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.

STATEMENT OF M. ROBERT MONTILLA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

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

65-943 0-71- -2

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.

STATEMENT OF SAM D. STAROBIN, DIRECTOR OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S GENERAL SERVICES

Mr. STAROBIN. 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 STEVENSON. Senator Mathias?

Senator MATHIAS. I would like to conserve my questions until the whole presentation has been made.

Senator STEVENSON. I just don't quite understand why two detention facilities are needed. Is that because of the unavailability of land near Judiciary Square?

Mr. HARDY. Let me comment on that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator STEVENSON. Isn't it desirable to have only one?

Mr. HARDY. If we consider function alone then putting the detention facility in proximity to the courthouse would be desirable. However, Judiciary Square is a very special area. Space is highly restricted there and extremely expensive. Value runs $30 or $50 a square foot and up. This alone would come to many millions of dollars. We run into conflict with a number of other plans for structures in that vicinity. The task of assembling the 5-plus acres would be expensive and would run roughshod against these many other plans. In going into detail in the rationale for a detention center in the immediate proximity of the courthouse we determined that there are certain areas when a detainee requires this type of accessibility. At other times he does not. His lawyer has to have access to him immediately after his imprisonment and while a determination is made as to whether he will be put out on bail or not. Certainly during the period of his trial. For the longer periods of detention while it may be desirable it isn't absolutely essential. Therefore, what we came up with is essentially a compromise with the realities of the situation.

Senator STEVENSON. How much land will you require for this satellite site?

Mr. HARDY. We haven't determined it yet. My estimate at this point is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 to 12 acres would be sufficient.

Senator STEVENSON. Mr. Hardy, why don't you proceed with your presentation.

Mr. HARDY. The next recommendation of the Crime Commission was that 100 additional officers should be added to the Department of Corrections. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report that with the understanding of the Congress we have moved that figure of 100 recommended in 1966 to a total of 260 officers added to the Department of Corrections and I don't find any means to imply that we are satisfied with that figure. But I do want to note there that we have moved far above the 100 recommended by the Crime Commission back in 1966.

The next recommendation regards our correctional training academy. I am asking my assistant who is the administrator of the academy to give the pertinent details about the development and the operation of the academy. Mr. Sisson.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. SISSON, ADMINISTRATOR, TRAINING

ACADEMY

Mr. SISSON. Yes, sir. Our training academy was established July 1, 1969, after the recommendation of the President's Crime Commission that this be done. A grant was received from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration which allowed us to study

the needs and to design a program for the training academy. This study set up a three-phase training academy program. One phase being the preservice training for new employees entering on duty in the Department. One phase being for inservice training for the employees already on duty. And a third phase being higher level classes which would upgrade the academic background of employees in the Department.

Between July 1, 1969 and May 30 of this year we trained 712 new employees who have entered on duty in our Department— either on a 40-hour training program for all new employees or an 80-hour program for all new correctional officers. We have also had 625 of our employees participate in one form of in-service training or another at the academy, totaling 72,090 on duty manhours of training since 1969.

We try to provide a balanced program in the academy between treatment and security. A program which materially provides and deals with empathy, understanding the inmate, understanding inmate problems, and also the security aspect-contraband, narcotics, and subjects of this nature.

The instructors at the academy are made up of the staff which was authorized by Congress within assigned positions to create the academy. Then we used guest instructors, people from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, various colleges, and Department employees at every level. Whenever a problem is noted, a particular program is designed to cope with it. We try to find the best possible instructor within the Department.

Some of the type of seminars today are seminars from last year. In narcotics, teaching our correctional people utilization of manpower, and getting the best use of manpower. We even worked one training program for a case aide inmate to assist the classification officers at the complex. In the narcotics program, to mention one, we worked with Washington Technical Institute in developing our program which leads to an associate and applied science degree in corrections administration. So far, since 1969, 341 employees of the Department have enrolled in at least one or more courses in this program which starts at present at the District of Columbia jail and at the training academy. They have participated in over 6,000 man-hours of off-duty training. This to me, speaks of an interest on the part of employees in the Department to center their career development and work in the field which they have chosen. Most of these college courses are paid for through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration from grants which are available to the college. Upon the recommendations of the Joint Commission on the Department of Corrections and Training, the President's Crime Commission, and the Mayor's task force, in May of 1970, we asked LEAA for a grant to establish a regional training academy to provide management and supervision training for Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia departments of cor

rection.

In November 1970, we were given a $99,000 grant and did establish a regional training academy. The purpose of this, as I said, was to bring together correctional officials from the three-State region to train in areas in which we could not individually train.

To date we have completed 21 seminars in the regional academy, and 18 seminars are scheduled to be completed before the end of the grant in November of this year. We have had 422 participants in the regional academy representing six States, Puerto Rico, the Bureau of Prisons, and the District of Columbia. We have had a total of 7,700 man-hours of training thus far in the academy.

One illustration of a training session which was held in the academy was the executive development seminar which was held in April of this year. A 2-day seminar which brought together the directors of three States, the prison industry directors of four States, officials of the Government, the JC's, ex-inmates, members of the inmate body itself, and private industry. Out of this 2-day conference a second meeting was established and a regional correctional action council was established which will seek to advance to find a new model correctional industry. I believe this will be covered in testimony later on this morning.

Time does not permit an elaboration of all the programs offered. Needless to say the academy has made a significant start and has gained some recognition. We have had inquiries from 34 States concerning our program and also an inquiry from Australia regarding our training program. We believe we have the potential for an excellent training program and we look forward to the challenge the future holds and to the opportunity to provide adequate training for our employees and to others who seek the training. We realize the importance of our influence on the employees who will be called upon to provide an impact to the reduction of crime in the District. We also recognize the importance of meeting the challenges which are ours.

Thank you for your attention and for this opportunity to testify. Senator STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Sisson.

Senator MATHIAS. Just one question. You mentioned one of the programs has an LEAA grant. When does that grant run out? Mr. SISSON. The grant expires in December of this year. Senator MATHIAS. What happens then?

Mr. SISSON. We hope we will get an extension or that there will be other ways of dealing with it.

Senator MATHAIS. How much was the grant for?

Mr. SISSON. $99,000.

Senator STEVENSON. Mr. Hardy, do you want to continue?

Mr. HARDY. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the correctional department part of the academy, that is for the District of Columbia Academy, has been programed into the budget of the Department of Corrections. We are funded for that. But we are only using Law Enforcement Assistance Administration funds for the regional academy.

Senator STEVENSON. I see.

Mr. HARDY. Perhaps at the end of the grant we can share the funding on a regional basis.

Senator STEVENSON. Who is the next witness?

Mr. HARDY. The next witness, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. David Thomas, personnel officer for the Department. While his presentation will not relate directly to the recommendations of the Crime