The latter role is coming to be regarded as the primary mission of corrections as public attitudes change and as leaders in the field redefine the tasks of the agencies involved in criminal justice. Redefinitions of agency missions create organizational strains, and they make new demands on resources. In the field of crime and its correction, these strains are aggravated by increasing magnitude of the problem of offenses against the public. It is not necessary here to pursue in detail the importance of poverty, of educational and economic disadvantage, of minority group status in the genesis of crime. It is sufficient to note that crimes and convicted criminals are appearing in unprecedented numbers and that this circumstance has contributed to the crisis in the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. The Department's problem is complicated by one further factor: the wellknown tendency for correctional agencies to occupy positions of low status in the hierarchy of public agencies. This implies limited funding, understaffing, and inadequacies in physical plant and equipment. The problem of rehabilitating public offenders thus rests at the intersection of a number of unfavorable circumstances: divided public opinion; contrasting philosophies within the staff of corrections; severe limitations of facilities and resources; lack of expertise in dealing with new concepts of rehabilitation; and the inherent difficulties of effecting changes in attitudes, values and behaviors in crowded facilities remote from the community and from normal channels of socialization. If we add the special difficulty created by racial differences within the prison and recurrent social disorders in the inner areas of the larger community, it may be relevant to ask: Why are prisons not beset by even more problems than they now experience? Some alternative directions.-Even more relevant is the question of what solutions are worth pursuing, and which should be pursued first. This is a question of many facets, since research discloses increasingly that the effectiveness of correctional treatment is conditioned by the typology of the offender, the nature of the treatment setting, and the characteristics of correctional personnel and programs. Analysis of recidivism rates and program cost-effectiveness enables us to set forth some general statements on potentially useful alternatives in rehabilitation of criminal offenders. Data from allied fields throws further light on these alternatives. As a guide to our search for long-range solutions to correctional problems, the following statements should be useful: 1. Corrections are more effective when applied at first offense than at later offenses; 2. Corrections are more effective with young offenders than with old; 3. Corrections tend to be more effective in community settings; 4. Corrections are more effective when it involves peers, family members, and significant nonagency people than when addressed to the offender alone; and 5. A wide variety of offender types can be most effectively handled only by use of a wide range of treatment strategies. In seeking to develop emergent solutions to the present problems of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, the task force has felt itself constrained somewhat by traditional solutions to the problem-that is, the use of existing institutional facilities. However, the lessons of recidivism-rate analysis and cost-benefit analysis suggest that it is imperative to move definitely in other directions. In particular, it is highly desirable to capitalize on the unique advantages of community-based treatments. These have been demonstrated to be successful in limited applications in the District as well as in a few other communities in the Nation. We refer there to work release programs, to community treatment programs, and to community correctional center programs. The programs have shown their ability to produce substantial reductions in recidivism at costs lower than those of the traditional institutional programs or the usual pattern of prison-and-parole programs. Considerations both of public safety and public economy indicate, therefore, the wisdom of .modifying the current mix of programs to include larger proportions of community-based corrections. The task force, accordingly, has recommended an expansion of the Department's work release program, moving initially from a capacity of approximately 120 to a capacity of 350 at the end of fiscal year 1971. Similarly, the task force has recommended the implementation of a youth crime control demonstration project, based on residential centers in the community, and accommodating a population rising from 20 in early fiscal year 1970 to the equivalent of 140 in late fiscal year 1971. This program is seen as averting immediately the building of a new $500,000 dormitory at the District of Columbia Youth Center at Lorton. The proposed expansion of community-based programs will provide for 490 persons by the end of fiscal year 1971. This will represent a major gain in terms of capital expenditures averted. However, there is a strong likelihood that the Department of Corrections will still be faced with a population considerably larger than its combined institutional and community-based program capacities. As is evident from chart 2, the projected program capacity at the end of fiscal Chart 2. Department of Corrections Institutional Population Projections and Institutional Capacity Projections 4310 year 1971 will be 3,510, but the institutional population as projected by the Department will be somewhat higher. A conservative projection (line B), indi 1 Research Report No. 9: Projection of the Institutional Population, October 1968. cates that an additional 280 offenders will have to be provided for. A more likely projection (line A), indicates that a higher additional number, namely, 800, will have to be accommodated. The process of accommodation will involve any one or a combination of several factors: (1) additional construction; (2) further expansion of community-based programs, or; (3) a modified release policy. Fortunately, the latter will now become a realistic possibility because of the Department's successful demonstration of the worth of community-based treatment and because of the projected expansion of community-based programs. Two correctional management strategies.-In addition to the increased emphasis on community-based programs, two additional concepts are being stressed by the task force. These are: 1. Corrections, as a system of delivering various services to offenders, should whenever possible utilize the organizations, both public and private, that are most qualified to provide the service. The correctional agency should neither duplicate nor compete with existing community resources. Under this concept, the Department of Corrections should not establish its own school and medical services but, instead, contract for these services from the agencies that are most competent in these fields-local school districts and the local public health department. Other examples involve contracts with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for all basic correctional industries, or with private concerns for the operation of industrial enterprises. In establishing community correctional centers (or prerelease guidance centers), it is preferable to contract with an agency or private firm to operate the facility than to own and/or operate it directly as a departmental activity. As a final example, a needed new psychiatric service might best be provided by contract with a private organization such as the Psychiatric Institute. 2. Available community structures, apartment buildings, abandoned schools, etc., can be readily adapted for use as correctional facilities. Many prisoners, perhaps more than half, do not present behavior characteristics which require the security and restriction of a maximum or medium security institution. They can be placed in "minimum security," which can be in a building in the community as well as in the Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center (the old Work House) or working in the District of Columbia Corrections ranch or farm. Such concepts as these are not wholly unknown in the field of corrections but they are as yet little explored, let alone broadly implemented and evaluated. Nevertheless, they may have great promise for the field. The task force believes that they should be carefully studied and to the extent that they appear relevant they should be given a thorough trial. VI. ISSUES AND PLANS FOR TASK FORCE FOLLOW-ON In this report, the task force has dealt with the problems and needs of Cor rections on a short-term basis. If what has been proposed is done, along with other action programs to improve the entire Criminal Justice System in the District, the correctional service has a usable plan through fiscal 1971. Obviously, some intensive planning is needed to develop an action program capable of serving the needs of the system to at least 1975. As long as the correctional system exists at all, there will be some dependence on the use of expensive security institutions. Capital outlay programs almost invariably require 4 to 5 years from decision to construct the facility to the time that it is available. A 5-year plan is, therefore, a relatively short-term plan. Long-term planning is a gravely underdeveloped process in the correctional field and no immediate solutions to meeting this need can be readily recommended. Existing planning resources, the Department of Corrections' Division of Planning and Research, and the District of Columbia Law Enforcement Planning Agency, do however, offer some assurance that better comprehensive planning will occur in the future. Task force to continue to develop short-term plan To provide at least a partial corrective for the current deficit in correctional planning capability, the task force should remain active for such time as a specific action plan is developed to meet present and forecasted correctional needs through fiscal 1975. In addition, a number of special committees should be created to look into and report back jointly to the task force and to the responsible officials, in the following areas: (1) Special ad hoc committee for Correctional Health Services: Against the objective of providing the needed amount of inmate health services as recommended by the U.S. Public Health Services, and the objective of basing the responsibility for providing such services in the District of Columbia Department of Public Health, this committee should come up with the answers. Proposed Committee and Chairman Dr. Murray Grant, Chairman, Public Dr. John A. Opal, Corrections. Dr. Ernest Siegfried, Bureau of Prisons. Dr. Saleen Hhah, NIH. (2) Special ad hoc Committee on Criminal Justice Statistics and Projections: The task force recognizes that the ultimate responsibilities of developing coordinated population trend data and coordinated criminal justice planning for the District lie within the functions of the Offices of Crime Analysis and Criminal Justice Planning. However, it is essential in the immediate situation, whereas the development of plans and courses for immediate action are major considerations, that an ad hoc committee to study legal criminal justice systems projected population trends be established. This committee would focus concentrated and immediate attention on present and projected population trends and contribute significantly to the Department of Corrections' present planning, program and budget preparation efforts. In order that the trend study be realistic and meet the Department's needs, the study should include and be coordinated with the other functions such as courts, police, prisons, and so forth. It is recommended that this committee be established immediately. It should be charged to complete its work within 30 days. Proposed Committee and Chairman John Richardson, Chairman, D.C. Crime David McNelis, Bureau of Census. John Conrad, Bureau of Prisons. Sylvia Bacon, Department of Justice. (3) Special ad hoc Committee on Correctional Services Enterprises and Industries: (a) Determine the possibility of establishing additional correctional industries under private enterprise operations at the Lorton complex; enable inmates to earn prevailing wages minus costs of institutional support, family support, and so forth. (b) Consider feasibility of District incentive payments to private employees for training period of employment of parolees. (c) Propose new policies on inmate pay. Proposed Committee and Chairman Mrs. Arlene Neal, Chairman. Mr. Charles Ruselle. Mr. John Rector, Board of Trade. Mr. Bill Press. Mr John Satterwhite, Sylvania Electric. Mr. Robert Coleman, Corrections. (4) Special Ad Hoc Committee on Training: (a) Determine the best District policy and plans for development of Department's training academy (i.e., Should there be joint use of facilities or separate facilities for police, fire, corrections, etc.?) (b) Review and recommend a specific training plan for District of Columbia Corrections Academy and total training program. (5) Two other committees will be named at an early date. APPENDIX: TASK FORCE PROGRESS REPORT REPORT OF THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON CORRECTIONS Report to: Hon. Walter E. Washington. Task force establishment The task force was established by the Mayor on Monday, February 3, 1969, to review and carefully recommend specific, positive actions toward correction of deficiencies in the District of Columbia Department of Corrections identified in the reports of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Jan. 16, 1969); the Mayor's ad hoc committee to investigate activities at the Lorton complex (Jan. 24, 1969); the Correctional Advisory Committee, and other relevant reports. The task force's charge was expressed by Deputy Mayor Thomas Fletcher "*** to be concerned with action, not more studies." It is intended that the task force, in addition to this progress report, will complete a preliminary report by Monday, February 10, and such additional reports as may be required. Scope of assignment The task force is to propose (1) All corrective action indicated by the above reports. (2) Development of a highly effective management organization. (3) Replacement or modernization of institutions to meet highest standards required for security and effective correctional program. (4) Extension and development of the community's involvement in the correctional process. (5) The actions necessary to further implement the recommendations of the President's Crime Commission on the District of Columbia. (6) Actions to create inspired, innovative, and imaginative correctional services to prevent or reduce crime and delinquency. (7) Integration of the corrections system more fully with the District's and the region's comprehensie law enforcement planning activities. Status of the Department of Corrections' reforms and development Notwithstanding the deficiencies which currently exist, considerable progress has been made in implementing many of the recommendations of the President's Crime Commission on the District of Columbia. In the balance, the problems seem to stay ahead of progress. Mainly, this is due to a dramatic increase in the proportion of felony commitments to the Department, and an increase in the hostility and acting-out proclivity of the committed offender population. As revealed in the report on the Lorton complex incident, the employees, particularly the professional corrections staff, have been among the first to feel and react to these significant changes in inmate attitudes. It should be emphasized that only a small number of the staff acted in an improper manner. The vast majority of employees conducted themselves in a responsible and proper manner. Nevertheless, the situation at the Lorton prison complex continues to be critical. The actions of the District government must relieve these tensions. It seems clear to the Department of Corrections and to this task force that what has happened at the Lorton complex could just as well have happened at any other Director against any culpable employees. This progress report is concerned with a series of actions to deal with the immediate symptons at Lorton. Subsequent reports will, of necessity deal with the needs of other correctional instiutions and the underlying causes of discontent and disorder. Immediate actions required to restore order and ease tensions at the Lorton prison complex (1) Swiftly carry out proper disciplinary action being instigated by the Director against any culpable employees. (2) Temporary management and supervisory staff reassignments should be made to create and execute desirable new policies and procedures. (3) Establish more intensive inmates-staff communications by temporary assignment of five District of Columbia parole agents to the complex to serve as correctional counselors. |