Imagini ale paginilor

very well. Everybody is down on bondsmen and have been for years but they always try to insure that the individual is there for trial. It may not work out. It may be that the bondsman is without his fee, to perform that very vital function.

Senator STEVENSOx. Well aren't you suggesting that, perhaps, we need workers now and they can perform a citizenry role?

Mr. MILLER. Senator, the first question you've got is what power the court has to, in effect, supervise the person who is released and then tried. Now under the Bail Reform Act the court can impose restrictions and it's all based on the factor that the man may not show up for trial is the whole issue. Now the specific provisions could be that he be required to report in at a particular time of day. In other words you keep a string on him but again, primarily you are making sure that he's present for trial. I know we conducted a survey in the Crime Commission and other surveys and we were able to demonstrate that it was either 7 percent or 14 percent of those who were released at time of trial were indicted for felonies of more serious nature than the ones they were originally charged with. Now the way to solve this whole problem, really, is to get the delay out of the trial process and the delay out of the indictment process. Because if a man is arrested he knows it's going to be 3 or 4 months before he is going to be indicted and then it will be another 8 months to a year before he is tried. That is a long period of time that if he has a criminal bent on crime he is free to perform his acts with respect to the citizens of the community.

But if you have a fast trial, one in 30 to 60 days, then a lot of the facts we are talking about go out the window. They go by the board because you don't have problems of if the man is guilty, tried and convicted, then he's not out on the street committing more crime. To be perfectly frank in terms of provocation of individuals who are released and tried I would opt for trying to provide the court with a person or the prosecutor to make sure that the trial docket is kept current. I, for example, don't know: That the superior court will commence operation on Februanry 1, what the time factor of this thing is between indictment and trial. I assume they do have the figure but I think that would be something that would be attempted, because that's where the slippage comes in, and that time ought to be put together.

These long delays, which in turn, permitted the individual to get out and commit more crime.

Senator STEVENSOx. I want to thank you, Mr. Miller. The Commission's report is not gathering dust somewhere. We were glad to hear many of your recommendations and that they have been implemented. To what extent they are implemented' is what we will be getting into in the first day of these hearings. Thank you again.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Senator. Senator STEVENSOX. Our next witness is Kenneth Hardy, Director of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. Do you have some of your assistants with you, Mr. Hardy ?



Mr. HARDY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STEVENSON. I think it would be helpful for everyone with you to be identified.

Mr. HARDY. Yes. On my far right is Sam D. Starobin, Director of the Department of General Services, District of Columbia. On my near right is M. Robert Montilla, Deputy Director of the Department of Corrections; and, of course, yours truly, Kenneth L. Hardy.

Senator STEVENSON. Mr. Hardy, you may read your statement or you can summarize it and place it in the record.

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I should read the statement because it is somewhat of an overview of the Department for the past 5 years.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections—the 25th year in which we have been fighting to pay the high price of deferred maintenance in corrections mentioned by Chief Justice Burger only a year ago.

At the time I became Director, that was in January 1967, there were several administrative and social changes taking place. President Johnson had taken action to create a commissioner-council form of government for the District and the interim nature of the three-member board of commissioners unfortunately restricted some administrative activity. The President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia had just released its report which listed 25 recommendations for action by the Department of Corrections. Some months earlier the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued the Easter decision which changed the character of our prison population and resulted in the removal of some of the available facilities.

This was a serious setback, for it meant that, while we were obligated to begin implementing the Crime Commission's recommendations, we would have to do so under a budget restricted to the base budget of 1966.

Our problems were soon to be further complicated by the winds of social change with events of revolutionary heat sweeping the Nation. The Nation's Capital very often was the center of this phenomenon and our institutions became microcosms of the social discontent.

This was most perceptively pointed out by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons in 1968 in a report which summarized the pressures affecting the Department at that time: the change in administration; change in the type of population caused by the Easter decision; change in the attitude of the population toward itself (the establishment of black pride); change in the traditional sources of power within the prison system; change in the management philosophy. Coming at one time, these changes caused a high degree of anxiety between 1967 and 1969.

The years of neglect—the deferred maintenance—were beginning to bear their bitter fruit, adding to the pressures on the corrections systems here and elsewhere. You have seen the results, not only in our recent history, but in the sadism in Ohio and Indiana, the tragic killings in California, the rioting in New York, Maryland, and Florida.

Let me give you some idea of what paying off this old debt has cost the District of Columbia corrections system alone. In 1946 we had a budget of about $11/2 million and 395 employees. Today our budget is almost $23 million and there are more than 1,500 employees.

It costs roughly $5,000 per man per year to keep him in prison and it costs upwards of $25,000 per bed to build a new prison. To keep up this way only adds and adds to the deferred payment Chief Justice Burger spoke about. We prefer to invest our money in community and institutional programs that will benefit not only the offender but the community to which almost all of them will return some day.

These programs do cost money-plenty of it. But this kind of investment is producing more truly rehabilitated men than the old system. It is the most cost-effective way of achieving our mission of crime prevention through the successful rehabilitation of committed offenders.

To do this, we have streamlined our administrative structure so that lines of communication are strengthened and shortened for more rapid and comprehensive decisionmaking. We have added a planning and research unit to help us determine which of our new programs may promise the greatest success.

Our community correction program began in 1966 with a workrelease center in the District of Columbia jail. Today there are 13 correctional centers (halfway houses) supervising a daily average of 450 men. We plan to add 11 more halfway houses for 1,200 residents by the end of next year.

We have reached out to the community in other ways. One of the most successful is our prison college program operated by Federal City College. It is only 112 years old but the 125 men in the program have made remarkable records. All of them have done better than the average fellow Federal City College student. This had a very favorable impact on other academic programs at the Lorton complex. More than 500 men are enrolled in studies which will eventually qualify them for acceptance in the college program.

Other community-related programs include the work of law students at our Lorton facilities, a family counseling pilot prcject, a visitors services center serving the jail and women's detention center, and a correctional law project which will function somewhat like an ombudsman at the Lorton Youth Center.

Our 2-year-old training academy was the first in the Nation and last year was expanded to a regional concept with Maryland and Virginia to train middle and top management. Our warrant squad, which tracks down escapees and absconders, has done so in a remarkably effective way is another first-as is our use of the Youth Act offender classification and parole officers at the Youth Center, who are also caseworkers in the community centers and in the Youth Parole Division. Our data processing which works in conjunction with those of the police and courts to keep track of men and women from the time they enter until they leave the criminal justice system may soon become the model for corrections systems around the country.

In 1966 we had two sets of goals. The first dealt with the simple survival of the Department—the need to cope with the results of neglect and social discontent. The Department struggled to meet this goal and at the same time to meet the broader goal as represented in the recommendations of the Crime Commission. We had just begun to catch up. We improved the organization of the Department. We improved the physical plant of the complex. We started to cope with the population crisis that has continuously plagued us. Our budget and staff complement became realistic. We finally reached that point where we felt we could begin to concentrate our energies, not on day-to-day crisis but on changing the basic foundation of corrections. But the 1970 Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act changed our situation. We are again faced with such problems as: Where we will house 1,100 youth-act cases when we have a capacity for 324; where we will get two more youth centers immediately; where we can house 1,300 jail prisoners in an already greatly overburdened facility.

We are in a period unsurpassed in the Department's history. A period of dramatic change in method, style, and purpose, Releasing forces in the institutions and the community which, if harnessed carefully and guided with expertise, will assume near revolutionary status in the field of corrections. More important is the fact that these forces will have a tremendous impact on the reduction of crime.

With me today are a number of men who guide those forces and who, in their presentations, will reflect my concept of management. Each of them is an expert and each of them shares fully in the exercise of authority in administering the Department. I will introduce them separately—along with a consultant to the Department and the head of another District agency who has worked very closely with the Department on facility matters. Each of them will discuss various aspects of the Commission's recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning in the interest of the Department of Corrections.

Senator STEVENSON. I thank you, Mr. Hardy. I see some time has passed this morning. Do you want to go on and introduce other members of your staff?

Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, I was concerned about time and I wanted to compress everything in a capsule-explanation of the Crime Commission report implementation as far as our Department is concerned. I think I can do that in a period of 60 minutes, using the staff members. Mr. Montilla.



Mr. MONTILLA. First, I would like to pick up the recommendation 6.18 which you have before you which recommends that the District of Columbia will, with the new facility, replace the jail which is

[blocks in formation]

100 years old. As far as the Department is concerned, sir, there were three successive budget requests which the Department of Corrections submitted in fiscal year 1967, fiscal year 1968, and then again in fiscal year 1969 in the regular budgets where it was disapproved by Congress reportedly because the $34 million requested for jail construction was felt to be very excessive. No requests were submitted for the fiscal year 1970 budget on the advice of Deputy Mayor Fletcher. The Mayor's task force on corrections recommended in February 1969 that $300,000 be provided in the fiscal year 1970 for the planning of a new jail. This initial amount was approved by both the Mayor and the City Council. The Mayor's office and the Congress finally approved $450,000 in planning money for the jail.

I would like to ask Sam Starobin, Director of General Services for the District of Columbia, to pick up there to give you an idea of how we are progressing on this recommendation.



Mr. STAROBIX. Mr. Chairman, I will try to give you a quick résumé of where we stand. Approximately 1 year ago we entered into a funding contract with a consultant plan to prepare the study of work of what the new detention center would be. One of the basic questions we asked, Mr. Chairman, was what size plan site and general configuration and the general programs as concerned other general agencies, the courts, police, and so on. This study is nearing completion and in several months it will be complete. Several general conclusions have already come out but we have determined the site of the principal facility.

To bring the point further: The general recommendation which I am going to report is that the detention facility be in two facilities actually, the main facility away from Judicial Square, a satellite facility fronting on Judicial Square. The satellite facility will provide detained people access to their lawyers and other supporting agencies they need in the most crucial stage of their detentionimmediately after arrest and during the period of trial.

The main facility would be at a more remote location. The site we have located is in the vicinity of District of Columbia General Hospital. Basically, the 5-plus acres we need for the jail facility are not available in the center of Judicial Square.

We have asked for this sum of money in the February budget, now pending before the House Appropriations Committee, to permit us to move into the design phase. If that sum is granted we will begin design at the end of this year. I anticipate the design phase will take 112 to 2 years. We would be asking for construction money in the next fiscal year and hope to get into construction during that fiscal year.

That, in brief, is where we stand on the matter of public detention centers, Mr. Chairman. If you have any questions, I would be happy to respond.

Senator STEVENSOX. Senator Mathias?

[ocr errors]
« ÎnapoiContinuați »