Mr. HENDRICKS. The reason I brought out the question to save the amount of money that you would have to appropriate for 5 additional parole officers, it looks to me from the excess amount of legal work that the judges have to do we are going to have to provide some additional law clerks, and where we can cut we should do so.

Mr. CHANDLER. I will say very frankly to this committee we believe that it would be advisable, if you have the money, to provide this additional number of officers. I do lay stress on the economy of probation as compared with imprisonment as a method of treatment. The cost of maintaining a man in prison for a day, in a Federal institution, is estimated at $1.43. The daily cost of probation is 9 cents, in addition to which the man is able to work and to support his family.. Mr. O'NEAL. How many probation officers have you? Mr. CHAPPELL. Two hundred and seventy-one.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do these parole officers take charge of a parolee?
Mr. CHANDLER. Yes; they are called probation officers.

Mr. JOHNSON. The parolees are required to report to the probation officer, are they not?

Mr. CHANDLER. They are required to report to him, but the probation officer if he does a good job, goes to see them because he can discover so much more if he sees the man in his home, or if the man is out, if he sees his wife, than if his contact is confined to office visits. Mr. JOHNSON. How often does he go to see him?

Mr. CHANDLER. Our aim is once a month. We consider that is necessary or good practice. Now, that cannot always be done because of transportation difficulties and the size of the case load.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is that policy being carried out, the probation officers calling personally upon these parolees once a month?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes. Now, what the officer does in any particular court you will realize is dependent upon the direct instructions of the court, also I know that in some districts the case load, and particularly at the present time, the difficulties of transportation, make calls as often as once a month impossible. That is the standard and we recommend that it be approached as nearly as possible.

case.

It is really necessary and I will tell you why. You might think of a probation officer as making these calls for the purpose of inspecting the conduct of the person under supervision. That is really not the The probation officer who properly does his work, while of course he reports any infraction of duty by the person under supervision, really comes to be looked upon by that person as a kind of counselor and friend. The person under supervision knows that if he has a personal problem, such as a child who is not doing so well as he might and he wants to talk to somebody about it, if he has troubles himself, the probation officer is available. I can tell you of probation officers who when the men under their charge have been under stress, have stayed up all night with them in order to wrestle with them mentally and spiritually and persuade them to keep on the right track. These contacts are really very important.

Mr. JOHNSON. We better change his qualifications to make a minister of the probation officer.

Mr. CHANDLER. The right kind of minister is all right.

QUALIFICATION REQUISITE FOR PROBATION WORK

Mr. JOHNSON. This idea of qualification, they must be a college graduate and have 2 years of successful experience. Now, I presume that under that theory Abraham Lincoln could not have been a probation officer, could he?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. He was not a graduate of any college.

Mr. CHANDLER. The standard calls for a college education or its equivalent. That provision for equivalence gives the right and the opportunity to a court to consider that a given man has acquired the degree of understanding of which a college education is normally some indication, and therefore to appoint him without a college education.

Mr. JOHNSON. I can readily see why you would want to pick a college graduate as being necessary for some positions, but where you are dealing in a case of trying to rehabilitate a man who has violated the law I should think that a college education would not at all be necessary and it seems to me as I sit here and think I can think of many people that have been of vast value to a community, not as a probation officer, simply as a citizen trying to help people along, and probably have not looked at a picture of a college but have a human understanding and can do much better work.

Mr. CHANDLER. That is a very valuable quality. But suppose you have a man who has that human understanding and whose faculties are disciplined by education. Is the latter not worth something? Suppose you have a person who is mentally abnormal. You want to get help in regard to him. You would normally go to somebody who had a pretty broad education fortified by professional training. Now, believe me, the man who shows a tendency toward criminal conduct has a peculiar bent in his make-up which requires understanding.

Now, of course, human sympathy is an important element, but it can be found among persons who have this training as well as among those who do not. Add to this, that the number of persons who are committing crime is now in the thousands. There is some analogy in the doctor who has had a good many cases of nose and throat trouble and who has made a specialty of that; he can help you more with that trouble than the general physician. So, when it comes to getting advice for persons who have a tendency toward delinquency, we cannot disregard the value of study of how that problem can best be met, and experience in dealing with such matters.

Mr. HENDRICKS. If the court appoints someone with a college education, he would probably try to appoint someone who had made a special study of sociology and psychology.

Let me ask you this question in regard to Mr. Johnson's proposal there. Do you have some probation officers who do not have a college education?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir; absolutely.

Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana. That is what I am getting to.

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir. Some of the judges will write to us, "We are thinking of appointing so and so; here is his record. What do you think about it?" And if we do not think it is very promising we tell him so; but the appointment rests with the judge.

Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana. How many of them do not have a college education?

Mr. CHANDLER. I have a table here of the distribution of the 53 probabtion officers who were appointed during 1942.

One had less than a high-school education; 8 were high-school graduates; 6 had some college training, but less than a full course; 20 had a bachelor's degree; 11 had a bachelor's degree plus some graduate study; 6 had a master's degree; 1 had a doctor's degree.

Forty-four of the 53 officers-all of whom, mind you, were appointed by the court, not by me-44 of the 53 had some college training, and 38 of the 53 had college degrees.

Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana. That is the break-down for 1942. I was asking for the over-all.

Mr. CHANDLER. I do not know that I brought it with me. I will be glad to put it in the record.

Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana. I do not care whether it is on the record or not.

Mr. O'NEAL. Could you insert that in the record?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

Distribution of 290 probation officers in the Federal service of Dec. 31, 1942, by education at time of entering on duty

At the time of appointment, 165 of the 290 probation officers had achieved college graduation or better (237 had some college training).

Thirty-four of the 165 college graduates had advanced degrees.

It must be borne in mind that some of the probation officers have continued their education following their appointment.

Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask about those 15 additional probation officers and 10 additional clerks. Could you not get along without these additional probation officers?

RELATIVE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL OFFICERS AND CLERKS

Mr. CHANDLER. If in your wisdom you omit the appropriation for additional officers, we shall understand, and we can get along with reasonable efficiency. There is no question about it. But I hope you will see your way clear to provide for the additional clerks, for this reason: Presentence investigation, whatever you may think of it, is a service which the courts are demanding more and more. In the first half of this fiscal year something like 7,500 presentence investigations were made. That would mean 15,000 in a year, and my observation, and that of Mr. Chappell, as we have gone about and visited the proba

tion offices, is that in district after district the office is hampered because the officers do not have sufficient clerical assistance.

Mr. O'NEAL. Do you want him to state where those clerks should be placed?

Mr. ANDERSEN of Minnesota. Yes; I would like to get some definite information.

Mr. O'NEAL. Can you supply that for the record?

Mr. CHANDLER. We will supply that.

(The statement requested is as follows:)

PROBABLE PLACEMENT OF 10 ADDITIONAL CLERK-STENOGRAPHERS REQUESTED FOR 1944, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OBTAINING WHENEVER SUCH PLACEMENTS ARE MADE

Alabama, middle.

California, northern.

California, southern.
Iowa, southern.

New York, eastern.

Ohio, southern.

South Carolina, eastern.

Tennessee, eastern.

Washington, western.

Wisconsin, eastern.

FEES OF COMMISSIONERS, UNITED STATES COURTS

Mr. O'NEAL. We now come to the item for fees of Commissioners, United States courts. The amount that you had appropriated for 1943 was $350,000, and you are asking for the same amount for 1944, which is entirely, as I understand it, for the fees of the United States Commissioners and the Conciliation Commissioners. Please insert page 59 of the justifications in the record.

Regular appropriation, 1943 act.
Supplemental appropriations for 1943-

Total appropriations, 1943__

Deduct nonrecurring and other items not required in 1944_.

Base for 1944_

Increases requested for 1944__

Total estimate or appropriation for 1944–

$350,000

350, 000

350,000

350,000

How much has that amounted to, for the present fiscal year, up to your latest figure?

Mr. JACKSON. $110,969.

Mr. O'NEAL. Do you anticipate that it will be greater in the latter part of the year, and, if so, why?

Mr. WHITEHURST. There is an indicated deficiency because the 10percent increase in lieu of overtime pay has been held to apply to the Commissioners.

Mr. O'NEAL. If for seven-twelfths of the year you can only spend $110,000, why do you anticipate that you will use $350,000?

Mr. CHANDLER. They are expenditures. They are not obligations. Experience shows that the accounts of the Commissioners for services rendered come in very slowly, sometimes 30, 60, or 90 days after the rendering of the service.

Mr. O'NEAL. Do they come in uniformly throughout the year, or is it greater in the spring?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Commissioners have a year after the service is rendered in which to file their accounts under the provisions of title 28, section 599 as of the United States Code.

Mr. O'NEAL. But your figure for 1943 is less than one-third of what you are asking for, and yet seven-twelfths of 1943 has elapsed.

Mr. CHANDLER. But those are expenditures; and we shall be having to make expenditures under the 1943 appropriation for some time after the expiration of the year for the purpose of meeting obligations. Mr. O'NEAL. What do you estimate that you will spend in the final year 1943 on this item for fees of commissioners?

Mr. CHANDLER. We have secured for 1942 a deficiency appropriation of $15,000; so that our actual expenses for 1942, we now estimate at $365,000.

Mr. O'NEAL. How much of the $350,000 that you are asking for do you anticipate you will use?

Mr. JACKSON. All of it, Mr. Chairman; and there is a very great possibility that we will need more in 1944 if the overtime pay continues.

Mr. O'NEAL. Can you give us some explanation as to why you are going to need $110,969 more?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. The reason for that is this: By law the accounts of United States commissioners must be preaudited by the General Accounting Office before we can settle them. As a result, an account may be 3 months old before they receive the pay. So there is a lag of probably 3 months in this expenditure figure. This expenditure figure of $110,969 probably represents about 4 months' expendi

tures.

Mr. O'NEAL. Is the number of bankrupties uniform now with past years? Are these conciliation cases about uniform during this war period as compared with what they were before?

Mr. JACKSON. No, sir. In the fiscal year 1942 the expenditures on account of fees of conciliation commissioners increased substantially, and those expenditures were the real reason for the necessity for a deficiency appropriation for the fiscal year 1942.

Mr. O'NEAL. Is that business keeping up during this present year in the same quantity?

Mr. JACKSON. As best we can tell at this time, it is continuing along. We do not know whether it will reach the figure for 1942 or not. The total amount expended for the fiscal year 1942 for fees of conciliation commissioners was approximately $71,000, which exceeded the allotment in that year by $15,000. That was the amount of the deficiency that we asked the Congress to give us.

FEES OF UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS

Mr. O'NEAL. The amount requested for fees of United States Commissioners, the major part of this estimate, is $275,000. That represents what type of work?

Mr. JACKSON. Those fees are paid to United States Commissioners, who are primarily committing magistrates. They hold the preliminary hearings, and if they determine that there is probable cause to require the accused to answer charges before the court, they bind the defendant over to the United States district court for trial. As you understand, we have two classes of Commissioners, and two separate allotments in this appropriation. The $275,000 is the money that we need for the fees of United States Commissioners who are primarily