
culties.

     Generally, probationers did better than parolees. An es-
timated 29 percent of the 7,323 probationers failed, while  41
percent of the 2,778 parolees failed. Projecting to the
universe of 10,101 closed cases, 1,131 parolees and 2,142
probationers whose cases were closed in 1973 and 1974 failed.

     The following table shows, by district, the failure rates
among the closed cases analyzed.

                                             Failure rate
U.S. court district                      Probation      Parole

                                                  (percent)
California Central                         42                 41
Ceorgia Northern                           22
Illinois Northern                                             46
                                           19                 30
Washington, D.C.                           21
Washington Western                                            54
                                           24                 42
     To estimate how many offenders were arrested and con-
victed of additional crimes while on supervision, we an-
alyzed arrest and conviction data for the 482 active cases
and 491 closed cases. We then projected the arrest and con-
viction rates to our universes as follows:

                                     Estimated offenders
Sample                            Arrested       Convicted
                                           percent            percent
Active                           3,127       34       1,582        17
Closed(note a)                   3,515       35       2,465        24
a/In order to compare the arrest and conviction rates for
  closed and active cases, only arrests and convictions oc-
  curing during the actual period of supervision were used.



                             6
     Compar-ng data from closed cases with that from active
cases, arrest and conviction rates for active case offenders
approach those for closed case offenders.
     Of the estimated 1,582 active case offenders convicted
and the 2,465 closed case offenders convicted shown in the
previous table, 44 and 36 percent respectively were parolees.
Even though parolees comprised a small portion of the people
under supervision, as shown in the following table, they ac-
counted for a significant portion of new convictions while
under supervision.
Conviction offense                 Convictions
                     Probationers (note a)   Parolees     note a)
Homicide                      0                      0
Robbery                       9                      9
Assault                      10                      2
Sex offenses                  5                      9
Burglary                      7                      3
Larceny                      18                     17
Fraud/forgery                18                      7
Narcotics                    19                     21
Alcohol                      42                     20
Probation/parole
  violations                 17                       9
All other crimes             45                      27
     Total                  192                     124

a/Includes both active and closed case offenders.
     Parolees accounted for 45 percent of new convictions
for such crimes as robbery, assault, and sex offenses and
for 40 percent of those for crimes against property, such as
burglary, theft, and larceny.
CONCLUSIONS

     Probation and parole are considered appropriate alter-
natives to incarceration when offenders (1) have a good po-
tential for rehabilitation and (2) do not pose a serious risk
to the well-being of the community. However, the estimated
4,526 offenders who had difficulty raises a serious question
about the Federal Probation System's ability to help offenders
adjust back into the community while protecting society. The




                              7
high percentage of offenders convicted
under supervision indicates problems   of new crimes while
                                     either
of offenders to be placed on probation      in the selection
                                       or parole or in the
programs for supervising and rehabilitating
parolees--or both.                          probationers and




                           8
                             CHAPTER 3

             MORE EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PUT ON SUT'ERVISION

      More frequent contacts by probation officers
                                                    with high-
 and medium-risk offenders in the Federal
                                           Probation System
 are needed.   For closed cases, maximum-
 ders were personally contacted an averageand medium-risk offen-
                                            of only five times
 annually.   For active cases, the number of contacts
 offenders still on supervision as of March           made with
                                             1976 showed that
 although increasing, the number of contacts
                                              with maximum-
 and medium-risk offenders were still infrequent.

      Probation officers have numerous duties
                                              which detract
from their ability t-o provide adequate supervision.
vision must be emphasized more so that                Super-
                                        probation officers
can better assure that probation or parole
                                            conditions are
met and needed rehabilitation services
                                        are provided.  Con-
tacting offenders more frequently may require
                                               added re-
sources, but first an attempt should be
                                         made to improve the
allocation of the probation officer's time
                                            among his v3rious
duties.

MORE FREQUENT SUPERVISION CONTACTS NEEDED

       Standards for caseload classification and
                                                     supervision
 contacts were not issued until 1971.     The
 established by the paroling authority, then   standards   were
                                                  the United
 States Board of Parole, working in conjunction
 tion officers and staff of the Administrative       with proba-
                                                    Office.   The
criteria are based on the relative risk
                                              hat an offender
poses to the community.     Maximum-risk offenders have com-
mitted serious crimes of violence, have
                                            extensive prior
records, and have many unstable social
                                           and personal character-
istics.    These individuals are to receive at least
                                                         three
personai contacts a month, or 36 annually.
                                                 Minimum-risk
offenders have committed less serious crimes,
                                                    have no ex-
terisive prior records, and have stable
                                           social and personal
characteristics.    Probation officers are to contact these
individuals at least once a quarter, or
                                            four times annually.
Cases not meeting the criteria for maximum
are classified medium risks and are to          or minimum risk
                                           be contacted once a
month, or    2 times annually.   The standards were goals to
be implemented in supervising parole cases
                                                when sufficient
personnel became available.

     Although the standards were not adopted
                                             by the Admin-
istrative Office for probation cases until
                                           September 1974,




                               9
we used them to gage the frequency of probationer contact
for closed cases.  The Administrative Office agreed that
this was a reasonable approach.

     In addition to personal contacts, probation officers
are also to make collateral contacts.  A collateral contact
is a telephone or personal contact with someone other than
the offender, such as family members or employers.  These
contacts are used to obtain information regarding the of-
fender's attitude, activities, and problems.  The established
collateral contact rates are once a month for maximum- and
medium-risk offenders and once every three months for
minimum-risk offenders,

     A comparison of closed and active cases indicates in-
creased probation officer contacts with offenders; however,
higher risk offenders are still not getting the required
amount of personal supervision.  The following table com-
pares the contact levels between closed and active cases
for various risk categories.

                           Average rate of contact annually
                                             Active cases
                         Closed cases           (through
                          (1973-74)           Mar. 1, 1976)
                                Percent              Percent
                                  of                   of
   Ris   categor        Number  standard    Number   standard
Minimum                   4        100        5        127
Medium                    5         42        7         57
Maximum                   5         14        9         25
Unclassified (note a)     3         69        5         13
a/We compared the contact rates for cases which had not been
  classified as to risk against the rate set for minimum-
  risk cases.

     As indicated by the active cases, probation officers
are supervising minimum-risk offenders above the standard
but are still deficient in supervising maximum- and medium-
risk cases.  The col] teral contacts for both closed and ac-
tive cases were also below established levels.  For the
closed cases the collateral contact rate was only 23 percent
of the standard, and for active cases it was only 43 percent.

COURT AND PAROLE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET

     Both the courts and the Parole Commission assign general
and special conditions to which an offender must agree to be


                              10
 released. General conditions, which apply
 and parolees, include such things as not    to all probationers
                                           violating any laws,
 maintaining regular employment, having
                                         no firearms, and re-
 porting to probation officers as directed.
 tions may require that probationers and      Special condi-
                                          parolees
 in drug, alcohol, or mental health treatment      participate
 the case of probationers,                     programs or, in
                           to also pay fines or make restitu-
 tion.
      The closed cases surveyed had 171 special
                                                 conditions;
 39 percent of these conditions were not
                                         met.
 tables show performance rates by district      The following
 ditions required for sampled probationers and  types of con-
                                           and parolees.
                              Conditions
                                     Not met    Percent
      District             Assigned  (note a)   not met
California Central               47
Georgia Northern                           21     45
                                 18         2     11
Illinois Northern                16
Washington, D.C.                            7     44
                                 36        21     58
Washington Western               54        15     28
    Total                    171           66     39
a/Includes only those offenders who did
  tions prescribed by the courts or the not meet the condi-
                                        U.S. Parole Commis-
  sion or who did not comply with the instructions
  probation officer.                               of their

 Special condition            Number
    of release                                     Percent
                         Assigned    Not met       not met
Fine (note a)               45
Restitution (note a)                   9               20
                            34         8               24
Community service
  (note a)                  23
Drug program                           4               17
                            26        16               62
Alcohol program             12         9               75
Other conditions
  (note b)                  31        20               65
    Total                  171        66               39
a/Does not apply to parolees.
b/Includes such things as vocational training,
                                               mental health
  counseling, and employment.



                             11
     The active sample cases reviewed had 211 special condi-
tions imposed. Of these, 34 percent had not been met as of
March 1976.

TWO REASONS FOR LIMITED SUPERVISION

     Problems which contributed to substandard supervision
practices were:

     -- Probation officers emphasizing other duties more
        than supervisory responsibilities.

     -- Many probation officers and districts setting their
        own contact rates, which differ from Administrative
        Office rates.

Probation officers are em hasizing other
duties more than supervision

      Administrative Office policy states that probation of-
ficers must avoid concentrating on highly visible activities,
neglecting the less tangible but equally important duties of
supervision.   Supervision, however, has a lower priority
among  probation officers than the preparation of the more
visible products.

     Three CUSPOs interviewed said that supervision was not
the top priority of probation officers.   They said, for ex-
ample,  making PSIs receives a higher priority than super-
vision.

     The Administrative Office made a time study in 1973 and
another in 1975. While both showed that most of a probation
officer's time was indeed spent on nonsupervisory work, by
1975 some improvement had been made.   The 1975 study showed
that probation officers  spent 62 percent of their time in
nonsupervisory work, as opposed to the 71 percent shown in
the 1973 study.   The following diagrams show the results of
the 1973 and 1975  studies.




                              12
             1973                                              1975
           GENERAL                                           GENERAL
           EPARATION                                        PREPARATIO
OTHER        4x                              OTHER              9#
REPOTS                                       REPORTS



                      ER V                             sU

                         24%




                  \ADMINISTRATIVE
                        /           /             /                    \   /




     Of the time spent (38 percent) on offender supervision
in 1975, only 14 percent consisted of face-to-face contact
while 24 percent was spent on related functions, such as
collateral contacts or work on case files. The Administra-
tive Office has taken no formal action as a result of its
latest time study to insure that CUSPOs increase the number
of personal contacts with offenders. Instead it has tried
to informally encourage CUSPOs and probation officers through
the training sessions given by the Judicial Center. We be-
lieve that the 14 percent of ime probation officers  spent
on personal contacts was insufficient to meet the Adminis-
trative Office's established levels of supervisory contacts
and that the Administrative Office needs to do more to in-
sure that contact levels are met.

     We recognize that PSIs and other court duties require
much of the probation officers' time. However, we believe
that 'istricts can use certain techniques (such as adopting
flexible working hours) to obtain a higher degree of super-
vision.   ome districts have done this. For example, the
Northern District of Georgia requires that all probation
officers spend at least 2 days each week supervising offen-
ders. Four of the five districts reviewed encourage proba-
tion officers to work flexible hours so they can supervise
individuals outside of regular working hours. Additionally,
two of the five districts require some offenders to report to



                                        13
the probation office and be personally interviewed by a pro-
bation officer.  (Other techniques for improving supervision
are discussed on p. 15.)

     In addition to using uch techniques, we believe that
CUSPOs should evaluate how probation officers are managing
their time and try to identify ways to use time more effec-
tively. For example, in one district, probation officers'
supervision areas overlapped. We pointed this out to the
CUSPO, who corrected the situation by revising supervisory
boundaries and assigning probation officers to specific areas.
The CUSPO said that these changes resulted in monetary sav-
ings and less wasted time and enabled probation officers to
make more supervisory contacts.

Districts and robation officers
set their own contact rates
     Although Administrative Office guidelines determine
contact rates for probationers and parolees, many districts
have established their own rates:

     -- Thirty-nine of the 91 districts have established
        lower rates than the Administrative Office minimum
        for personal contacts with probationers.
     -- Thirty-three districts have a rate lower than the
        Administrative Office minimum for personal contacts
        with parolees.
     -- Nine districts have established higher contact rates
        for both probationers and prolees; however, two of
        these said they could not meet the rates set.

     The following examples from a study conducted by the
Administrative Office in its Western Region 1/ show the dif-
ferences that can result when probation districts arbitrarily
set contact rates.

     --In one district each probation officer evaluates of-
       fender risk initially on the basis of procedures
       provided by the U.S. Parole Commission. The proba-
       tion officers may change classifications to meet the


1/In 1975 the Administrative Office surveyed the probation
  districts in the Western Region concerning their supervision
  and sentencing practices. The study showed the various
  approaches districts were taking to provide offenders with
  service,

                              14
       level at which they are able to supervise. This
       can result in some maximum-risk cases being contacted
       at the minimum-risk rate.
     -- At another district, the CUSPO was adamantly opposed
        to the "traditional" emphasis on number f contacts
        within a given time frame. Accordingly, he established
        his own suggested guidelines for supervisory contacts.
        They called for no surveillance in cases considered to
        be of minimum risk to full surveillance (primarily in
        the form of unscheduled contacts) over maximum-risk
        cases.
TECHNIQUES WHICH MIGHT
IMPROVE SUPERVISION

     Our detailed review at the five districts and our evalua-
tion of the answers to questionnaires by the 91 CUSPOs showed
a variety of management techniques being used to increase
contact as follows.

     -- Special units dedicated solely to supervision and
        thereby relieving probation officers of other duties
        such as making PSIs.
     -- Team concept of supervision which gives each probation
        officer a backup officer, permitting each to know the
        other's aseload.
     -- Review of probation officer case files by supervisory
        probation officers, which assures evaluation of proba-
        tion officers' performance.

     -- Suboffices which are used to improve geographic cover-
        age of a district.
     -- Flexible work hours which allow probation officers to
        contact offerders after regular work hours.

     -- Selective PSI reports which are less comprehensive than
        regular PSI reports and require less time to do.

     Some districts disagree on the use of these techniques.
For example, four of the five districts reviewed had CUSPOs
whc did not favor special supervision units because they
believe probation officers would lose a certain amount of
"professionalism and feel for their job" if they did not per-
form both supervision and PSI functions. Although these
techniques may not be universally accepted, we believe their
applicability in given situations is worth further considera-
tion by the Administrative Office.

                             15
CONCLUSIONS

     Although probation officer contacts with
                                                offenders have
increased somewhat, probation officers
                                        are not  meeting minimum
standards established by the Administrative
                                             Office.   Probation
officers are emphasizing other duties
                                       more than supervisory
responsibilities and consequently do
                                      not have the time to meet
Administrative Office contact rates.
                                       Also, over one-third
of the probation districts did not agree
                                          with Administrative
Office contact rates.  Without adequate contact there is no
assurance that the conditions of release
                                          are being met.
     We recognize that probation officers
                                          have duties other
than supervision to perform.  However, we believe that super-
vision must be emphasized more tn    it is now. While achiev-
ing higher levels of supervisory contact  may require more
resources, before additional resources are requested
should be required t evaluate how probation            CUSPOs
using their time and how they can improve the officers  are
                                               level of
supervision being given to offenders. Innovative
being used by certain districts which improve      techniques
                                               effectiveness
should be evaluated for possible use in other
                                               districts.
RECOMMENDATIONS

     We recommend that the Administrative
                                          Office, in coopera-
tion with the Parole Commission and probation
                                              officers, re-
view the present level of supervisory
                                      contacts.  As a minimum,
the Administrative Office should

    -- get agreement on what the minimum
                                         contact standard
       for various risk levels should be and
                                             adopt proce-
       dures to meet these standards;

    -- evaluate operations to identify ways
                                             to increase the
       level of supervisory contacts using
                                            existing re-
       sources; and

    -- evaluate various district management
                                            techniques being
       used and, in conjunction with districts,
                                                 adopt those
       techniques which improve the efficiency
                                                of supervi-
       sion.




                            16
                              CHAPTER 4
                  U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION POLICIES

                    LIMIT PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
       Even though final responsibility
  the U.S. Parole Commission, probation for parolees rests with
  sible for supervising the parolees.    officers are respon-
                                        In
  tion, probation officers have experiencedperforming this func-
  the Commission has:                        difficulties because

       -- Often delayed issuing requested
          which has resulted in probation warrants
                                           officers'
          delayed reporting of violations
          requesting of warrants and in    or imprompt
                                        offenders
          remaining at large and sometimes
                                            commit-
          ting additional crimes.
      -- Not effectively dealt with the
                                        problem of
         warrantless searches and seizures
         confronts probation officers.     which

 PAROLE COMMISSION DOES NOT
 ISSUE WARRANTS PROMPTLY

       Regional parole commissioners
  ing procedures on issuing parole      have established differ-
  gional commissioner said that      violation   warrants. One re-
                                 whenever the decision to issue
  a warrant was made, there must
  the Commission would be able to be 100-percent certainty that
 Two other regional  commissioners obtain   a parole revocation.
                                     said that all requests
 warrants would be granted. A                                  for
 relied primarily on his staff tofourth   regional  commissioner
 facts presented by the probation determine the adequacy of
                                     officers' requesting warrants.
       This variance has resulted
 waiting for a court conviction in most probation officers
 porting any parole violations on a new offense before rc-
                                or requesting warrants for
 serious parole violations. We
                                  randomly sampled 283 of the
 595 revocation hearings held between
1975 to determine the basis on           September and December
                                  which warrant requests    were
made. Requests were based on convictions
on technical violations in only                in 228 cases and
                                   55 cases.
      All the regional parole commissioners
that probation officers should                  interviewed said
                                 report
However, in the 283 cases analyzed,       violations  immediately.
                                        probation officers took
an average time of 64 days before
time they took to report violationsreporting violations. The
days.                                  ranged from 1 day to 306

                              17
     An analysis of the Commission, prepared by the Depart-
ment of Justice, 1/ noted problems that probation officers
had with the Commission's reluctance to issue warrants. Ac-
cording to the study, probation officers believe that a
series of technical violations can serve as a prognosis of
future criminal activity and, therefore, should be a suffic-
ient basis for revoking parole. The study also showed that,
because of the Commission's attitude, probation officers
are reluctant to request violator warrants for anything other
than absconding from supervision or conviction of a new of-
fense.

     To determine actual response time, we analyzed our 283
sample cases and found that the average elapsed time from
warrant request to issuance was 10 days. Each region's aver-
age response time is summarized below.

                           Commission's regional office
                       San    Kansas                  Phila-
                    Francisco City Dallas Atlanta delphia
Average days
  between request
  and issuance
  (note a)            14          9   10       13          9
a/The shortest time frame was used. For example, if a proba-
  tion officer requested a warrant but the Commission needed
  more information, the probation officeL would have to re-
  quest the warrant again. Thus, the time frame considered
  was from the time the last request was made to the time the
  warrant was issued.
     A result of excessive delays was that some parolees com-
mitted additional crimes while warrant requests were being
considered.  In some cases the parolees were arrested but
released on bond while revocation warrants were still being
considered. The following examples show what can happen
when warrants are not issued promptly.

     --An offender was paroled to the Northern District.
       of Georgia in October 1974. He absconded from
       supervision April 1975, burglarized several post
       office boxes in Florida, and cashed a stolen U.S.
       Treasury check. While Secret Service agents were

1/"An Evaluation of the U.S Board of Parole Reorganization,"
  prepared by the Department of Justice, Office of Manage-
  ment and Finance, Dec. 1975.


                             18
       investigating the crimes, the probation
       officer, on May 7, 1975, requested a warrant
       charging various parole violations. On May 13,
       1975, the Commission asked for more details be-
       fore issuing a warrant. On May 16, 1975t the
       offender was arrested in Tennessee on auto
       theft charges and after a court hearing was
       released. A Federal warrant was issued by the
       court on May 19, 1975, charging mail theft and
       forgery. On June 2, 1975, the Commission is-
       sued a warrant charging parole violation.
     -- An offender with an extensive criminal history
        was paroled to the Western District of Washington
        in March 1974.  In August 1974, local police in-
        formed the probation officer that the offender
        had just been arrested by local authorities on
        a charge of indecent liberties and assault. The
        probation officer immediately notified the Com-
        mission and requested a warrant. After a week
        had elapsed with no warrant being issued, the
        probation officer contacted the Commission and
        was advised that it would be another 3 to 7 days
        before a decision could be made. Since the of-
        fender was soon to be released on bail, local
        citizens brought the matter to the attention
        of their Congressman who notified the Commis-
        sion. The Commission immediately issued a
        warrant, but before it could be served, the
        parolee jumped bail. He was subsequently ar-
        rested in October 1974 attempting to rob a bank.

PROBATION OFFICERS' INABILITY TO MAKE
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OF
EVIDENCE FROM PAROLEES PROMOTES PROBLEMS
     Probation officers have siriilar supervisory responsibili-
ties for probationers and parolees. These officers have ex-
press statutory authority to make warrantless arrests of pro-
bationers. Implicit in this statutory authorization is the
authority, in limited circumstances, to make warrantless
searches and seizures of evidence from probationers incident
to arrest. These statutory authorizations only apply, how-
ever, to enforcement activity directed toward probationers.
Neither this authorization nor any other similar statutory au-
thorization applies to probation officers supervising parolees.

     Further, it is the Parole Commission's present policy
that warrantless searches or seizures be made by law en-
forcement officials other than probation officers. Probation

                             19
officers are limited to investigating and obtaining documen-
tary evidence on parole violations, communicating this in-
formation to the regional parole commissioners, and request-
ing warrants. There are times, however, when probation
officers encounter parolees who are violating release con-
ditions and committing new crimes.  In these situations
there may not be sufficient time to request a warrant or to
cali on local law enforcement authorities. The fllowing
example illustrates this problem.

     -- A probation officer visited the home of a parolee
        who previously had been convicted of smuggling
        drugs. During the visit the probation officer found
        various narcotic paraphernalia. When confronted with
        these devices, the parolee denied using drugs.  The
        probation officer advised local law enforcement offi-
        cials of the problem but by the time they arrived
        all evidence was destroyed.

     Several probation officers said that their inability to
make warrantless searches and seizures while supervising
parolees has created a situation where they not only do not
bother with parole violations, but actually attempt to avoid
knowledge of them. We asked the 226 probation officers in
the probation districts reviewed if t.ey believed their ef-
fectiveness in supervising parolees was compromised by this
situation.

     -- Thirty-one percent said their effectiveness had been
        compromised by limitations on their search and seizure
        authority.

     -- About 60 percent said they believed that local law
        enforcement officials could not help with violators
        because (1) by the time enforcement officials arrive,
        opportunities for arrest or seizure of evidence are
        lust and leads are cold or (2) enforcement agencies
        are not familiar with the case or have difficulty in
        conducting skilled investigations on short notice.

     Three of the regional parole commissioners favored
probation officers having more authority over parolees if
the probation ofilers want and are capable of exercising
it.  One of these commissioners told probation officers in
his region that they could make warrantless searches and
seizures. One CUSPO in that region said that his probation
officers were more effective as a result and cited examples
where evidence was seized and parole revocations resulted.


                             20
     On the other hand, two of the five regional parole
commissioners believed that warrantless search and seizure
authority should not be given to probation officers pri-
mariiy because it is the Commission's duty to protect the
rights of arolees and issue warrants based only on suffi-
cient evidence.

     The Parole Commission, in commenting on the report,
stated that it is apparent that it should thoroughly study,
both from a legal and practical standpoint, whether its
present policy is correct or should be modified.  (See
app. III.)

CONCLUSIONS

     For probation officers to effectively carry out their
responsibilities for supervising parolees, they need more
assistance and guidance from the Parole Commission. We
found three principal impediments to fulfilling these re-
sponsibilities.

     First, Commission guidelines do not adequately define
the circumstances under which a warrant should be requested,
including the charges which will result in revocation.  As a
result, some probation officers do not request warrants when
they should.

     Second, when probation officers do request warrants,
the officers do not receive them quickly.  The Commission
needs to expedite the processing of warrants.

      Third, the Parole Commission has not effectively dealt
with the problem of warrantless searches and seizures which
confronts probation officers.   Probation officers often may
have time to request warrants from the Parole Commission,
but there are situations where probation officers observe
violations of parole and do not have time to secure a war-
rant.

RECOMMENDATIONS

     To improve the supervision of parolees, we recommend
that the Parole Commission, in cooperation with the Judicial
Conference and the Administrative Office:

     -- Issue definitive guidelines to probation
        officers on what parole violations constitute
        sufficient grounds for the Commission to issue
        a warrant. These guidelines should also

                             21
  rŽmphasize the Commission's
                                policy that
    1 parole violations should
                                be reported
  immediately to the Parole Commission
  that they may not necessarily         but
                                 result in
  a warrant being issued.

-- Reduce the processing time
                              required to
   issue warrants.

-- Review the warrantless search
                                  and seizure
   needs of probation officers when
                                     supervising
  parolees.   If the Parole Commission concludes
   that the ban against warrantless
  seizures is undesirable,           searches and
                            the Parole Commis-
  sion should advise the Congress
  ings and its recommendations      of its find-
                                 for such au-
  thorizing legislation as may
                                be necessary.




                       22
                          CHAPTER 5
               OFFENDERS ARE NOT BEING PROVIDED

                    REHABILITATION SERVICES
     Probationers and prolees often have particular
probleils--family, medical, academic, vocational, etc.--which
need to be-professionaily treated. Studies done in this
area show that such treatment can help probationers and
parolees move out of the criminal justice system. However,
not enough professional treatment is being provided in Fed-
eral supervision programs. We found that some probation
officers were not devoting the time necessary to plan for
offenders to receive needed professional help. Also, re-
habilitation services often were not available in the com-
munity from public service organizations or Government pro-
grams.

     Each probation district should know the services
available and should provide for methods of delivering those
that are not. Probation officers need to take the time to
plan for offenders to receive the help they need and to
follow up on their participation.

IDENTIFIED NEEDS ARE NOT USUALLY TREATED
     An estimated 62 percent of the more than 10,101 proba-
tion and parole cases closed during 1973 and 1974 in the
districts reviewed had identified rehabilitation needs.
Some offenders had several rehabilitation needs; referrals
were made for only about 28 percent of these needs.
     Diagnosis of offender needs is important in determining
whether an individual should be released on supervision and
in determining the nature of any rehabilitation treatment.
Probation officers initially diagnose offfenders during the
preparation of PSI reports. These PSI reports are then used
by judges in determining appropriate sentences and by proba-
tion officers in establishing supervision programs, including
rehabilitation services. In addition, some offenders are
diagnosed by psychiatrists in the community or by Bureau of
Prisons psychiatrists, psychologists, or caseworkers.

     Diagnosis should be followed by treatment planning,
referral to treatment programs, and followup to see that
treatment is completed. As shown in our report on State




                            23
 and county probation systems, 1/ there
                                        is a highly signifi-
 cant relationship between the extent
                                      to which offenders
 receive needed services and their success
                                           on probation.  A
 review of closed cases showed that
                                    302 of the 491 offenders
 had a total of 527 identified needs.

      Rehabilitation programs were completed
                                              for about 25 per-
 cent of the needs.
 treated as a result Only about 9 percent of these needs were
                     of probation officer referrals. The
 remaining needs (16 percent) were treated
 of others, including the offender.         at the initiative
                                      The number of needs for
 each service and number of needs for
                                       which treatment was
 completed are shown below.


 Service needed                                 Needed treatment
                        Needs identified            completed
Family counseling              34
Medical                                                    4
                               38                         16
Mental                         30
Academic                                                   3
                               64                         17
Vocational                     79
Employment                                                17
                              136                         33
Alcohol                        47
Drug                                                       5
                               54                         17
Other counseling               25
Other needs                                               11
                               20                          7
    Total                     527                     130
      In order to obtain data on more recent
                                               rehabilitation
efforts, we reviewed the 482 active
that 76 percent of these cases had a cases   sampled.   We found
                                       total of 683 needs.
Forty-five per-_,.t of these needs had
treatment programs but, at the time     been referred to
                                     of our review, only
38 percent had been or were being treated.
which offenders being treated will             The extent to
                                    complete treatment pro-
grams is not yt known. Although figures
                                             indicate con-
siderable improvement in referrals for
over half of the needs were still not    the  active cases,
                                        referred.   In addition,
since referrals are usually made during
                                          a supervisory con-
tact, the low supervisory contact rate
                                         noted in chapter 3
affects the number of offenders referred
grams.                                     to treatment pro-



1/"State and County Probation:      Systems in Crisis,'
  May 27, 1976.                                           GGD-76-87,



                              24
REHABILITATION PLANNING RECEIVES
INADEQUATE EMPHASIS

     As discussed in chapter 3, the time probation officers
spend on other duties significantly affects supervisory
duties.  Because of the amount of time spent on these
duties, probation officers are not comprehensively addressing
rehabilitation problems.  In addition, probation officers were
only making limited use of rehabilitation plans, which could
be used to identify offender needs and the treatment needed
and to assist in determining whether treatment occurs.  By
establishing, implementing, and monitoring rehabilitation
plans, probation officers should be able to (1) assess the
effectiveness of even the most limited efforts and (2)
identify weaknesses in treatment programs needing corrective
action.  With this type of quantification, management should
then be able to identify alternative measures and/or -iustify
additional resources to improve treatment programs.

     Correction experts generally agree that rehabilitation
planning is needed to explain how diagnosed needs wil  be
met through a treatment program.  The importance of rehabili-
tation planning was also confirmed by 55 of the 88 chief
judges responding to our questionnaire.  In addition, 22 of
these judges indicated that these plans should be approved
by judges after probation officers prepare them.

     Only two of the five districts reviewed required proba-
tion officers to develop rehabilitation plans and, even in
these two, plans were not always prepared.  The following
table shows the extent to which rehabilitation plans were
prepared in closed and active cases in reviewed districts.

               Cases sampled                  Case having plans
  District    Closed   Active        Closed     Active  Closed  Active

                                                           (percent)

California
  Central       103     103             1         9       1.0     8.7
Georgia
  Northern       97      97            10        32      10.3    33.0
Illinois
  Northern      100     100             3         4       3.0     4.0
Washington,
  D.C.           98      89            36        62      36.7    69.7
Washington
  Western       93       93             5        10       5,4    10.8

     Total     491      482            55      117       11.2    24.3

                                25
     Our questionnaire sent to 91 district CUSPOs also
confirmed the sporadic use of rehabilitation plans.  Eighteen
districts did not furnish us with copies of their rehabilita-
tion plans.  Of the remaining 73 districts.

     --18 had what we considered to be adequate   rehabilita-
       tion plans,

     -- 19 did not require or prepare rehabilitation plans,
        and

     -- 36 had what we considered to be inadequate plans.

The 36 plans we considered inadequate consisted of copies
of court-ordered conditions and chronological records of
supervisory events, but did not include a statement of
needs, goals, and time frames.

     Administrative Office officials favored the prepara-
tion of rehabilitation plans but stated that the Administra-
tive Office did not have the authority to require their
preparation by probation officers.  The chief judges are
the only authority that can direct the probation officers
to prepare rehabilitation plans.

     The Department of Justice also favored the preparation
of rehabilitation plans for soon-to-be-released offenders.
The Department believes that coordinated efforts between
probation officers and its Bureau of Prisons institutional
staff is extremely important in providing soon-to-be-
released offenders with adequate release plans.  The De-
partment further believes that the Bureau of Prisons
staff and the probation officers could work cooperatively
to insure program continuity for individual participants
after release.  In developing cooperative plans the De-
partment believes that particular attention should be
given to designing plans which are suitable to the of-
fenders' needs and interests and, to the extent possible,
consistent with vocational training received in the in-
stitution.

PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES DO NOT
ALWAYS RECEIVE NEEDED SERVICES

     Rehabilitation services are provided to Federel
probationers and parolees through the Bureau of Prisons




                             26
 or through community facilities. 1/ However, the Bureau
 of Prisons and community facilities have funding problems
 as well as clients of their own to treat. For reasons
 such as these, 47 of the 91 CUSPOs said they had of-
 fenders with needs that community rehabilitation serv-
 ices could not satisfy. In addition, the probation of-
 f;-- - in the five districts responding to our question-
n ire reported that 304 offenders in their current case-
 loads needed some form of treatment but were not receiving
 it. For about 46 percent of these offenders, probation
officers reported that the lack of an available treatment
program was the reason treatment was not provided.
       Fiscal year 1975 budget reductions caused the Bureau
of Prisons to reduce funding for drug treatment aftercare
in the community. The Bureau could only provide funds
to ootain drug treatment for incarcerated offenders and
parolees. This reduction in funding affected the dis-
tricts reviewed. In the Northern District of Illinois,
for example, the probation office was forced to assume
the functions of drug counseling and testing. In other
districts some offenders were terminated early from pro-
grams and in another drug testing was unavailable for a
time. At the time of our review, only two of these five
districts were regularly using Bureau of Prisons serv-
ices. The results of our questionnaire showed that only
27 of the 91 probation districts regularly used Bureau
services.

     The Administrative Office has no statutory authority
to contract for rehabilitative services. Contracting is
presently a Bureau of Prisons responsibility. The As-
',istant Director for Correctional Programs for the
bureau of Prisons said that rather than contracting for
rehabilitative services on a case-by-case or district-
by-district basis, the Bureau prefers to operate re-
gionalized treatment facilities. He said, however, that
this means that probationers or parolees must reside at
these facilities and may be required to leave the
community--which is contrary to the purpose of probation
and parole.


1/Some of these facilities obtain their funding from
  Federal sources such as the Departments of Labor and
  Health, Education, and Welfare.




                             27
     A 1974 report prepared for the President by the
Domestic Council Drug Abuse Task Force recommended that
funds, responsibilities, and contracting authority for
treating probationers and parolees be transferred from
the Bureau to the Probation System. Bureau officials
also -%pressed support for the transfer of responsibil-
ity and funding. To date, however, no action has been
taken on these recommendations.

     On the other hand, the Judicial Conference's Proba-
tion Committee believes that the function of providing
treatment services is more appropriately done by the
executive branch rather than by he judicial branch.
The Probation Committee has agreed, however, to accept
this responsibility if the Congress grants such authority.

SOME OFFENDERS REFUSE SERVICES
     Another reason given by probation officers for the
lack of treatment was refusal by offenders to participate
in rehabilitation programs. Of the 304 active cases for
which services were not delivered, 106 involved resistant
offenders. Probation officers stated that it would be
much easier to convince an offender to get treatment if
his participation were required as a special condition
of release. A review of closed sample cases confirmed
that while the completion rates for court and parole
conditions were generally low, the rates for court-
ordered special conditions were higher than for voluntary
special conditions.

      Despite this relatively good record for court-
ordered special conditions, several of the CUSPOs inter-
viewed questioned the ability of any program to rehabili-
tate an offender who was forced to take rehabilitative
treatment. One CUSPO stated that forcing an offender to
attend a program wasted the treatment specialist's time
and deprived other individuals of the opportunity for treat-
ment.

SOME DISTRICTS' PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE
OFFENDER TREATMENT

     Two probation districts have introduced new programs
to resolve some of the above problems. We did not evaluate
these programs, but we believe that they warrant mention
because they represent an attempt at innovation within
the system.



                             28
Washington, D.C., district
     The Washington, D.C., district has established a
program to assist in diagnosing and planning the treatment of
offender needs. The program begins during the presentence
investigation. The officer preparing the PSI report also
prepares the rehabilitation plan for treatment during proba-
tion or parole supervision. The district also strives to
have the probation officer who prepared the PSI report re-
ceive the case when the offender is placed under supervision.
The district requires each offender to attend four group
counseling sessions at the beginning of supervision. Proba-
tion officers conduct these counseling sessions which are
used to identify additional needs and to modify rehabilita-
tion plans. The probation office intends to expand this
group counseling program to include specific counseling ses-
sions for alcoholic, unemployed, and maximum-risk offenders.
     To further the treatment of offenders whose needs
exceed the limits of customary supervision resources, the
Washington, D.C., probation office established a special
Resources and Service Unit in Feburary 1976. This unit
either provides the needed treatment or refers the of-
fender to a rehabilitative treatment program. The of-
ficers in this unit are responsible for training staff,
group counseling offenders, and researching and developing
community resources for referral purposes. The probation
officers in this unit do not have a caseload, nor do they
make PSIs.

     A comparison of the results of the probation officer
questionnaires in the five districts showed that the per-
centage of Washington, D.C., district offenders in treat-
ment programs was about triple that of each of the other
four districts, as shown below.
                                     Total number   Percent of
                        Total        in treatment      total
    District          caseload         programs      caseload
Washington, D.C.        1,850              780         42.2
California Central      3,992              634         15.9
Georgia Northern        1,208              180         14.9
Illinois Northern       1,803              267         14.8
Washington Western        838              126         15.0

    Total               9,691            1,987         20.5



                                29
California Central district
     The California Central district has a new program to
meet offenders' vocational training needs. The district,
with members of the community, has developed a vocational
training program in the meatcutting industry. A nonprofit
corporation was created to train Federal offenders in a less
competitive setting than in industry. The program provides
counseling in employee-employer relationships, work habits,
job benefits, attitudes, budgeting, and credit.

CONCLUSIONS
     There is a significant relationship between the extent
to which an offender receives needed services and his suc-
cess on probation. The delivery of rehabilitative services
to probationers and parolees needs to be improved. To do
this, district probation offices need to increase their
emphasis on rehabilitative treatment. This increase may
require a reassessment of riorities and staff needs. In
addition, the rehabilitation treatment programs of district
probation offices need improvement in the use of rehabilita-
tion plans, number of offenders referred for treatment, and
followup to see that treatment is completed. Probation dis-
tricts need to comprehensively monitor rehabilitation efforts
to identify program weaknesses and the actions needed to cor-
rect these weaknesses. Also, specific authority to contract
for and fund treatment services is needed if inhouse services
cannot be made available.

RECOMMENDATIONS
     We recommend that the Administrative Office, with the
Judicial Conference, require district probation offices to
improve their rehabilitation programs by

     -- preparing rehabilitation plans which translate
        identified needs into short- and long-term treatment
        goals for each offender,

     -- referring offenders to needed services, and
     -- following up to see that   ffenders receive needed
        services.
Each probation district should then establish a system for
monitoring rehabilitation efforts to identify specific
weaknesses and needed corrective actions.



                              30
     Also, in view of the problems encountered by probation
officers in obtaining treatment for probationers and parolees,
we recommend that the Administrative Office analyze its
rehabilitation needs to identify the resources that are cur-
rently being used and the additional resources that are
needed. We recommend that the Administrative Office submit
this analysis to the Congress with a request for the con-
tracting authority and funding to meet offender needs.




                             31
                                 CHAPTER 6

                   THE FEDERAL PROBATION SYSTEM SHOULD BE

                       BETTER MONITORED AND EVALUATED

      The Administrative Office is responsible for monitoring
and evaluating the wor'. of district probation officers; how-
ever, these efforts to date have been limited.   The Admin-
istrative Office has not established goals and standards for
supervision and rehabilitation programs nor the means to
evaluate the Probation System's effectiveness.   In addition,
the Administrative Office has not established a reporting
system to evaluate district office performance and does not
have adequate technical assistance capability to help dis-
tricts solve problems.   As a result, (1) the Administrative
Office cannot identify weaknesses within the Probation Sys-
tem and recommend corrective actions, (2) the Judicial Con-
ference does not have the information it needs to assess the
Probation System's performance and set operational policy,
and (3) the Parole Commission cannot effectively assess the
Probation System's performance in supervising and rehabili-
tating parolees.

     The Administrative Office's Probation Division           is
responsible for

     -- establishing policies, procedures, and guidelines
        for the Probation System's efficient operations;

     -- evaluating    the work of probation officers;

     -- promoting the efficient administration of       the
        Probatioin System; and

     -- insuring    that   the probation laws are enforced.

     The Division routinely carries out other functions such
as budget preparation for the district offices.  It also
develops policy guidelines and acts as the agent for the
field in policy matters involving the Bureau of Prisons and
the Parole Commission.

SUPERVISION AND REHABILITATION
COALS AND STANDARDS ARE NEEDED

     The Administrative Office has not established goals and
standards for supervision and rehabilitation efforts.  With-
out goals and standards against which the effectiveness of




                                   32
Federal supervision or rehabilitation efforts can be measured,
the judicial branch is unable to determine what impact its
efforts are having on offenders or if resources are being al-
located to those individuals who could benefit most.

     Administrative Office officials have said that each
CUSPO at each district court should establish supervision and
rehabilitation goals and standards as well as the policies
and procedures necessary to achieve them.  One effect of this
policy has been the establishment of many different kinds of
programs to supervise and treat offenders' needs. As dis-
cussed in previois chapters, we noted instances of substandard
supervision, court and parole conditions not being met, and
inadequate delivery of rehabilitative services. The chief
of the Administrative Office's Probation Division said that
the Federal Probation System is a federation of 91 offices
serving at the pleasure of the courts, and an individual
interpretation of how things should be done is common.

SYSTEMS TO MONITOR AND EVALUATE
PERFORMANCE ARE NEEDED

     The Administrative Office lacks a system which can
measure the Probation System's performance, identify and
correct deviations from prescribed procedures, and provide
feedback to probation officers.  Without such a system,
the Administrative Office cannot effectively fulfill its
responsibilities of

     --monitoring the operations of district probation
       offices or

     -- evaluating districts' probation activities.

     In addition, the lack of adequate information hinders
the Administrative Office from identifying problems in super-
vision and rehabilitation as well as from monitoring the
overall effectiveness of the System.  Since 1970 the number
of offenders entering and under Federal supervision have in-
creased at least 50 percent. Administrative Office officials
believe this trend will continue.  In addition, this in-
creased number of offenders includes more hardcore criminals
who have high violation rates. Since 1968 the number of
such persons under supervision by the Federal Probation Sys-
tem for assault has increased 58 percent; for robbery, 81
percent; and for narcotics violations, 170 percent.

     Accurate information such as demographic data and reci-
divism statistics does not exist on offenders currently


                             33
  under supervision. The lack
  trative Office from planning of data precludes the Adminis-
                                whete resources should be al-
  located during the next several
  also precludes the Administrativeyears. This lack of data
  the effectiveness of supervision Office from determining
                                     efforts or other services.
       The Probation Division of
 no formal evaluation mechanisms,the Administrative Office has
 ble by law for monitoring and       even though it is responsi-
                                 evaluating
 and adequacy of district probation          the effectiveness
 Administrative Office officials,      offices. According to
 of the Probation Division come      the only evaluative efforts
 rate and brief visits made       from  the national success
                             to
 administrators from Washington,district   offices by regional
                                   D.C.
      The Administrative Office's
 success rates were 83.8 percent fiscal year 1975 national
 probation and 71 percent for      for offenders completing
                               offenders
 These rates, however, are misleading. completing parole.
 cases (about 7 percent) in                For example, in 34
                             the districts reviewed offenders
were listed as being successes
satisfactorily, while they        or as completing supervision
                            were actually in prison or
completed an additional prison                             had
                                 or probation sentence by the
time they had gone "successfully'"
                                     off of Federal supervision.
      Title 18 of 'he U.S. Code requires
to keep track of offenders                  probation officers
                            and
Parole Commission information    provide  the  court or the
ing probation and parole.       on  the offender's  conduct
                            Yet the Administrative Office dur-
not evaluated districts to
                            insure that the court and the has
Parole Commission are promptly
lations of probation and parole.notified of arrests or vio-

MORE RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE ARE NEEDED
      The Administrative Office's
 technical assistance to probation Probation Division provides
Judical Center does related          districts and the Federal
                              research.
can consist of direct technical             Technical assistance
kinds of training sessions.       help   to  districts and various
data gathering, and informationResearch can consist of studies,
                                  system development.
      Technical assistance has generally
districts on a request basis.                been provided to
said they had not provided       Probation    Division officials
                            information to districts on
types of technical assistance                               the
                                available except when helping
the Judical Center with training
Probation said that when districtssessions. The Chief of
                                      let him know of problems,



                               34
assistance can be arranged. However, without information on
what technical assistance is available, districts are not
likely to request help in solving their problems. Indeed,
district CUSPOs said the probation officers tend to rely on
their own expertise to carry out supervision and rehabilita-
tion programs.
     In addition to the lack of technical assistance, when
training sessions are held, many different methods of super-
vising, keeping case records, and supplying rehabilitative
services are provided. If the Administrative Office eval-
uated enough programs and did enough research, it could
recommend specific methods. Only limited research work,
however, has been done.

     The Judicial Center which does the research has only
completed two limited studies of supervision and some senten-
cing practices studies. The Director of Research said the
design of research programs and the execution of the research
is the role of the Judicial Center. But to get research
started, the Administrative Office must request it. Admin-
istrative Office officials, however, have not officially
asked the Judical Center or the Probation Committee of the
Judicial Conference for adequate research help. The Judicial
Center Research Director said limited funds and staff were
available to do research; but if research needs were listed
and priorities set by the Administrative Office and the Jud-
ical Conference's Probation Committee, funds could be re-
quested.
     One place where research could help is in the rea of
required supervisory contacts. Current contact rates ere
developed by using the "experience and good judgment" o six
probation officers. The Parole Commission has established
supervision guidelines which require offender contacts ac-
cording to risk level and believes the contacts should be
made. Some probation officials, however, say that too much
supervision may actually result in offenders committing new
crimes. What should te emphasis be? Is the current re-
quired number of supe.visory contacts appropriate?
     Research could help in other areas such as developing
standards, goals, and guidelines for (1) rehabilitative
service delivery systems, (2) classification of offenders,
and (3) predictive models.
     Also, since probation districts operate different pro-
grams autonomously, the Administrative Office, by identify-
ing and evaluating the various programs, should be able to



                             35
Provide information to districts on proven methods.   Some
of the approaches which might be appropriate to evaluate in-
clude:   (1) using a team concept of supervision, (2) having
resource referral units for service delivery, (3) using
separate units to prepare presentence rorts, and (4) es-
tablishing specific programs to improve vocational training
opportunities.

      The Probation Division needs to identify problems which
require attention and should actively work with the district
offices to encourage their use of the Division's technical
knowledge.   We also believe that the Probation Division needs
to assess research needs and provide a priority listing to
the Probation Committee of the Judicial Conference. The Com-
mittee could then set the research priorities to be followed
by the Judicial Center.   Depending on the number of projects,
the Judicial Center may determine that more resources are
needed.   In commenting on the report, the Administrative Of-
fice stated that the Federal Judicial Center presently is
conducting three research projects at its request.   The Ad-
ministrative Office said it is also involved in a research
project with the Bureau of Prisons.   (See app. II.)
JUDICIAL DISTRICT MANAGEMENT AND
MONITORING SHOULD BE IMPROVED

     Probation offices function under the immediate direc-
tion of district court judges.  However, many district
judges do not receive adeauate information to monitor the
activities of probation officers.   Some district chief
judges indicated that they wanted more information on the
operation of their probation office.   They specifically
mentioned that information is needed on research, effective-
ness, and recidivism.  One judge asked his probation office
to conduct a 5-year followup study.

     Some of the comments made by chief judges regarding
district office activities follow:

     -- Judges generally do not have the training, experience,
        or time to supervise or evaluate the monitoring or
        supervisory work of the probation officers.

     --A more systematic means is needed by which the CUSPO
       and the court can evaluate the degree to which the
       supervision program is accomplishing its objectives.

     --There are too many defendants on probation per judge
       to adequately supervise in conjunction with probation
       officers.



                             36
                                                   to give more at-
      -- District judges need the opportunity
         tention to court probatior-related activities.
                                               information, judges
      As a result of the lack of time and
                                                their probation
are hindered from monitoring and managing
                                         responding   to our aues-
systems. Of the 88 district judges                              the
                                               for  managing
tionnaire, 6 were perscnally responsible                   and  17
probation system, 65 had made     CUSPOs  responsible,
                                         The  judges  rarely    re-
said it was a joint responsbility.                        In  fact,
ceive progress reports from probation      officers.
                                             received progress
only 7 of 88 district judges routinely                       reponsi-
reports.     Even thougqh the Administrative Office is
                              and evaluating   the  effectiveness
ble by law for monitoring
                                                the district
and adequacy of probation officers' work,                  of the
                                   overall   management
judges are responsible for the                             informa-
                                   receive   sufficient
probation districts and should                         in  their
 tion on the workings of the    probation   programs
districts.

CONCLUSIONS
                                          efforts at monitor-
     The Administrative Office's limited            efforts
ing and evaluating supervision and  rehabilitation
                            within  the Probation  System to
have permitted shortcomings                          Office
go undetected and uncorrected. The Administrative
                                           performed nor
has not evaluated the quality of services
                                          effectiveness.
monitored the Probation System's overall
                    have adequate  information to effectively
Chief judges do not
manage probation activities in their districts.
                                                      its over-
      If the Federal ProIotion System is to achieve
                                           rehabilitating of-
 all objective of protecting society and
                                           standards need to
 fenders, specific goals and performance
 be developed.   The creation of such standards would enable
                                               program planning.
 the Administrative Office to begin adequate
                                   Office needs accurate and them.
 In addition, the Administrative problem
                     to identify          areas and correct
 timely information                         to provide greater
 Finally, the Administrative Office needs
 technical assistance based on   research to its district of-
 fices to aid  in developing and  implementing good local super-
                                          programs.
 vision, rehabilitation, and management

 RECOMMENDATIONS
                                                  through the
      We recommend that the Judicial Conference,    coals and
                                  Probation  System
 Administrative Office, establish                   system to
                                adequate  reporting
 responsibilities and devise an                        In ad-
                                         the program.
 provide information needed to evaluate        Office provide
 dition, we recommend that the Administrative



                                    37
more technical assistance to
                              district offices to aid them
developing and implementing                                 in
                             their supervision programs.
     Once these steps are taken,
                                  we recommend that the Ad-
ministrative Office

     -- evaluate probation district
                                    offices routinely for
        program implementation, effectiveness,
        comings;                               and short-

    -- provide written reports to
                                  the Judicial Conference
       and the district chief probation
                                        officers of the re-
       sults of evaluation efforts;
                                    and
    -- follow up to insure that
                                corrections are made.




                           38
                            CHAPTER 7
             AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION
                        -       ~



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES COURTS
     The Administrative Office generally agreed with our
findings, conclusions, and recommendations. It also shared
our concern with the deficiencies and shortcomings both in
the delivery of service to offenders and the management
direction provided. The Administrative Office agreed that
there is substantial room for improvement and noted a series
of actions it is taking or will take to implement our recom-
mendations.  (See app. II.)

     The Administrative Office said it agreed wholeheartedly
with our recommendation calling for the Administrative Office,
in cooperation with the Parole Commission and the district
probation officers, to review and revise present standards for
supervision contacts. The Administrative Office said its Pro-
bation Division has asked the Federal Judicial Cener to
evaluate the various predictive devices in use in the Federal
Probation System, and it has contacted the Parole Commission
to reexamine supervision guidelines for persons on parole.
In addition, it has modified the agenda for all training
sessions to emphasize effective utilization of personnel and
delivery of supervision services. Further, it has begun to
develop a monograph on supervision which will define more
complete standards for the performance of supervision responsi-
bilities.

     The Administrative Office said that our recommendation
that probation offices improve their rehabilitation treat-
ment programs is a desirable goal.   It hopes to promote im-
provement through (1) the forthcoming publication of mono-
graphs on presentence investigation rep, rts and supervision
practices, (2) modification of training programs, and (3)
redoubled efforts on its part to provide technical assist-
ance and guidance to district probation offices. In addition,
the Administrative Office said it will conduct an analysis
cf rehabilitation needs and submit a report of its findings
to the Congress with a request for contract authority and
funds to meet offender needs.

     The Administrative Office said that the Probation Com-
mittee of the Judicial Conference, at its July 1977 meeting,
considered and approved action on our recommendation that
the Federal Probation System's research needs be assessed
and that a listing be provided to the Federal Judicial Center
with a request for specific projects to be undertaken.

                               39
     We recommended that the Judicial Conference, through the
Administrative Office, establish an adequate reporting sys-
tem to provide information on the Probation System's ef-
fectiveness.  The Administrative Office stated that the Pro-
bation Committee of the Judicial Conference endorses estab-
lishing a modern information system for the Probation System.
The Adminstrative Office also said that the Probation Com-
mittee plans to work with it and the Federal Judicial Center
to plan and develop such a system.

     Regarding our recommendation that the Administrative Of-
fice provide technical assistance to aid district probation
offices in developing and implementing supervision programs,
the Administrative Office said the chief of the Division of
Probation has been instructed to develop a plan to improve
the delivery of technical assistance to field offices.

     The Administrative Office stated that since our review
was conducted in five metropolitan districts, the results
were more representative of other metropolitan districts than
the system as a whole and that the statistical likelihood of
violation was higher for our sample than the national average.

     We agree that the five districts reviewed may not be a
statistically valid representation of the system as a whole,
but they do represent a geographical cross section of the
Federal Probation System, and account for about 17 percent
of the offenders under supervision.  The need for improve-
ment was clearly demonstrated by the results of our review,
a conclusion which the Administrative Office has endorsed by
its substantive actions on our recommendations.

     The Administrative Office requested that we present
separate reports of the difficulties which occured during
the supervision period and during the followup period.   The
Administrative Office requested this data because of a
study made by its Western Washington probation district
which showed that 43 percent of the cases in that district
cited as having "difficulties" had them during the followup
period.

     We do not believe that separate reports on each dis-
trict would be useful to the Administrative Office since our
samples were not drawn on a basis which would allow us to
make projections on an individual district's success and fail-
ure rate.  We do disagree, however, that 43 percent of the
Western District of Washington's sample cases experienced
their difficulties after they left supervision.




                             40
      The sample we drew at Western Washington showed that 51
offenders (about 55 percent) successfully adjusted back into
society while 42 offenders (about 45 percent) did not. Of
the 42 offenders not successfully adjusting, 11 (about 26
percent) were revoked; 16 (about 38 percent) received ad-
ditional sentences of 60 days or more during their supervision
period but were not revoked; 1 offender received an additional
60-day sentence during the followup period; and 12 offenders
(about 29 percent) had been convicted of new offenses and re-
ceived sentences of less than 60 days or were wanted for new
violations.   The remaining two offenders had been placed back
on supervision and were still active at the time of cur re-
view.   As the statistics for the 42 offenders who did not suc-
cessfully adjust to society show, 27     enders (about 64 per-
cent) failed while they were under       vision.  In addition,
the samples drawn at the other four     Lricts reviewed dis-
closed a similar trend.

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSIO'

     The Parole Commission stated that it believes our re-
port contains observations and recommendations for signifi-
cant improvement in the management of Federal probation and
parole activities.  It agreed that supervision guidelines
should be reevaluated and a thorough study should be made to
assess, both from a legal and practical standpoint, whether
search and seizure authority should be given to probation
officers.  The Parole Commission also said it has developed
and implemented a set of guidelines for warrant issuance to
be used by its regional parole commissioners.  (See app. III.)

      The Parole Commission said that there is no benefit to
be gained in combining the success-failure rate for offen-
ders.   The Parole Commission said that we could have pre-
sented success-rate statistics in a more meaningful manner
had we paid stricter attention to the categories of persons
supervised. The Parole Commission believes that there are
significant differences among success rates for probationers,
parolees, and individuals who are eventually released early
by operation of "good time statutes."   The Commission stated
that there is absolutely no benefit to be gained in combining
poor-risk mandatory releases (who never qualified for parole)
with parolees.

     We agree with the Parole Commission that this would have
been a valid approach had our objective been to measure the
success-failure rates for various types of release.  As
pointed out on page i of the digest, we were concerned with
whether the Federal Probation System was achieving its



                             41
central goal of enhancing the safety of the community by pro-
viding adequate supervision and rehabilitaion services to
persons   leased.  Because there are two types of offenders
in the system--those placed in it by the courts and those
placed in it by the executive branch--we segregated our data
by these two categories so that each branch of Government
could see how successful the system was in supervising those
offenders it released.

     The statistics in chapter 2 provide some insight into
how well offenders were adjusting to society.  They are not
intended to assist the Parole Commission in doing its job of
monitoring its offenders to determine success.  The high
percentage of offenders paroled who are subsequently con-
victed of another crime does show that more must be done
either in the supervision or rehabilitation aspect, or the
decision to release aspect, or both.

     The Parole Commission said that the tone of the report
seems to indicate that it should rush in with a warrant every
time an alleged parole violator is released by the courts in-
to the community.  The Commission cited the following reasons
as to why it would not immediately issue a warrant:

     -- A decision to await further disposition of
        a pending charge of criminal behavior.

     -- A decision to await futher report of attempts
        by a probation officer to work out an alterna-
        tive plan for supervision (in lieu of a warrant).

     -- A decision to delay the warrant since the re-
        leasee had already been sentenced to contine-
        ment and staff time should be used first in
        preparing warrants on cases where speed is
        more necessary.

     The Commission said that in regard to the first of the
above situations, the fact that a paroleee may be (or has
been) released on bond by local courts pending disposition
of new charges is not an automatic reason to trigger issuance
of a Commission warrant.  To release on bond is the respons-
ibility of the court, said the Commission, and the Com-
mission should not routinely react by substituting its own
judgment for the court's.

     Our position is not that the Parole Commission should
rush in with a warrant every time an alleged parole violator
is released by the courts into the community.  Rather, it is,



                             42
as pointed out on pages 17 to 19 of the report, that when an
alleged violator poses a danger to the community or when
there is sufficient evidence to revoke parole in the ab-
sence of a court conviction, warrants should be issued prompt-
ly. This would help reduce the likelihood of situations oc-
curring, such as those noted in the report on pages 18 and 19.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

     The Justice Department generally concurred with the
findings and recommendations contained in this report.
(See app. IV.)  It strongly supported the recommendations
to increase emphasis on the rehabilitation and supervision
of persons released from Federal prisons, to establish
standardized procedures and specific definitions of responsi-
bility where multiple agencies are involved, and to arrange
cooperative meetings between the U.S Parole Commission, the
Judicial Conference, and the Adminstrative Office of the U.S.
Courts to improve management techniques.

     The Department supported our recommendation that the
Probation System develop a strong national centralized imn-
agement system which would include technical assistance o
field offices, minimum performance standards for field of-
fices, and general management and program evaluation. The
Department said it would be willing to offer its assistance
in this effort in those areas where the Bureau of Prisons
interfaces with the courts and the Probation System.

     The Department also supported our recommendation that
the Adminstrative Office submit to the Congress a request
for the contracting authority and funding to meet offender
needs in the community. To insure that resources and efforts
are not duplicative or wasteful, the Department suggested that
the Adminstrative Office should determine what services and
resources are already available for rehabilitation programs
through other Federal organizations. Furthermore, the Depart-
ment said that if the Adminstrative Office is granted con-
tracting authority, it should coordinate the negotiation and
renewal of contracts with other Federal criminal justice
agencies who also contract with State and local organizations
for services.




                            43
                       SCOPE OF REVIEW

     Our findings and conclusions are based on work at the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and headquarters
offices of the U.S. Parole Commission and Bureau of Prisons.
We reviewed probation and parole activities in the California
Central, Illinois Northern, Georgia Northern, Washington,
D.C., and Washington Western probation districts, which
represent a geographical cross section of the Federal Pro-
bation System. We also performed limited work in four other
district probation offices--California Southern, Indiana
Northern, Maryland, and Washington Eastern. In addition,
fieldwork also included visits to all five regional offices
of the U.S. Parole Commission.

     To determine the success of probation and parole, we
randomly selected 491 cases (see the following chart) no
longer under Federal supervision. The sample was selected
from cases closed between January 1, 1973, and December 31,
1974. We used Federal Bureau of Investigation, State, and
local crime information to determine which offenders were
arrested and/or convicted of additional crimes between the
date they began Federal probation or parole and June 1976.
We are 95-percent confident that the failure rate stated
on page 5 is accurate to within 4.7 percent.

     To obtain an understanding of recent work by the Federal
Probation System, we sampled 482 active cases (See the fol'ow-
ing chart, p. 45.) This second sample was drawn from all in-
dividuals on active probation or parole suLpervision on or
about March 1, 1976, and whose probation or parole supervision
began before September 1, 1975.




                             44
                           Universe case size Sample case size
   Probation office        Closed                 (note a)
                                       ctive Cosed    · Active
  California Central
    (Los Angeles)
                            4,184       3,626     103      103
  Georgia Northern
    (Atlanta)               1,257         968      97       97
  Illinois Northern
    (Chicago)              1,929        1,913    100       100
  Washington, D.C.
                           1,925        2,116     98        89
  Washington Western
    (Seattle)                806          684     93        93
        Total             10,101      9,307     491      482
 a/Included in the sample
                          were all the various types
   Federal probation and parole                       of
                                such
   probation, parole, and mandatory   as probation, magistrates
                                     release.
      We also reviewed 283
 mine such things as amount Parole Commission cases to deter-
 and probation officers,     of contact between the Commission
 to be issued, timeliness length of time for arrest
                           of probation office and warrants
 mission correspondence,                            Parole Com-
                          and adequacy of delivery
 services to parolees.                              of needed

       Discussions were held with
  Parole Commission, probation       judges, members of the U.S.
                                 officials in district courts
  the Administrative Office
                             of the U.S. Courts, and officialsand
 of the Department of Justice.
 Government agencies and community We also contacted various
                                       service organizations.
       Information was obtained
 These were sent to chief         through three questionnaires.
                            judges
 cers at 91 U.S. court districts and chief probation offi-
 court districts) and to             (excluding the
                          226 probation officers 3    territorial
                                                    in the dis-
 tricts reviewed. The judges'
sponses on various probation questionnaire solicited re-
formation, responsibility,       issues such as management
eight judges replied. The     and  important needs. Eighty-in-
quested information on how questionnaire sent to CUSPOs re-
management, and important the districts operated, general
Two hundered and twelve     needs. All 91 CUSPOs
                          of 226 probation otficersresponded.
to the third questionnaire,                            responded
what they did, how they        which requested information
                         did it, cases, and important        on
                                                          needs.
                              45
APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I


          CHARACTERISTICS OF PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES

                    INCLUDED IN OUR SAMPLES

                                                    Sample
                                          Closed             Active

Age
       20 or less                              63               51
       21 to 30                               249              239
       31 to 40                               102              118
       Over 40                                 75               73
       Unknown                                  2                1

Sex
       Male                                   417              414
       Female                                  74               68

Race
       White                                  269              227
       Black                                  195              212
       Spanish speaking                        14               30
       Oriental                                 2                3
       American Indian                          9                8
       Other                                    0                2
       Unknown                                  2                0

Marital status
    Married                                   206              178
    Common law                                 16               20
    Divorced                                   55               48
    Single                                    161              186
    Widowed                                     2               12
    Separated                                  45               33
    Unknown                                     6                5

Prior record (convictions)
    None                                      175             165
    1                                         101              96
    2                                          55              59
    3                                          39              39
    4                                          35              35
    5 or more                                  70              85
    Unknown                                    16               3




                                46
APPENDIX I                                         APPENDIX I


                                                 Sample
                                            Closed    Active
Federal crime committed resulting in
  placement on supervision
     Assault or attempted assassination        5         6
     Burglary, larceny, nonbank robbery        1         7
     Bank robbery                             19        52
    Conspiracy                                12        23
    Counterfeiting                            13        18
    Crime on a Government reservation
        (Indian, military, etc.)               9        26
    Customs, immigration, or smuggling
        (nonnarcotic) offense                13          6
    Destruction of Government property        4          4
    Election law violation                    0          2
    Embezzlement or fraud                    26         30
    Escape, fugitive from justice,
       bailjumping                           13          5
    Extortion, blackmail, kidnapping,
       bribery, perjury                       2          7
    Firearm law violation                    10         13
    Forgery                                  22         35
    Organized crime (gambling)                2          2
    Homicide, murder, manslaughter,
       assassination                          0          3
    Income tax law violation                  5          7
    Interstate transport of stolen motor
       vehicle                               35         ]3
    Interstate transport of forged
       security                              14          5
    Theft from interstate shipment or
       other transport violations            16         15
    Liquor law violation                     22          6
    Possession or sale of narcotics          43        103
    Smuggling ot importation of narcotics    33         18
    Postal law violation                     79         70
    Selective service violation              27          5
    Wiretapping or other communication
      violation                               3          1.
    Probation or parole violation            18         21
   All other Federal violations              90         70




                            47
APPENDIX I
                                                   APPENDIX I


                                                Sample
                                           Closed    Active
Highest education level attained
    College graduate
                                            21          10
    Some college
                                            85          64
    High school graduate
                                           152         147
    Grades 9 to 11
                                           155         182
    Grades 1 to 8
                                            69          75
    Unknown
                                             9           4
Job status at beginning of   supervision
    Unemployed
                                           147        161
    Employed
                                           293        285
    Unknown
                                            16          1
    Retired
                                             4          3
    Student
                                            31         32
Job status at end of supervision
    Unemployed
                                           129        140
    Employed                               297        303
    Unknown
                                            39          9
    Retired
                                             5          3
    Student
                                            21         27




                             48
APPENDIX II                                                                  APPENDIX II




                            ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
                               UNITED STATES COURTS
                                 SUPREME    COURT   BUILDING
                                  WASHINGTON.   DC    20544
 ROWLAND F.         KIRKS

  WILLIAM E. FOLEY                                      September 14, 1977
    orUTY   ot-;.   tIV




   Mr. Victor L. Lowe
   Director, General
     Government Division
   United States General
     Accounting Office
   Washington, D.C. 20548

   Dear Mr. Lowe:

              This letter is in response to your request for comments on the draft
   report of the General Accounting Office survey of the Federal Probation System.

              The survey focused on two general areas--how effectively Federal
   probation officers are providing supervision .J rehabilitation treatment to
   offenders on probation and parole and the management of the system. The report
   notes a number of deficiencies and shortcomings both in the delivery of service
   to offenders and the management and direction provided by the Administrative
   Office.  I share your concern with the dficiencies found and agree that there
   is substantial room for improvement in o.th areas.

              In response to your invitation for comments I shall discuss the
   issues in the order in which they appear in the draft repL-t. However, first
   there are several general comments I would like to make.

              A large part of the survey relied on an examination of probation and
   parole cases that were closed during the period, January 1973 through December
   1974, and an 18-month followup period subsequent to termination of supervision
   of those cases. Since an average period of supervision is at least 2 years,
   the survey covered the activities of cases that came under supervision in 1971
   and followed them through June of 1976. To put the findings of the survey in
   Context it is important that there be a statement of the workload of the Federal
   Probatior System during that period--namely, 1971-1976. The following tables
   represent the major indicies of probation workload. Table I reflects the number
   of persons received for supervision, by type of supervision, during fiscal years
   1971-1976.




                                           49
APPENDIX II                                                                  APPENDIX II


                                                                    Page 2
                    Table I.--Persons Received by Type of Supervision

    Fiscal       Court                      Mandatory    Military       Deferred
     Year      Probation 1/   Parole         Release      Parole      Prosecution    Total
     1971       15,921         5,051             2,831      208           566       24,577
     1972       19,752         5,264             2,758      115           703       28,592
     1973       21,362         5,838             2,577      162           689       30,628
     1974       22,803         6,299             2,398      183           977       32,660
     1975       23,549         8,761             2,408      200         1,143
                                        /                                           36,061
     1976       23,733         7 ,4 91 2         1,935      232         1,711       35,102
    1/   Includes persons placed on probation by United States Magistrates.
    2/   Includes 1,205 special parole cases.


               Table II is a presentation of the number of persons under supervision
    by type of supervision at the close of each fiscal year, 1971 through
                                                                          1976.


               Table II.--Persons Under Supervision by Type of Supervision

    Fiscal       Court                      Mandatory    Military       Deferred
     Year      Probationl/    Parole         Release      Parole      Prosecution    Total
    1971        30,608         9,055          2,012        227            647       42,549
    1972        35,999        10,029          2,047        181            767       49,023
    1973        40,504        10,877          1,955        224            786       54,346
    1974        43,990        12,377          1,916        269          1,063       59,615
    1975        45,662        15,284          1,754        302          1,259       64,261
    1976        45,272        15,520 2/       1,352        339          1,763       64,246
   1/    Includes persons placed on probation by United States Magistrates.
   2/    Includes 1,430 special parole cases.


              Table III reflects the total number of investigative reports
                                                                           prepared
   by probation officers during fiscal years 1971 through 1976.




                                            50
APPENDIX II                                                                APPENDIX II


                                                                  Page 3

                            Table III.--Investigative Reports

      Type of Investigation         1971         1972     1973     1974     1975      1976
   Presentence Investigation... 23,479       27,558      29,736   29,492   31,740    32,193
   Limited Presentence
     Investigation .............   2,159         2,118    1,915    1,943    2,202     2,255
   Collateral Investigation for
     Another District ..........   8,057         8,343    8,470    9,203   11,932    14,526
   Preliminary Investigation To
     Assist U.S. Attorney in
       Juvenile Cases ..........     503           527      632      862      953     1,645
   Postsentence Investigation
     for Institution ...........     281           426      553      658      650       746
   Pretransfer Investigation...    6,343         7,231    7,650    8,603    9,870    10,583
   Alleged Violation Investi-
     gation (Probation and
       Parole) .................   6,053         5,790    5,895    6,630    8,581    10,351
   Prerelease Investigation for
     a Federal or Military
       Institution .............   6,116         6,490    6,780    6,965    8,805     7,112
   Special Investigation Re-
     garding a Prisoner in
       Confinement .............   1,920         2,348    2,921    4,628    6,010     5,085
   Furlough and Work-Release
     Reports for Bureau of
       Prisons Institutions  ....    320           444      556    1,140    2,770     3,175
   Parole Supervi-ion Reports..    4,920         5,06'    5,187    5,895    7,030    12,931
   Parole Rvocation Hearing
     ]eport            ................
                                   1,346         1,265      965    1,127    1,320     1,732
               Total ...........   61,497    67,607      71,260   77,146   91,863   102,334

              Table IV presents the average number of supervision cases per probation
   officer exclusive of chief probation officer positions and officers required for
   the preparation of presentence investigation reports.




                                            51
APPENDIX II
                                                                            APPENDIX II



                     Table IV.--Investigative and Supervisory
                                                              Workload

            Probation                                Officers                     Average
                                        Officers     Available
   Fiscal    Officer      Presentence                                           Supervision
                                        Required        for       Supervision
    Year    Positions/                                                           Cases per
                              Inv.      for PSI2/   Supervision      Cases        Officer
   1971        522           23,479      183           339         42,549
   1972        549           27,558                                                126
                                         215           334         49,023
   1973        717           29,736                                                147
                                         232           485         54,346
   1974      1,057           29,492                                                112
                                         230           827         59,615
   1975      1,377           31,740                                                 72
                                         248         1,129         64,261
   1976      1,452           32,193                                                 57
                                         252         1,200         64,246           54
  1/   Excludes 91 chief probation officer
                                            positions (90 in 1971).
  2/   Based on data obtained from time
                                        studies conducted by Federal Judicial
       Center in 1973 and 1975, assumes
       gation reports and proportionate completion of 128 presentence investi-
                                        share of other investigative reports.


              It is important that the reader
                                              of the final report know something
  the workload of the system when
                                   he reads that supervision and rehabilitation about
  vices were limited. For the first                                               ser-
  supervision caseloads were in excess3 years of the period covered by the survey the
                                        of 100 per officer with a peak
  ficer in 1972. The standard now                                       of 147 per of-
  per officer. Additional probation being applied is a caseload of 50
                                                                       supervision
                                      officer positions have been authorized        cases
  last 3 years for the specific purpose                                       in
                                         of allowing more time for supervision the
  proving supervision practices.                                                 and im-

            Although it is indicated in the
 the survey was conducted in five             report I want to emphasize that
                                   metropolitan offices, the results           since
 resentative of other metropolitan                                    are
                                    offices than the system as a whole. more rep-
 in this sample were more likely                                           The persons
                                  to be parolees, members of a minority
 have a prior criminal record.                                            group, and
                                 They were
 persons living in the larger metropolitan subject to the social problems that face
 poor housing, and lack of aequate          areas such as high unemployment
                                                                              rates,
                                     social services.   In short, the statistical
 likelihood of violation of the conditions
                                            of release was higher for this
 than the national average.                                                  sample

            The report should contain a statement
                                                   of probation's place in the crim-
 inal justice system within our society.
 incarceration and its success or         Probation  in more than an alternative to
                                  failure cannot be arbitrarily established
 basis of rearrest rates.  It is a correctional approach to                  on the
                                                             the offender, as opposed
 to the purely punitive approach.
                                   It maintains the unity of society
 families together and strengthening                                  by holding
                                     the individual's concept of social
 bility and attempts to bring all                                        responsi-
                                  of the community resources to bear
 offender's problem.                                                  on the

            Probation (and parole)
 solely responsible for the "successdoes not exist as an independent system which is
                                      or failure" of the offenders that
                                                                        come into




                                        52
APPENDIX II                                                           APPENDIX II


                                                             Page 5

   contact with it. Offenders come into the system as failures having been con-
   victed of criminal violations. They bring with them a varying degree of social
   problems and it is not surprising that many of them experience further difficulty
   while in the system or after having left it. It should be remembered that proba-
   tioners and parolees do not come into the supervisory relationship voluntarily
   nor does the probation officer have the final decision of who is selected for
   supervision.

              The report contains a number of statenents I now address in the order
   in which they appear.

              At page 6 the report states that statistics on the numbers of proba-
   tioners and parolees who comply with the terms of their release are not cooDiled.
   Such statistics are in fact compiled and published by the Administrative Officc.
   It is correct that the statistics need to be upgraded substantially but there are
   in fact such statistics.

              Also at page 6 the report indicates that "one out of every two of-
   fenders released on probation or parole had difficulty in complying with the con-
   ditions of his release." I ask that this statement be amended to reflect the
   actual percentages of outcome noted. There should be a statement at this point
   that the survey included an 18-month period of followup beyond termination of
   supervision. Therefore, the findings relate to events that occurred during the
   period of supervision and 18 months thereafter. The probation office in the
   Western District of Washington has reported to me that 43 percent of the cases in
   that district cited as having "difficulties" in the survey had their "difficulties"
   during the followup period.  I do not know if that experience is representative of
   all cases surveyed and therefore I ask that you present separate reports of the
   difficulties that occurred during the period of supervision and during the 18-month
   followup period.

               At page 7 the report refers to cases that "failed." I suggest that the
    report clearly identify the difference between "had difficulties" and "failed,"
    since it is apparent that the term "failed" includes the 12 percent who were re-
    voked and the additional 20 percent who were convicted and sentenced to a term of
    60 days or more or absconded from supervision.  With regard to the 20 percent who
    received additional sentences of 60 days or more or fled supervision and were not
    revoked it should be stated that the decision to revoke or not revoke is a respon-
    sibility that rests with the courts in probation cases or the Parole Commission
    in parole cases. Those who failed to satisfactorily complete their supervision
    period or remain free from further criminal behavior during the followup period
    are indeed failures. Case failure does not mean necessarily that the system
    failed.

               At page 8 the report shows a table of the arrests and convictions during
    the supervision period. The description should be modified to reflect that this
    includes the 18-month followup period.  I suggest deleting the arrest data since
    conviction is the only valid measure. Finally, this table combines the convictions
    of probationers and parolees. I ask that you present this intormation separately




                                         53
APPENDIX II                                                           APPENDIX II


                                                             Page 6

   and that the table be expanded to indicate the types of offenses resulting in
   conviction. This     important for several reasons. First, the sample contains
   a disproportionate umber of persons on parole when compared to the national
   figure of approximately 25 percent. We know that parolees have a statistically
   higher rate of new arrests and convictions. Second, the reader should be able
   to judge for himself the level of risk to society the conviction posed.

              At page 9 the report states that the "45 percent of the offenders who
   had difficulty in completing their probation and parole raises a   rious question
   as to the Federal Probation System's ability to help offenders make a positive
   adjustment in the community while protecting society." That is a valid concern
   and one that I share, but, what percent of those who "had difficulty" posed a
   threat to society and what would have been the alternative to placing them or
   retaining then on probation or parole? Of the 45 percent, 12 percent were re-
   voked during the period of supervision by the courts or the Parole Commission,
   which had considered the reported conduct and determined that continuation on pro-
   batien or parole would not be appropriate. The remaining 33 percent had been dealt
   with or were in the process of being dealt with in the local courts (except for the
   unstated number of absconders).  In those cases where the conviction occurred during
   the period of supervision the system had exercised the judgment that those persons
   should be permitted to remain in a probation or parole status.  Where the conviction
   occurred during the followup period there was no decisior to be made.

              Chapter 3 addresses the need for greater emphasis on frequency of super-
   vision contacts with offenders on probation and parole and the extent to which
   special conditions of probation or parole are completed by offenders. At page 10
   the report reflects that the frequency of supervision contacts with offenders ter-
   minated from supervision in 1973 and 1974 were well below standards established by
   the Administrative Office. As indicated earlier, this sample included a mix of
   probation and parole cases, the majority of whom came under supervision in 1971.
   Standards for caseload classification and supervision contacts were not issued
   until 1971. Those standards were established by the paroling authority, then the
   United States Board of Parole, working in conjunction with probation officers and
   staff of the Probation Division of the Administrative Office. The standards were
   goals to be implemented in parole cases when sufficient personnel became available.
   In 1971 the average supervision caseload as indicated in Table III was 126 cases
   per officer. In 1972 it peaked at 147 per officer. The caseload thereafter
   declined as additional officers were authorized by the Congress in fiscal years
   1973 through 1975. The standards were not adopted for application to probation
   cases, the other 75 percent of the supervision load, until September 1974. The
   standards constitute a reasonable level of expectation given the staff and work-
   load that currently exists. We take no exception to use of these standards for
   assessing the frequency of contact with persons under supervision in the closed
   case sample. However, the report should clearly indicate that the standards were
   not requirements until late 1974.

              Page 13 presents two tables--one reflecting the percentage of comple-
   tion of special conditions, by judicial district, and the other reflecting the
   percentage of completed special conditions, by nature of condition. Addressing




                                       54
APPENDIX II                                                          APPENDIX II


                                                           Page 7
  the latter I note that the frequency of completion of direct performance type of
  special conditions--payment of fines and restitution and performance of community
  service--have a high rate of completion whereas treatment type conditions such as
  those requiring treatment for drug and alcohol abuse are completed at a lesser
  rate. The table which reports on the frequency of completion by judicial district
  would be more meaningful if it reflected the type of conditions imposed n the
  respective districts.

             eages 13 and 14 indicate that supervision responsibilities take a
  back seat to administrative responsibilities and cite the findings of probation
  time studies conducted in 1973 and 1975. We agree that every effort should be
  made to increase the amount of time spent in supervision activities. However,
  all time spent in nonsupervisory activity is not administrative in nature. In the
  1975 study, for example, 2S percent of the time spent was in the preparation of
  investigative reports.

             On page 15 the report states that the Administrative Office has taken
  no action as a result of its latest time study to insure that probation officers
  improve the frequency of contacts with offenders. This statement illustrates a
  shortcoming which appears at several places in the draft report. The report gives
  no credit for the extensive training program conducted for probation officers by
  the Federal Judicial Center, the United States Probation Officers Manual, the
  numerous bulletins, memoranda, forms, and standard procedures which issue from our
  office, the role of the regional probation administrators in the Probation Divi-
  sion, or the annual meetings held by the Probation Division with all chief proba-
  tion officers in the system. Since the manual of procedures for probation officers
  was first published by the Administrative Office in November 1949 it has carried
  instructions relating to the classification of cases on the basis of their need
  for supervision and further instructions setting forth general standards for
  delivery of supervisory services to persons on prcbation and parole.

             Chapter 4 relates principally to the policies of the United States
  Parole Commission. I understand that the Parole Commission will respond in detail
  to the issues raised. Therefore, I shall limit:ly comments accordingly.




                             (See GAO note p. 74.)




                                       55
APPENDIX II                                                             APPENDIX II

                                                               Page 8




                               (See GAO note p.     74.)



               Chapter 5 cites the need for improvement in the identification of the
    needs of offenders, referral for appropriate treatment, and followup to insure
    proper delivery of services. The report notes an improvement in the active case
    sample over the closed case sample.

               Prcbation officers should focus their professional attention on the
    identification and referral for treatment of needs demonstrated by offenders.
    However, their principal responsibility is to identify and arrange for treatment
    of those neds which affect behavior and which might pose a risk to society if
    allowed to remain untreated. For this reason not all of the "needs" will be met
    or for that mattar even addressed.

               Startiig at page 34 the report points to limited use of rehabilitation
    plans which are defined at page 35 as plans which include "a statement of eeds,
    goals, and timeframes for delivery of needed services." Under current recommen-
    dations of Publicatica 103 and Chapter 4 of the U.S. Probation Officers Manuai,
    both presentence investigation reports and opening case summaries should contain
    proposed treatment plans.  In neither instance do these recommendations cover all
    the requirements set forth in your definition. You have identified a significant
    problem and bth the forthcoming Publication 105, The Presentence Investigation
    Report, and planned Publication 106, The Supervision Monograph, will address this
    issue in detail. Please modify the first sentence of the second paragraph on page
    34 by removing the words "attempting to." To say that probation officers are not
    attempting to comprehensively address the problems of rehabilitation is an over-
    statement of the point.

                Chapter 6 cites the Adm .tLrx.,Live Office for failure to establish the
    following:   Goals and standards foL stervision; a means to evaluate the system's
    effectiveness; a reporting system to evaluate office performance; and failure to
    provide adequate technical assistance to help districts solve problems. As a
    result the report finds the Administrative Office is unable to identify weaknesses
    wit'    Lne system and take corrective action, the Judicial Conference does not
    have the information it needs to set policy, and the Parole ommission does not
    have a means for assessing the probation system's performance in supervising
    persons on parole.

                I shall address these comments in turn. The system has established
    goals tor super,;ision and they are set forth in the U.S. Probation Officers
    Manual.   How.ver, they do not lend themselves to empirical review and analysis.
    We recognize the need for improved standards and propose to develop and incorporate
    themn in the forthcoming monograph on supervision. We do lack a systematic process




                                        56
APPENDIX II                                                           APPENDIX II


                                                             Page 9
   for evaluating the field operation's effectiveness. I have commented previously
   in regard to the lack of etailed information about the basic goal o the system--
   the success of persons under supervision. While we do report on removals from
   supervision, we cannot report on case outcome with the same degree of precision
   reported by GAO after tht r case file review. The reporting system now in use
   provides limited information at best. Work is now underway to -- velop an improved
   reporting system.

              The criticism that these deficiencies result in complete lack of abil-
   ity in the Administrative Office, the Judicial Conference, or the Parole Commission
   to perform their responsibilities with regard to the probation system is overdrawn.
   However, improvements in these areas would enhance the ability of these organiza-
   tions to carry out their duties and responsibilities.




                             (See GAO note p. 74.)




              Finally I ask that the description of the scope of the review at page
   54 clearly indicate that (1) the study included a followup period of 18 months,
   and (2) "failure rate" as used here is synonymous with the statement "had diffi-
   culti2s" on page 6.




                                         57
APPENDIX II
                                                                        APPENDIX II


                                                              Iage 10
              I ask that whera you agree with the recommended
   digest and cover summary be amended accordingly.           changes, that the

              At this point I shall address each of the
                                                        recommendations in the
   order in which they appear in your report.

               Starting at page 19 you recommend that
    cooperation with the Parole Commission and field the Administrative Office in
                                                      probation offices review the
    present standards for supervision contacts, secure
    contact standards fr various risk levels,           agreement on the minimum
                                               adopt procedures for meeting these
   standards, and adopt techniques which improve
   concur wholeheartedly in this recommendation. the efficiency of supervision. We
   the Federal Judicial Center to evaluate the     The Probation Division has asked
   the Federal Probation System, and initial    various  predictive devices in use in
   Commission to reexamine the guidelines     contact has been made with the Parole
                                           for persons on prcle. The agenda for
   all training sessions have been modified to emphasize
   personnel and delivery of supervision services.         effective utilization of
   development of a monograph on supervision         Further, we have initiated
                                              which will
   for the performance of supervision responsibilities. set more complete standards




                              (See GAO note p. 74.)




             At page 41 you recommend that probation offices
  tation treatment programs by providing rehabilitation        improve their rehabili-
  to needed services, and followup to                    plans,  referral of offenders
  desirable goal and one which we hope see if such services are received. This is a
                                        to promote
  tion of monographs on presentence investigation through the forthcoming publica-
                                                   reports and supervision practices,
  modification of training programs, and redoubled
  regional probation administrators to provide      efforts on the part of the
                                                technical assistance and guidance to
  the field offices.

             Also at page 41 you recommend that
  an analysis of rehabilitation needs and submit the Administrative Office conduct
  with a request for contract authority and       a report of its findings to Congress
                                             funds to meet offender needs. 1 shall
  instruct the Probation Division to conduct
  testimony before the Senate, the Judicial the survey you recommend. In recent
                                             Conferen:e Committee on the Administra-
  tion of the Probation System racommended that
  authority to contract for supportive and       Congress provide th!.s office wlith
                                            rehabilitative services that are not
  otherwise available in the community. At itt
                                                 July 1977 meeting the Probatiol
  Committee considered this specific recomme
                                              dation and reaffirmed its approval..
             At page 49 you recommend that the system assess
  provide a listing of priorities to the Federal              research neds and
                                                  Judicial Center with a request




                                      58
APPENDIX II                                                            APPENDIX II



                                                             Page 11
   that it conduct the specific projects. This recommendation was considered by
   the Probation Committee at its July 1977 meeting and approved.

              At page 52 you recommend that the Judicial Conference, through the
   Administrative Office, estsblieh Probation System goals and responsibilities
   and devise an adequate reporting system to provide information needed to eval-
   uate the effectiveness of the system. The Probation Committee has considered
   these recommendations and agreed to recommend that the Judicial Conference
   endorse the need for a modern informaition system that would enhance management
   of the probation system within tatutory limitations. The Probation Committee
   has indicated its intention to work with the Administrative Office and the
   Federal Judicial Center to plan and develop such a system.

             Also at page 52 you recommend that the Administrative Office provide
  technical assistance to aid field offices in developing and implementing super-
  vision programs. I have instructed the chief of the Division of Probation to
  develop a plan to improve the delivery of technical assistance to field offices.




                             (See GAO note p.     74.)




             I appreciate having had the opportunity to comment on this report.      If
  I may be of any further help please let me krow.

                                               Sirce ely yours,



                                               William . Fol
                                               Deputy Directo     |




                                        59
APPENDIX III                                                                            APPENDIX III


                                                                          UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT


 REPL
        ,July
        AE

        TO
                      29, 1977
                Curtis C. Crawford, Acting Chairman
                                                                memorandum
 ATTNO:         U.S. Parole Commission
 sUBJ·CT:       GAO Report on the Federal Probetion System


        TO:     Victor L. Lowe, Director
                U. S. General Accounting Office
                Washington, D. C. 20548


                       The United States Parole Commission has been furnished a copy
              of the draft of the proposed report concerning the management of the
              Federal probation and parole activities. We have studied this draft
              carefully and believe it contains observations and recommendations for
              significant improvement, but at the same time contains some errors in
              interpretation of the facts. In several areas covered the material
              seems to be grossly one-sided in presentation and I suggest a more
              balanced report which shows the facts on both sides of a question.
                       Basically, what I recommend is a re-write of much of this
              report in a more scholarly and scientific matter as opposed to what now
              appears to be a rather editorially orientated treatise designed to
              criticize and over-emphasize one point of view without presenting the
              legal and practical constraints which form the basis of the policies
              of the Parole Commission. Further, I suggest that the statistics
              should be presented in a manner to give a more accurate and complete
              picture of the facts, rather than as they are used here to support a
              conviction apparently previously arrived at by the writers of the draft.
                       In this response to the draft report I will not comment on the
              discussion of the statement that "offenders are not being provided re-
              habilitation services" or the "need to better monitor and evaluate the
              probation system" as set forth in chapters 5 and 6. These matters,
              doubtless, will be commented on at length by the Probation Division.
              I will, however, comment on the following areas and offer some sugges-
              tions for improvement in the report as now drafted:

                       1.       Success of releasees, with special regard
                            to parolees and mandatory releasees;
                       2.       Use of supervision guidelines for parolees,
                            and the number of contacts vith releasees;
                       3.        Special conditions imposed on releasees;
                       4.       Issuance of parole violation warrants, with
                            special emphasis on guidelines for issuance and
                            the time periods involved;



                         Buy U.S. Savirgs Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan    .6ONAL ,ORMo.      et

                                                                                        60A PM" (4 CRl,, 101- .6




                                                    60
APPENDIX III                                                          APPENDIX III




                5.        Lack of authority for probation officers
                     to                  search and seize evidence,
                              (See GAO note p. 74.)

       SUCCESS OF RELEASEES

                To begin with, a basic assumption that "the fewer reported
       violations the better the supervision" is highly arguable. Some
       point out that with lax supervision the "apparent" success rate is
       higher. Conversely, an energetic supervision pattern will turn up
       problems and minor violations which can be dealt with before they
       eventually result in major criminal behavior but which will result
       in an "apparent" lower success rate. Thus, there should not be an
       undue emphasis on "a good record" to the point where minor infractions
       are overlooked for the sake of statistics.

                Discounting the above observation, we must be careful to
      present our statistics in a meaningful manner, paying strict attention
      to the categories of persons we are counting. There are significant
      differences between the success rates of persons selected by the courts
      as not needing confinement at all (and thus put on probation); persons
      needing confinement but meriting an opportunity on parole; and the
      remainder o the persons who not only need confinement but are deemed
      to be such poor risks in the community that they are not paroled at all,
      but rather are eventually "mandatorily released" by operation of "good
      time statutes." There is absolutely no benefit to be gained in com-
      bining a "success-failure" rate of more than one of these widely diver-
      gent types into one statistical conclusion. Yet that is precisely what
      occurs on page 7 of the draft report. While the authors do make a
      distinction between probationers and parolees, they obviously lumped
      in all the poor risk mandatory releasees (who never qualified for parole
      in the first place) with the parolees (see page 55 also). The
      Commission historically has pointed out the higher recidivism rate of
      mandatory releasees, but this draft report does not take this fact into
      account.
               Further, the definition f success and failure as used in the
      report is confusing. The following questions come to mind which need
      to be spelled out on page 7:
               a. The statistics used by the authors comprise the persons
      counted in five large metropolitan areas. Are these typical of the
      Nation as a whole?




                                          -   2 -




                                     61
APPENDIX III
                                                                       APPENDIX III




                             (See GAO note p. 74.)




               c. Parolees (and less so, probationers) are
      sentenced to short sentences by the very natuire of theirsubject to being
                                                                 life styles.
      When such occurs but the Commission feels that they should be continued
      under community supervision rather than revoke parole, is that person
      failure - yet?                                                          a




                             (See GAO note p. 74.)




               To be helpful, the following factual statistics are provided
     for whatever ue mioht e made of them. These are the result     of data
     gathering by the Parole Conmission for the groups of federal prisoners
     released from confinement during the years 1970 and 1972. The figures
     showing the outcome of those two groups are based on a two year
                                                                      follow-
     up study. They are broken down into adult parolees, youth parolees
     those who were released on mandatory release or expiration of the    and
     sentence (rather than by parole). The definition of favorable outcome
     (success) used here is (1) no new commitment of 60 days or more;
     no warrant issued for absconding from supervision; (3) no return  (2)
                                                                       to
     confinement as a result of any type of release violation (technical
     criminal); and (4)no death during commission of a criminal act.      or

     ADULT PAROLEES

               Year                        Percent favorable outcome
                1970                                 79.9
                1972                                86.1




                                            362




                                      62
APPENDIX III                                                          APPENDIX III




        YOUTH PAROLEES

                  Year                         Percent favorable outcome
                   1970                                  65.1
                   1972                                  70.1
        MANDATORY RELEASEES AND EXPIRATION OF "ENTENCE (adult)

                   1970                                 68.8
                   1972                                 69.8
        USE OF SUPERVISION GUIDELINES
                 The report echoes an oft repeated theme that supervision of
        probationers and parolees does not fare well in contrast to the pressure
        of preparing Pre-sentence Investigation Reports for the courts. The
        Parole Commission has no basis to evaluate this but does observe that
        with the dramatic increase in the number of probation officers during
        the past few years t would seem that both supervision and pre-sentence
        investigation should have been improved. The report, in fact, reflects
        this.

                 Prior to the recent increases in probation officer staffs the
        Commission and the Pobation Service met to formuate and adopt a set
        of Supervision u'ueiines. At that time it was not possible to comply
        with them because of he small number of officers available. During
        the past two or three years the Guidelines should have universally
        been used. It is now time to evaluate the experience under those
        Guidelines and probably modify them in light of the actual field condi-
        ticns.
                The standards for number of contacts were formulated with the
       input of both field officers and the Administrative Office Staff
       Washington officials. Now, after a thorough testing, another task force
       should be organized to see how well they serve the cause of good super-
       vision. Until new standards are developed probation officers should
       continue to comply with existing instructions. An office should not
       arbitrarily set up its own standards as reported in the draft, but
       instead lend its services to its headquarters office to attempt to
       revise the standards if that office disagrees with them.
                Until new standards     re adopted the Probation Division could


                                           -   4 -




                                      63
APPENDIX III
                                                                         APPENDIX III




    initiate some form of monitoring of the number of
    to classification of the level of supervision. Onecontacts  according
                                                         method
    review the Parole Fcm F-3 which carries this information. would be to
    accurate metnod, though, would be on-site review of probationA more
    logs of contacts. Th:s could be done on a sampling basis,       officer's
                                                                and would be
    a more reliable method than rnerely relying on what the officer
    down on the Parole Form.                                         puts

             The several suggested tfcniques which might
    supervision as set forth on page 18 of the draft reportbe used to improve
    attention of the Probation ivisior. Most, if lot all ofdeserve the
    been considered in the past, and the Probation Division    them, have
    helpful information concerning each of tte suggested     should have some
                                                         techniques.
    SPECIAL CONDITIONS
             The report is inadequate in is presentatiu, o the
    which specially imposed conditions are met. This is because    extent tJ
    statistics do nut differentiate between special conditions     the
                                                                 imposed
    against probationers as compared to those iposed against
    and mandatory releasees. For instance, the Parole Commissionparolees
    impose a special condition that a fine be paid during the       does not
    period, thus, those cases must al, rel.ate to probationers. supervision
    restitution and "cornunity service" is seldomi imposed        Likewise,
                                                           as a special
    condition by the Parole C,mmission. What is common to both
    and parolees alike re special conditions relative to          probationers
                                                           participation in
    drug or alcohol programs.

              When the Parole Commission imposes a special condition
    to participation in a drug or alcohol program it ordinarily         relative
    releasee to cooperate "as instructed by the probation officer."orders the
   Accordingly, the program often can be terminated at the discretion
    the probation officer. For this reason, it is difficu:t                of
   the meaning of the column heading entitled,                 to understand
                                                  "Not completed" as used in
    the tables on page 13 of the draft report. Cia.,ification
    is needed. Also, the language, ". . . 34 percent             of this phrase
                                                        had not been fully or
   partially completed as of March, 1976." is not understood.
   statement mean that with more time the conditions might         Does that
   met. Data presented in this fashion has only marginal use  well  have been

              Regardless of the foregoing, a probation officer is required
   to report to the Parole Conission any and all nstances
   condition is not being met by the parolee or mandatory      where a special
   that point the Commission must make a decision whether    releasee.   At
                                                             to issue a
   violationr, warrant or to suggest that the probation officer
                                                                  attempt to


                                          5-




                                       64
APPENDIX III                                                         APPENDIX III




      devis. some alternate plan. It is presumed that the probation officers
      ae a group are complying with this Commission policy. It would be dis-
      turbin? to learn that they are iginoring the special conditions imposed
      by the Commission. On the contrary, it is believed that they are making
      an earnest attempt to have them fulfilled in every instance. The
      Commission has no knowledge in this regard insofar as probationers are
      concerned.
      VIOLATION WARRANTS




                            (See GAO note p. 74.)




                Whcn a probation officer reports a violation he may, and should,
      recommend whether, in his opinion, the Commission should issue a warrant
      or whether he would like to work further with the client. His recommen-
      dation for a warrant may well come in the form of a "request,' but he is
      not to wait until he feels that e must "request" a warrant before he
      reports a violation. Under this system, which has been in effect as long
      as there has been a central paroling authority, there should be no dis-
      parity in the methods used by probation officers in reportirg violations.
               Any disparity in the issuance of warrants would arise out of
      differing opinions and philosophies between the Regional Commissioners
      themselves. 't is conceded that with a Regional system under which the
      Commission is now operating there are differences of philosophies between
      the persons making these decisions. The Regional Commissioner has sole
      authority to issue or refuse to issue a warrant once a violation has
      been reported to him. One of them might be cautious that the charges
      against the parolee can be proved with certainty, while another might
      lean in the direction of concern for public safety and issue a warrant
      which is not quite so defensible in a legal sense. Prior to regionalization


                                       -65




                                       65
APPENDIX III                                                           APPENDIX III




     the Commission had a back-up system of requiring a second
    review any case where the staff recommended a warrant and Member
                                                               the first
                                                                        to
    Member did not concur. Such a back-up system is not feasible where
    there is only one Member present in the Region. The only logical
    way to obviate this disparity would be to move all the prisoner
    to the Commission's Headquarters Office in Washington, and        files
    post-release matters handled by the Members stationed there.haveSuch
                                                                      all
    move might then lead to some further plan to augument the number ofa
    Commissioners at Headquarters. Obviously, this would require a great
    deal of discussion and certainly is not a short-term solution.

              In the absence of any drastic move as described above, the
    Commissioners have discussed this problem at length and recently
    developed and adopted a set of guidelines for warrant issuance. These
    guidelines have been incorporated into the Commission's Procedure
    Manual. A copy is attached for reference. These guidelines now should
    be helping to icrease the consistency in which violations of parole
                                                                         or
    mandatory release are handled by the individual Regional Commissioners.
    Time frame used inissuing warrants

             The draft report reflects an attitude occasionally held by
   some probation officers that whenever they report a parole violation
   warrant should automatically be issued - and quickly! As explained a
   earlier, it is the prerogative of the Commissioner, not the probation
   officer, to determine if aid when a warrant is to be ssved. The
   probation officer's sole duty is to report violations when they occur
   and to make his ui. recommendation relative to further disposition
   the case.                                                          of

             The oraft report contains statistics on the time lags between
   reporting of violations and the time when a warrant was issued.
   not specified, it is assumed that the time lags included allowanceAlthough
   mail deliveries. On an average approximately five days could be usedfor
   up solely by mail delivery of the violation report and the return mail-
   ing of the warrant. Thus, five days should be deducted from the da ;
   set forth in the draft report. An exception occurs, of course,   when
   an emergency situation arises and the violation renort is obtained  from
   a telephone call or a teletype message; and the warrant is issued almost
   immediately and notification relayed to the Marshal by teletype. This
   is not a infrequent occurance, incidentally.
            There are several reasons why a Regional Commissioner
   not immediately issue a warrant upon receipt of a report of one would
                                                                    or more
   violations. Th-se include the following:



                                       667




                                       66
APPENDIX III                                                        APPENDIX III




                a.       a decision to await further disposition
                     of a pending charge of criminal behavior;
                b.       a decision to await further report of
                     attempts by a probation officer to work out
                     an alternative plan for supervision (in
                     lieu of a warrant);
               c.        a decision to delay the warrant since
                     the releasee had already been sentenced
                     to confinement and staff time should be
                     used first in preparing warrants on cases
                     where speed is more necessary.
                With regard to the first of the above situations, the fact
      that a parolee may be (or has been) released on bond by local cou"ts
      pending disposition of new charges is not an automatic reason to
      trigger issuance of a Commission warrant. To release on bond is the
      responsibility of the court, and the Commission should not routinely
      react by substituting its own judgement for the court's. The tone of
      the draft report seems to indicate that the Commission should rush in
      with a warrant everytime an alleged violatior is released by the court
      to the community. Exceptions do occur when the Commission determines
      that the alleged violator is a danger to the community and when it has
      sufficient evidence to revoke parole even in the -'bence  of a court
      conviction. When these two situaticns are not pesent, however, it
      is a bit risky, legally, to take a person into custody solely in the
      expectation that the court will eventually find the individual  guilty
      of a law violation.
               Frior to regionalization and when the Commission was under-
      staffed with post-release personnel there sometimes were delays in
      issuing warrants simply because of the size of the workload. This is
      not a problem at present, and since regionalization, this complaint
      is seldom heard. It was surprising to see it crop up in the draft
      report. One wonders if the probation officers who mentioned this
      problem are speaking more out of their memories of days long ago than
      out of their more recent experiences with regional post-release staffs
      and regional commissioners.
               The table on page 24 of the report should not include, in
      my opinion, the second line which shows "longest elapsed time" since
      only one very exceptional case could cause a biased and unfair impres-
      sion. When only the first line, "Average days" is examined, there
      does not seem to be an undue delay, when one takes into account time
      for mail deliveries and the fact that many warrants do not need to be



                                          867




                                     67
APPENDIX III                                                       APPENDIX III




      issued immediately, as explained earlier. For sometime now there have
      been no backlog problems in the regions and warrants have been issued
      when appropriate according to the facts of each case.
                 SEARCHES AND SEIZURE
               The draft report correctly states that "probation fficers are
      limited to investigating and obtaining documentary evidence on parole
      violations, communicating this information to the regional parole
      commissioners, and requesting warrants before any enforcement action
      can be taken." This has been the policy of the Parole Commission since
      its inception in 1930; this is the requirement of the parole statutes;
      and this is the way the Commission feels it should remain.




                           (See GAO note p. 74.)




                                             968




                                        68
APPENDIX III                                                        APPENDIX     III




                               (See GAO note p. 74.)




        Search and Seizure
                 The bar against au ority for a probation officer to search
        a parolee's person or resid nce is Commission policy. It was adopted
        to protect the individual's legal rights. It is disturbing to read
        in the draft report that one Regional Commissione. "has, in fact,
        delegated authority for seizure of evidenice to all probation officers
        in his region." (see page 29)
                 It seems apparent that the Commission should now make a
        thorough study, both from a legal and a practical standpoint, whether
        its present policy is correct or might be modified. Until such study
        is completed I will take no position on this matter.

        CONCLUSION
                 It is believed that the draft report should be re-written to
        incorporate the observations made herein, as well as take into account
        any observations to be submitted by the Probation Division. If this is



                                            -   10   -




                                       69
APPENDIX   III                                                      APPENDIX III




      dcne, the Digest portion, will, of course, srave to be redone  The
      "c 'pe of Review" (Chapter 7) would also require modification.



                            (See GAO note p. 74.)




                                       -   11   -




                                    70
APPENDIX III                                                APPENDIX III



                                  APPENDIX 9
                         CRITERIA FOR WARRANT ISSUANCE
Definition of Warrant:      A parole or mandatory release warrant is defined
      an order signed on behalf of the Commission directing the appropriate
     official to arrest and hold in custody the alleged parole r
     mandatory release violator named therein.
1.   A warrant may be issued for violation of any general or special
     condition of parole.
2.   A warrant shall be issued in cases which there is a new criminal
      conviction (other than for a minor offense), unless the Regional
      Commissioner finds good cause for non-issuance of the warrant,
      and states his reasons therefor in writing.
3.   A warrant should be issued when the parolee's continuance on parole
      is incompatible with the welfare of society or promotes disrespect
      for the parole system.     Specific acts in violation of parole must
      be stated and documented as to timne, place and circumstances of
      the alleged violation.
4.   A warrant may be issued for "treatment" in the absence of a violation
     of release conditions in NARA and YCA commitment cases only, but not
      other types of cases.


5.   A warrant should be issued in accordance with the criteria contained
      herein, and not merely to substitute for local prosecution or to
      facilitate detention pending such prosecution.




                                   71
APPENDIX IV                                                                           APPENDIX IV




                                NITE)    SA'I'ES           E'PAR'IT.iEN4 0   J''(F;
                  ..... ,                      V.I    1 '.ON, D.C.
                                                      NG'I('         20530

      Adder       H,      1             .hr1           .         7
       Diiision     IndicatId                        5 '       1'/
 and Rer to Inill. and Numbe




              Mr. Victor L. Lowe
              Director
              General Government Division
              United States General Accounting Office
              Washington, D.C.   20548

              Dear Mr. Lowe:

                   This letter is in response to your request for comments
              on the draft report titled "The Management of Federal
              Probation and Parole Activities Needs Improvement."

                   We have reviewed the draft report and generally concur
              with the findings and recommendations.  The recommendatiors
              to increase emphasis on te rehabilitation and supervision
              of persons released from Federal prisons, to establish
              standardized procedures and specific definitions of responsi-
              bility where multiple agencies are involved, and to arrange
              cooperative meetings between the U.S. Parole t.luanission,
              the Judicial Conference, and the Administrative Office of
              the U.S. Courts to improve management techniques are
              strongly supported by the Department.  We offer the follow-
              ing comments for your consideration with regard to several
              issues raised in the report.

                   The report concludes, on page 40, that rehabilitation
              programs of district probation offices ned improvement in
              the use of rehabilitation plans, in the number of offenders
              referred for treatment of tneir reds, ad in followup to
              see that treatment is completed.   The report emphasizes
              the important role United States Probation Officers (SPO)
              have in developing programs to improve the treatment of
              probationers and parolees, providing access to community
              service groups, aad making supervisory contacts by phon    or
              in person to determine the offender's pesent attitude,
              activities, and problems.   The report should also mention
              that coordinated efforts between the Bureau of Prisons
              (BOP) institutional staff and the United States Probation
              Officers  USPO) is extrmnely important in ;'oviding soon-to-be
              released   ff.nders with adequate release plans.  The 3OP
              staff and USPOs should work cooperatively to insure program




              e72




                                                      72
APPENDIX IV                                               APPENDIX IV



                                 - 2 -

       continuity for individual participan t s after release and
       develop meaningful and complementary community program
       opportunities for their clientele. In developing coopera-
       tive plans, particular attention sould be given to design-
       ing plans which are suitable to te individual's needs
       and interests, and, to the extent possible, consistent
       with the vocational training rece ved while in the institu-
       tion.
            The Department supports thr recommendation that the
       Administrative Office of the UnLted States Courts (AOUSC)
       submit to Congress a request fir the contracting, authority,
       and funding to meet offender needs in the community. To
       ensure that resources and efforts are not duplicative or
       wasteful, we suggest the AOUSC should determine what services
       and resources are already available for rehabilitation
       programs through other Federal organizations. Furthermore,
       if granted contracting authority, AOUSC should be advised
       to coordinate the negotiation and renewal of contracts
       with other Federal criminal justice agencies who also
       contract with State and local organizations for services.
            The Department concurs in the recommendation that the
       Probation Service should develop a strong national centralized
       management system which would include technical assistance to
       field offices, minimum performance standards for field offices,
       and general management and program evaluation. In developing
       such a system, we believe consideration should be given to
       the possible benefits to be erived through a coordinated
       reporting system with agencies such as BOP and the U.S.
       Marshals Service in areas where the activities of one
       impact upen the other.  In areas where common data bases,
       goals, and standards exist, information sharing among
       criminal justice agencies would be greatly facilitated.
       BOP would willingly offer their assistance in this effort
       in those reas where BOP interfaces with the Courts and the
       Probation Service.
            In discussing a Department of Justice report entitled
       An Evaluation of the IT.S. Board of Parole Reorganization,
       page 23 of the report states that "The study has been
       completed, but final recommendations had not been proposed
       to the Parole Commission as of May 1977." We would like to
       point out that the recommendations included in the study
       were shared with the Parole Commission at the time of the
       study's publication and release in December 1975.




                                73
APPENDIX IV
                                                                 APPENDIX   IV


                                     - 3 -

           We apprl'eciaLe t ,Lu,
                                rlit'    i,,fln ius to  ormment on
      the draft report. Should you have any further
      please feel free to contact us.                  questions


                                        Sin erely,


                                         vin D.      on y   {/
                                Assistant Attorney Gener
                                    for Administration




     GAO note:   Deleted comments refer t material contained
                 in our draft report which as not been in-
                 cluded in the final report.  Page references
                 in appendixes TI-IV refer to our draft report
                 and may not correspond to this final report.




(18835)



                                74