Mr. STEFAN. Have you any way of measuring increased results in this work as a result of the increases granted last year?

Mr. CHANDLER. You will realize that we are talking about intangible things, Mr. Chairman. But we have this very definite result

Mr. STEFAN. We realize that, but still we should have some idea about it. Mr. Chappell, who is the Chief of the Division of Probation, perhaps can answer that question. You go out into the field, do you not?

Mr. CHAPPELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEFAN. And you talk with these probation officers. You see the results of their work. You have just given us some figures. You must certainly have a pretty good picture of what has been done with the increased money that Congress allowed you.

Mr. CHAPPELL. Yes, sir; the judges tell me that presentence investigations are more complete and more helpful for that reason.

As to the violations rate, there has been practically no change in the number. Mr. STEFAN. Counseling?

Mr. CHAPPELL. Counseling. However, Mr. Chairman, you will see that we have gone up from 109 average case load to 114 already since the beginning of the fiscal year.

Mr. STEFAN. But you say, Mr. Chappell, that there has been no change in the violations; so that the service is not very effective, is it? Mr. CHAPPELL. If the public is to be properly protected, these probation officers have to see the persons frequently in order to know whether they are violating, Mr. Chairman. I feel that unless there is a constant supervision-you see, the rate is very low; it is less than 5 percent 95 persons out of every 100 are placed on probation successfully; they successfully complete the period of 2 or 3 years, whatever it may be.

Mr. STEFAN. I did not quote understand that last statement.

Mr. CHAPELL. Ninety-five out of every one hundred complete their period successfully without having to have their sentence revoked or being sent to prison.

Mr. STEFAN. So you have only about 5 percent of violations?

Mr. CHAPPELL. Less than 5 percent. That is an excellent record, we think.

Mr. STEFAN. And that has not changed over a period of years? Mr. CHAPPELL. That has shown very little change over a period of years.

Mr. STEFAN. Would not that percentage remain at 5 percent whether you counseled or not?

Mr. CHAPPELL. We do not know.

Mr. STEFAN. You just do not know whether it would.

Mr. CHAPPELL. We feel that they may violate; and it may not be known unless the probation officer is able to get out and find out.

Mr. STEFAN. But you say that 95 percent do not violate. You say that 5 percent do violate and that that has been the percentage over a period of years; that there has been no real change. So you really do not have much information on it, do you?

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, are there not some things in life about which we really cannot get statistics, but which are rather plain? Suppose you did away with the Probation Service altogether, except for presentence investigations? I am just putting that as an illustration.

Mr. STEFAN. You would not want to discourage presentence investigations, would you? These United States judges and the district attorneys are very much in favor of it, apparently.

Mr. CHANDLER. That is right. But let us take the next step. Suppose the court puts-as it does now-about 38 percent of convicted persons on probation, exclusive of juvenile delinquents; and suppose it puts, as it does, about 54 percent of those found guilty of juvenile delinquency, on probation. Do you believe we could justify to the people of this country a system under which probation would be awarded and there would be no contact with the probationers after that?

They have gone wrong before, as a result of which they were convicted. If they were committed to prison-for treatment, not only would they have to be given their board and lodging, but they would have a very intensive type of personal counseling service in the Federal institutions; in those institutions there are psychiatrists, there are physicians, there are vocational counselors.

What probation seeks to do is to give as far as possible that personal counseling service without the cost of maintenance in idleness in institutions. But if the service is to mean anything, it has to be one under which there are frequent contacts with the persons on probation and one in which they are given real guidance and help. And it is because we cannot give that at the present time except to a limited degree and make the presentence investigations, too, that we feel we are bound in duty to call this inadequacy in the service to your attention.

Mr. HORAN. I am not trying to be facetious at all, but it looks like the number of people on probation increased in direct ratio to the amount of appropriations that we gave you.

Mr. CHANDLER. Is not that desirable, sir? The number of persons on probation should increase. After all, if probation is a more effective means of dealing with offenders of the class to whom it is adapted, more effective than institutional treatment, what is the alternative? The alternative to probation is commitment to an institution which costs $2.37 a day against 15 cents a day.

Mr. HORAN. I am just looking for information

Mr. CHANDLER. This is a very fundamental proposition.

Mr. HORAN. I think so, too. I would assume, but apparently you would deny, that the existence of an efficient probation system should diminish the number of cases. Apparently that is not so.

Mr. CHANDLER. Diminish the number of cases on probation; no. I think it should make for an enlargement, because there are many judges now, Mr. Horan, who hesitate to put persons on probation to add to the load of their probation officers for counseling which they recognize is pretty heavy. It should make for crime prevention but not for a decrease in the number of persons on probation.

Mr. HORAN. I am disturbed at the increase in the number in the Federal prisons, and the number on probation, and the number on parole. I would like to have a statement prepared for the record by somebody who is capable of doing it, to show whether or not there is a crime wave in this country, and, if so, what are the causes.

99894-47-9

(The information requested follows:)

Mr. Chappell, Chief of the Division of Probation of the Administrative Office, makes the following observation in reference to the prospect of an increase in. crime:

The statistics on crime in the United States are not complete since there are a number of counties and cities in the country that do not make reports on crime statistics either to the Bureau of the Census or to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The most reliable figures published are the arrest data contained in Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Hoover, Director of the Bureau, reported that crime increased 13 percent in the first 6 months of 1946 as against the same period in 1945.

It should be borne in mind that the population of United States prisons and reformatories excluding military prisons, dropped from 165,585 on December 31, 1940, to 127,871 on December 31, 1945, according to the Census Bureau. However, during this period, several million men were in the armed forces answerable to military rather than civil authority. At one time there were approximately 52,000 military persons in confinement in Army and Navy places of confinement, of whom approximately 15,000 had committed offenses punishable by civil law. Since demobilization men who were in the military services: are again answerable to the civil courts and it is reasonable to expect a substantial increase in civil crimes.

I have been informed by the statistical section of the United States Bureau of Prisons that a letter written to the prisons and reformatories normally reporting to the Bureau of Census by the Bureau of Prisons, inquiring about the number of prisoners confined on September 30, 1945, and September 30, 1946, showed an increase of 6 percent. This would indicate that there is a moderate increase in crime, on basis of commitments; but the figure would appear to be low considering the increased number of persons answerable to civil courts since the demobilization of the armed forces. There are no statistics known to this office which indicate that at the present time there is an increase in crimes in the United States rising to the proportions of a crime wave.

FEES

Mr. HORAN. I would like to ask also if there are any fees collected under this probation system.

Mr. CHANDLER. No.

Mr. CHAPPELL. Some of them are fined; a probationer is often fined and placed on probation and permitted to pay the fine in installments to the clerk of the court.

Mr. STEFAN. This is part of a rehabilitation program, is it not?
Mr. CHANDLER. That is right.

Mr. HORAN. I realize that.

Mr. STEFAN. And the purpose of the pre-sentence investigation is to make shortcuts?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes.

Mr. HORAN. Is there any danger of this becoming a feather-bedding system whereby men will become less fearful of committing acts against society?

Mr. CHANDLER. I do not think so. I realize myself that there are times when an example has to be made of offenders; I am quite aware of that basis for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, in order to deter others from committing like offenses.

Mr. HORAN. Will you make some comment on the question I asked as part of your statement.

Mr. CHANDLER. I will.

Mr. HORAN. And make it as brief as possible.

Mr. STEFAN. You may supply that for the record later.

Mr. CHANDLER. Surely.

Mr. HORAN. I should think that would fit in with the information that I would like to have, Mr. Chandler.

Mr. CHANDLER. I shall be very glad to do that.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

I am satisfied that instead of encouraging crime, probation, if judiciously used, is one of the best means of preventing it. The principal reason is that in institutions where many offenders are kept together it is almost impossible to avoid the contaminating influence of older and more hardened criminals upon milder offenders. In probation this does not happen. Given adequate personnel for efficient supervision, the probation service can help offenders to reform in a normal and wholesome environment. That they are doing it is shown by the fact that the average rate of violations among Federal probationers is less than 5 percent.

It is the uniform judgment of criminologists and correctional authorities as far as I know that probation is much the best method of treating offenders to whom it is adapted, usually of the milder types, and has the best prospect of success. This assumes, as indicated, that there is adequate provision for supervision. There is no magic in putting a man on probation and then leaving him to his own devices. If, however, there is a probation officer to keep in touch with him and help him in his problems as he needs, give him to some degree the kind of personal guidance outside of prison that he would get in prison without the disadvantages of the prison associations, experience abundantly demonstrates that probation is effective.

COUNSELING SERVICE

Mr. GARY. You are talking about this counseling service?
Mr. CHANDLER. Yes.

Mr. GARY. There have been some very heinous crimes committed in this country by probationers, from time to time, have there not? Mr. CHANDLER. And persons on parole from prison, too.

Mr. GARY. These probationers are, in a number of instances potentially dangerous persons, is not that true?

Mr. CHANDLER. Not because they are probationers but because they are offenders.

Mr. GARY. That is what I mean, because they are offenders.

Mr. CHANDLER. That is right.

Mr. GARY. They are a criminal type who have been given a chance to rehabilitate themselves in society.

Mr. CHANDLER. Quite right.

Mr. GARY. Therefore they are a dangerous type.

Mr. CHANDLER. That is right.

Mr. GARY. If you are to keep such people out of prison and put them on probation, then is it not absolutely necessary for the protection of the public that you watch their actions?

Mr. CHANDLER. That is certainly true.

Mr. GARY. Does not that make your counseling and your check-up activities, if anything, even more important?

Mr. CHANDLER. Exactly.

Mr. GARY. Than the pretrial recommendations? Another thing, a judge, realizing the responsibility of turning a criminal loose on the public, would not place a criminal on probation unless he did have a proper, adequate, and efficient probation system.

Mr. CHANDLER. Exactly.

Mr. GARY. Therefore, the better your system, the more probationers you will have rather than fewer, is that right?

Mr. CHANDLER. That is the case as we see it exactly, sir.

Mr. GARY. If you have an increase in crime, you have an increase in your probation system.

Mr. CHANDLER. I do not follow you on the increase in crime. I say that the increased use of probation is necessary because it makes for rehabilitation of the persons placed on probation.

Mr. GARY. I did not mean among your probationers. But there has been testimony before the committee that crime is on the increase in this country. Mr. Hoover came before us and gave us a great many figures showing that there, were more offenses being committed. Mr. CHANDLER. Yes.

Mr. GARY. You have more crime, but not on account of your probation system. Mr. Horan has asked you to give him a statement as to the causes of crime. I do not know whether we can get at all of the underlying causes.

Mr. CHANDLER. I am not an expert on it and I do not think I can help him very much on it.

Mr..GARY. There is more than one cause. I think one of the chief causes is that always, following a world war, you have a break-down more or less of morals. We have sown the wind and we are now reaping the whirlwind. But we are having more crime and therefore it is natural that you have an increase in probation. And if you are going to have an increase in probation, you have to have an increase in the number of probation officers to take care of your system, or else your system will be inefficient.

Mr. CHANDLER. That is correct.

Mr. GARY. And ineffective.

Mr. CHANDLER. The alternative is more confinement in prisons, which costs more money.

Mr. CHAPPELL. It may interest the committee to know that 13,000 of these probationers, exclusive of farm workers, worked in industry and reported earnings of over $25,000,000, which could be used for the support of their families, during the fiscal year 1946.

Mr. GARY. I am thoroughly sold on probation and parole. I think it is one of the greatest steps we have made in recent years in the handling of offenders.

Mr. STEFAN. Mr. O'Brien, have you any questions?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Chairman, a year ago, before this committee, Mr. Chandler came and pleaded for help for the probation officers of this country. You and I and every member on this committee were sympathetic with him at that time, if you will remember.

Mr. STEFAN. Yes.

Mr. O'BRIEN. We increased their pay. We went all the way with them. Mr. Chandler at that time said that they would do a better job and would work harder. Is my statement correct, Mr. Chandler? Mr. CHANDLER. That is right, and they have done it.

Mr. O'BRIEN. If they did what they said they would do a year ago, work a little harder, they would not be in here today asking for 19 additional men. That is all I have to say. I am against it. When we vote increases, they go out of here and think that we are "easy." We have got to cut down this appropriation bill.

Mr. STEFAN. My colleague, Mr. O'Brien, of Illinois, stated the facts as they are. This committee, long before Mr. Chandler became Administrator, insisted on the presentence program. We encouraged probation. We are still encouraging probation.

Mr. Gary, of Virginia, has had a great deal of experience in this work in his State. Some of the fine work he has done has come to the attention of this committee. It has been highly commended.