Mr. CHANDLER. All right. Here is the full report. While I know that you want to hold down the record, I really think that the inclusion in the record of the first 21 pages of the report without any of the exhibits would be desirable in order to make clear the bases of these various recommendations. Subject to that, let me explain the remaining recommendations if I may. We will leave the report with you.

Mr. Bow. The committee will consider that, Mr. Chandler. Mr. CHANDLER. We will leave the report with you. I think I can supply additional copies if you need them.

The reasons for the reclassification of probation officers are set forth on pages 4 to 14 of the report. Since that report was made, I have obtained, or rather Mr. Chappell has made up a table showing the grades and salaries of enforcement officers of the Federal Government, among whom probation officers are included. I should like to have that incorporated in the record.

The reason that a small sum of money is sought for the reclassification of probation officers is that it is considered that the present grades and salaries of these officers are really not commensurate with their responsibilities. If you will look at the table, you will see that the average salary of a Federal probation officer is $5,435, which is next to the lowest of any of the enforcement agents whose salaries are shown on the table. You will also see that of the probation officers, 39.1 are in grade GS-7. That is a higher percentage in that comparatively low grade than is true of any other agency, except the Treasury agents in the Bureau of Narcotics.

I think I can make this more concrete if I refer to 3 or 4 types of probation officers and their grades and salaries at the present time. I might say that a probation officer now starts at grade 7, the entering salary of which is $4,205. The administrative office and the committee consider that that is a reasonable starting salary, and we ask no change in the entering rate. But the salaries of the probation officers who carry larger responsibilities and who acquire a judgment seasoned by experience, we believe are definitely too low. A chief probation officer in a metropolitan district at the present time is classified in grade GS-9. If he has served a given length of time, he can go to GS-11. A chief probation officer in a metropolitan district who has to deal with many offenders, who has under him a considerable number of staff members, is classified in grade GS-9, unless he has served as a chief probation officer for 6 years. Am I not correct in that statement?

Mr. CHAPPELL. That is right.

Mr. CHANDLER. A little while ago it became necessary to select a chief probation officer for the eastern district of Pennsylvania. Under the present plan of classification, which was adopted in 1943, and which was an advance, I will say, over what was in force before then because probation is a comparatively newcomer in the Federal correctional system and the first salaries were exceedingly low, he could be classified only in grade GS-9, with a salary range from $5,060 to $5,810, per annum. I am sure I do not need to argue with you that that is not enough.

Mr. GARY. Where would your proposals put these probation officers in this table?

Mr. CHANDLER. The recommendations are set forth specifically in the report.

Mr. GARY. I know that, but they are now next to the bottom with an average of $5,435. Could you give us some idea as to what the average would be?

Mr. CHANDLER. I think that could be computed, could it not Mr. Chappell?

Mr. CHAPPELL. It could be.

Judge BIGGS. I may say one thing to follow up on the eastern district of Pennsylvania probation officer. That includes Philadelphia, which is one of the heavy probation districts. It was very difficult to get an acceptable officer and a great deal of trouble was incurred. Let me interpolate one thing further.

The committee on supporting personnel set them up in 1943, and they were adopted by the judicial departments immediately thereafter. I was still the chairman of that committee then as I am now. To be perfectly blunt about it, we put it in too low in the first place. We made a mistake and got them too far down. We suffered very substantially from it ever since and so have the probation officers. One of the most distressing features about it has been the number of persons in the probation service who have had to do work on the outside, in order to maintain respectable and decent living conditions for their particular position in life. I do not mean to say that I believe they should live luxuriously, but to give a little bit of background, as Mr. Chandler says, the probation system is a newcomer. The early probation officers, and this is said without reflection on them, did not have the training. As the system is developed and has done such effective work, there has been more and more the trained employee, who frequently has been a man of higher education and who has a more ample background. This particular situation has, we think, gotten to the point where there must be some correction unless there is to be a serious detriment to the service.

Mr. Bow. Mr. Chandler, before you proceed, may I ask you, has the Civil Service Commission made some study on this question of the probation officers?

Mr. CHANDLER. Not of probation officers. I do not know of any comparable officers in the executive branch, Mr. Chairman. The lawenforcemtnt officers shown in the table have functions of investigation which are, of course, shared by probation officers. But the most difficult part of the work of a probation officer is the guidance of the man in his effort to reform after he is put on probation. I do not know of any analogous positions to that.

Judge BIGGS. With respect to the clerks' offices, Mr. Chairman, we did have the advantages of civil service recommendations both in 1943 and very recently with respect to these changes. That matter that you referred to was discussed by Mr. Chandler and myself at the time at great length. The different feature between the investigating officer on the criminal side and the probation officer is that the probation officer in a sense acts almost as guardian for a miscreant who comes before the court for the first time. Properly worked, and I do not. want to sound sentimental about it, but it is almost a parental relationship. That is the sort of thing they try to effect. A younger man will look to a probation officer for guidance, for comfort, and for training. He acts as a sort of father-confessor for him. That is the sort of thing where you require not only specialized knowledge in general but an ability and knowledge to handle people which comes, I think, very largely with training.

Mr. GARY. It requires a specially qualified person.

Mr. HORAN. May I get this straight? Some of the personnel are under civil service?

Judge BIGGS. No, none of ours. But we have inaugurated a standard of classification which follows the civil-service classification plan. Mr. Chandler added a qualifying phrase, but he said substantially the same. It is the same so far as we could get it.

Mr. HORAN. What I wanted to know is that it is my understanding that this subcommittee has a certain responsibility regarding these salary levels. Which ones of the supporting personnel do we have that responsibility with?

Judge BIGGS. I think with respect to all of them insofar as the financial provision for payment of salaries is concerned. Pardon me, supporting personnel. The judges are statutory. The salaries of clerks of court, probation officers, law clerks, and secretaries according to the statute are fixed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts under the supervision and direction of the Judicial Conference. But the ability to pay them depends upon the appropriations made by the Congress. The salaries of court reporters under the statute are fixed by the Judicial Conference. There is the same dependence upon appropriations made by the Congress for funds with which to pay them.

Mr. CHANDLER. I think, Congressman Horan, I might refer to the pertinent statute, which is of course subject to the availability of funds that is requisite to any government operation. The statute, section 604 (a) of title 28 of the United States Code, authorizes me to perform various duties. They are all to be performed under the supervision and direction of the judicial conference. One of them, prescribed by paragraph (5) of the section cited, is to fix the compensation of clerks of court, deputies, librarians, criers, messengers, law clerks, secretaries, stenographers, clerical assistants, and other employees of the courts whose compensation is not otherwise fixed by law. The probation officers, being agencies for the treatment of crime, are provided for in title 18 of the United States Code, which is the Criminal Code, Under the terms of it I fix their salaries in the same way that I fix the salaries of the other officers mentioned.

I fix the salaries within general patterns which are set by the Judicial Conference. We come to you and put our plan before you and ask you if you think it is sound to provide us with the money.

Mr. Bow. It is apparent we are not going to complete this testimony tonight. I would therefore suggest that we adjourn to meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1953.

Mr. HORAN. The committee will come to order. We have before us for further hearing Mr. Chandler, Judge Biggs, and others from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. I would be pleased if Mr. Bow would take the chair.

Mr. Bow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When the committee adjourned yesterday, we had just completed testimony of Mr. Chandler on the question of probation officers. You had completed; had you not?

Mr. CHANDLER. I would like to have about 5 minutes.

Mr. Bow. I think we have covered it pretty thoroughly. If you want more time, it will be all right but I would like if we could move on to some other things.

A

Mr. CHANDLER. I was going to leave that in just a moment. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it seemed to me that perhaps the record did not show very specifically what the changes were that were proposed in the plan of reclassification and I have prepared a schedule of which I am having a clean copy made and which will show exactly what the changes are. I would like to have that, if I may, incorporated in the record as a statement of what the reclassification plan would do.

Mr. Bow. Without objection, the chart of changes under the reclassification plan for probation personnel will become part of the record at this point.

(The chart referred to follows:)

CHANGES UNDER THE RECLASSIFICATION PLAN FOR PROBATION PERSONNEL

(1) No change from the present grade of GS-7 for entering officers generally with a starting rate of $4,205.

(2) Grade GS-8 with a starting rate of $4,620 for probation officers in 1-man offices instead of 7 as at present.

(3) Advancement of a probation officer from GS-7 to GS-9 with a salary range of $5,060 to $5,810 after 6 years of service instead of 9 years as at present.

(4) Advancement of a probation officer to GS-10 with a salary range of $5,500 to $6,250 per annum after 12 years of service instead of being stopped at GS-9 as at present.

(5) Provision for a deputy chief probation officer in offices with a staff of 10 or more officers in grade 11 with salary range of $5,940 to $6,940.

(6) No change in the minimum grade of GS-9 with salary range of $5,060 to $5,810 for a chief probation officer.

(7) GS-10 for a chief probation officer with 3 years of service as a probation officer instead of GS-9 as at present.

(8) GS-11 with salary range from $5,940 to $6,940 for a chief probation officer in a metropolitan district or 1 who has had 6 years of experience instead of being limited to GS-9 until he has served 6 years if he has supervision of 3 or more probation officers, or 9 years if he has supervision of less than 3 probation officers as at present.

(9) GS-12 with salary range from $7,040 to $8,040 for a chief probation officer located in a metropolitan district who has had 6 years of experience as a chief or deputy chief probation officer in grade GS-11 instead of being limited to GS-11 as at present.

(10) Provision for a position of Chief Clerk in metropolitan districts where there are substantial duties of supervision in grade GS-6 with salary range of $3,795 to $4,545. The highest grade for a probation clerk at present is GS-5.

Judge BIGGS. I do not think you stated the total cost.

Mr. CHANDLER. I was going to say in response to the request of Congressman Gary yesterday, we have had prepared (the Probation Division worked it out last evening), a schedule showing the salaries of probation officers as they would be in relation to the salaries of other Federal enforcement officers if the reclassification plan was carried out. I would like to offer that and have that incorporated in the record and made a part of it.

Judge BIGGS. The total cost, if I may say, the additional personnel would cost $39,980 and the reclassification, if effected, would cost $35.590.

Mr. CHANDLER. What I wanted to point out was that the fact of reclassification, shortly stated, would be to raise the average salary of United States probation officers from $5,435 as they are at present, to $5,517. That is, the average addition to salary would be slightly less than $100.

Mr. Bow. Without objection, table II will follow table I in the record.

(The table referred to is as follows:)

TABLE 1.-Comparison of grades and salaries of Federal law-enforcement field agents based on 1954 salary estimates as reported in the appendix to the budget of the U. S. Government, 1954.

TABLE 2.-Comparison of grades and salaries of Federal law-enforcement field agents, based on 1954 salary estimates as reported in the appendix to the budget of the United States Government, 1954

2 Amended estimate, including new classification plan and additional positions.

Mr. Bow. Mr. Chandler, yesterday, in reply to a question I put to you about whether a study had been made by the Civil Service Commission relative to the classification of the probation officers, you replied to me in substance, at least, that there had been none inasmuch as there were no similar positions, in Government.

Mr. CHANDLER. Well, sir

Mr. Bow. However, by the submission of tables 1 and 2, it seems to me we have here an indication that there are similar positions in Government because we are using these similar positions to justify these increases. I just want to point out that I do think there is some similarity when we use these charts.

Mr. CHANDLER. There is this difference, if you will permit me to say it, that these other officers who are law-enforcement officers, make investigations, and with the exception of the parole officers for the