Page images

Why does not the percentage of paroles in 1960 seem more comparable with that of 1958?

Mr. CHAPPELL. Would you permit me to ask Mr. Gerald Murch, the head of our Youth Division, and I would like the committee to meet him, to answer that question?

Mr. Gerald Murch is the Chairman of the Youth Division of the Board.

Mr. MURCH. If I understand you correctly, you asked why the percentage did not keep pace?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, your prison population has increased but your percentage of parole has not kept pace with it.

Mr. MURCH. It has been necessary to retain some of those individuals in the institution for longer periods. The biggest factor entering into that would be the change in age from the basic Youth Division up to 22 and now it goes through 25. If you will recall, in 1958 that was changed.

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you.
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Bow?


Mr. Bow. Of the paroles granted by Youth Division, how many were repeaters and came back into custody?

Mr. CHAPPELL. I think I can answer that for you. I have those figures.

There are three categories: the juvenile, those granted under the Youth Act, and the adults.

Of the juveniles, I am sorry to say the percentage is quite high; 46.8 violate their paroles for the juveniles. Then for the youth, those granted

Mr. Bow. Juveniles take you up to what age ?
Mr. CHAPPELL. Up to age 18.
Mr. Bow. That is, 18 and under would be classified as juveniles ?
Mr. CHAPPELL. Correct.
Mr. Bow. Eighteen to twenty-five are youth?

Mr. CHAPPELL. Youth. There we find that 35.3 of the youth offenders violate. These are young people, unpredictable, and they are immature. Of the adults, 14.6 violate. Of course, the adults are more mature, and they can count the costs of their acts and they are more liable to abide by the conditions.

The overall violation rate for all categories is 22.8 percent and that is for all classes of offenders.

Mr. Bow. When you say “violations," does that mean that they have all had paroles revoked?

Mr. ČHAPPELL. That is correct; revoked and brought back. Four out of five of those have committed new crimes. One out of five violates by leaving his district without the authority of the supervising officer or failing to work and do as a good citizen should do.


Mr. Bow. Have you had any estimate made as to what the cost is to the Government to put someone on parole, the cost of hearings and all of the costs that might result in having a prisoner appear, and so forth? What does that cost amount to?

Mr. CHAPPELL. Just for the grant alone, not the supervision?
Mr. Bow. Just for the grant alone?
Mr. CHAPPELL. No, sir.
Mr. Bow. Do you have any provision-
Mr. CHAPPELL. I would be glad to supply that for the record.
Mr. Bow. Would that take some time to do?
Mr. CHAPPELL. I do not think so.

Mr. Bow. If it can be done without too much difficulty, I would like to have it.

Mr. CHAPPELL. I think we can get it for you.

I am told there were about 4,500 granted in 1960 and 4,666 is the actual number. Then if you take the total appropriation that would give you a rough idea of the cost.

That comes to about $86 per parole and that is about $10 per case, counting those who were denied parole.

Mr. Bow. Thank you.






Mr. Rooney. The next subitem is that for the Board of Immigration Appeals. The justifications with regard thereto are to be found at tab 7.

We shall at this point insert in the record pages 7-1 through 7-5 of the justifications.

(The pages follow :)

Appropriation, 1961.
Estimates for 1962----

$274, 800 282, 000


7, 200 The Board of Immigration Appeals is a body set up by order of the Attorney General to consider appeals in all administrative adversary and related proceedings arising under the immigration and nationality laws. The Attorney General has delegated to the Board power to exercise all of his authority in considering such appeals (pt. 3, CFR; secs. 3.1 to 3.8 issued under sec. 103, 66 Stat. 173; 8 U.S.C. 1103, and sec. 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1261; sec. 292, 66 Stat. 235; 8 U.S.C. 1362).


The Board will require an estimated $282,000 to carry out its operations in fiscal year 1962. This is $7,200 more than the amount needed in 1961. The increase is to cover the following changes : Cost of statutory provisions : Within-grade promotions (Ramspeck Act)

$4, 160 Deduct 1 less compensable day in 1962-

-960 Retirement fund contributions


$3, 400 Increased amounts for miscellaneous expenses : Communication services..

200 Supplies and materials.

500 Equipment--

3, 100

3, 800

Total increase..

7, 200 The Board of Immigration Appeals has been operating under a very limited budget in recent years. The increase requested for statutory changes is unavoidable since the higher salary increments are mandatory under the law. Small additional sums are included in the 1962 request to cover increased costs for miscellaneous services and to permit the acquisition of additional supplies and equipment needed in the normal operations of the office.


Although the number of cases coming to the Board by way of appeal has declined during the last 2 years there is the possibility that the number will again rise as the result of recent amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Percentagewise the demand for oral argument shows an increase over prior years.

The emphasis on demand for oral argument, both by the attorney and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, is due, in part, to the nature of the issues presented. Argument on both sides is often prolonged and complicated, as has been the case in the last several years. The Service may press for reversal of a favorable decision by a special inquiry officer because of its possible impact on the administration of the immigration laws generally. The Service not infrequently will file motions seeking reconsideration of a Board ruling. All these matters require time and effort on the part of the Board staff.

The complexity of the problems on both issues of law and fact and close questions of discretion are reflected in many of the precedent decisions rendered by the Board during the past fiscal year. Last year, there were 55 precedent decisions rendered.

Board of Immigration AppealsWorkload

[blocks in formation]

1 Oral argument heard by Board:


Percent of
cases re-

1958 (fiscal)
1959 (fiscai).
1980) (fiscal).
1961 (fiscal) (E).
1962 (fiscal) (E).


20.2 23. 7 30.8 30.5 30.5


Mr. ROONEY. These justifications indicate that the request is in the amount of $282,000 which would be an increase of $7,200. These increases are set forth at page 7–3, and it appears that $3,400 of the $7,200 is for statutory within-grade promotions, retirement fund contributions, and that the balance of the requested increase is made up of $3,100 for equipment, $500 for supplies and materials, and $200 for communication services.


What do you have to say about this, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. FINUCANE. Specifically on the $3,800, we use dictaphone machines, and we have had them for several years. Some of them are wearing out, and we thought we ought to begin a gradual replacement program. That is principally for the increased amount of equipment. Otherwise, the status of the Board is approximately the same as it was last



Numerically, the number of cases coming to the Board is about static but the time spent, however, by the Board and its staff on individual cases has increased and is still increasing because of the complexity of cases and new problems constantly being presented to the Board.

As evidence of this, we may say that more cases are being argued orally before the Board, both by representatives of the alien and representatives of the Service. Frequently the Service itself asks for oral argument where the alien has not requested it.

Mr. Rooney. Of course, the number of oral arguments heard by the Board is shown on page 7-5 of these justifications, and it shows that they have decreased from 460 in 1958 to 350 in the current fiscal year; is that right?

Mr. FINUCANE. Numerically that is correct, but the hours we spend on oral argument have increased.

Mr. ROONEY. Then it would appear that in the past fiscal year you received 1,240 cases as compared with 2,273, 2 years before that. The most you expect in the current fiscal year and in the coming fiscal year is 1,200 cases as compared with that figure of 1958; is that right?

Mr. FINUCANE. That is correct.

What I am saying is that numerically the caseload is down, but workwise we really are having an increase because of the relatively greater complexity of the cases now coming before us with more novel issues, and, in all, the cases we are receiving require much more time and attention.

I might put it this way: The great mass of the routine cases have been pretty well cleared out and what is left are the cases of real substance that require a great deal of time and effort.

Mr. ROONEY. What is the breakdown of the three items that make up the $3,800 ?

Mr. FINUCANE. I do not have that.
Mr. Brown. $3,100 for equipment-

COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES Mr. Rooney. I see the three items set forth on page 7-3, but what are the details? Let us take the $200 item for communication services.

Mr. FINUCANE. That is normal communications, telephone.

Mr. Rooney. How did you arrive at the figure of $200? Why should it not be less in view of the substantial drop in cases and work?

Mr. FINUCANE. The calls we have, the telephone and all that, has just kept up. There is more interest in what we have before us, more telephone calls and more communications one way or another.

Mr. Rooney. Even though you have half as many cases now as you did 3 years ago?

Mr. FINUCANE. Frankly, I do not have the figures for those communication services of 3 years ago, but this is


EQUIPMENT Mr. Rooney. Let us take the item of equipment, $3,100. What is the breakdown of that?

Mr. FINUCANE. As I said, that will principally be spent for replacing

Mr. ROONEY. What are the details?

Mr. FINUCANE. I do not know the exact cost. I presume that will depend

Mr. ROONEY. How did you arrive at the figure of $3,100 ? Mr. FINUCANE. As a figure representing the gradual replacement of our electrical equipment, transcribing and electrical typewriters. We were aided in this figure by Mr. Andretta's section, which has more knowledge of the cost of replacement.

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Andretta is not saying very much right now, but he probably knows the answer.

Mr. ANDRETTA. Mr. Chairman, he has some very old equipment that has been damaged and not in good shape. He needs four transcribers at $345; four dictating machines at $345. Every one of those is over 10 years old. He needs one electric typewriter, $340, which was badly damaged when they moved from the Federal Trade Building over to the HOLC building. That comes to $3,100.

Mr. ROONEY. Are there any questions, gentlemen!
Mr. MARSHALL. No questions.
Mr. Bow. Who moved that typewriter?
Mr. ANDRETTA. GSA movers.
Mr. Bow. You do not have insurance?
Mr. ANDRETTA. No; the Government is its own insurer.
Mr. Bow. No further questions.
Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. FINUCANE. Thank you.

« PreviousContinue »