SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations to be detailed, and which are justified later in this report, propose creation of a unified or consolidated correctional department for administration of probation, parole and institutional programs. The proposed plan respects, preserves, and strengthens the authority and responsibility of the judges of the courts and the Parole Board. This is accomplished by freeing them of operational functions and providing them with more comprehensive information about offenders. A full-time Parole Board of three members is proposed to replace the basically part-time present Board. This will make it possible for the Parole Board to exercise a greater role in the system and to administer indeterminate sentences (as proposed) in a manner in which the public may have confidence.

Second in importance to the proposals for changes in the organizational structure are recommendations for improving the quality of management of the correctional department, particularly the specific functions of diagnosis, treatment, supervision and evaluation of offenders. A major improvement in effectiveness and economy will result from recommendations for expanded research, better utilization of staff, and the provision of care services which serve both to allow for greater use of probation as an alternative to incarceration and to bring about a more effective use of probation and parole by achieving more success in effecting resocialization.

With two exceptions, few immediate physical changes are proposed in the corrections facilities. This is not to say that this plant does not have deficiencies. It is simply not feasible or necessary to expand, replace or redesign these facilities concurrent with the introduction of the proposed organizational and program changes. After these changes are implemented, a comprehensive and in-depth survey of the entire physical plant should be made in relation to the projected needs of the consolidated department.

The exceptions for which new construction is proposed are: A new facility, to be called the Detention Center, is needed to replace the existing inadequate jail and branch jails called "precinct lockups.” This new facility will enable the department to better serve the police, and will lead to better observance of "due process" in the detention and investigation functions.

Another new facility (which may possibly be combined with the Detention Center) to be called the Diagnostic and Outpatient Service Center is needed to assess the underlying personality or behavioral causes of a criminal act, to prescribe appropriate corrective measures,

to estimate risks, and to communicate this information to the judges, parole board members and others involved in the determination of sentences. This information will also help in planning an institutional treatment program for those who will be committed to a correctional institution.

The new facility will provide a resource for specialized aftercare for probationers and parolees (who may be successfully rehabilitated in the community with such supportive services). Diagnostic and outpatient clinics have long been used in other states and have proved to be a valuable correctional tool. The District, because of its unique organization and its compact area, offers promise of the optimal use of such a program. (In California, for example, parole outpatient clinics in Los Angeles and San Francisco cannot serve the large number of parolees in other areas of the state.)

Impact of Recommendations

The District of Columbia's organizational structure offers a unique opportunity for achievement of a correctional system of the highest order. The organizations of the State systems in every case involve monumental complexities and compromising adjustment to accommodate the overlapping jurisdictions of State, County, and City Governments. Also, they must contend with the compounding problem of great population growth and development of the organizations over vast geographical areas.

With the determination to do what is proposed and the allocation of additional resources, there is a high probability that the District can be the model system for the nation. It also will become a safer place to live and work, and many of the costs of crime and correction can be saved or allocated to other social and economic programs of community concern.

656

Chapter 2

The Department of Corrections

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY

The Department of Corrections was created by Public Law 460, 79th Congress, approved June 27, 1946. Its purpose is to control, care for and improve the behavior of persons committed to its custody in order to rehabilitate them and protect the community. The original law, combined with Reorganization Order No. 34 of May 28, 1953, authorizes the Director of the Department to promulgate regulations for the government of the institutions, to establish and conduct industries, farms and other activities and, in general, to provide for the proper care and treatment of inmates. He has full authority over all personnel and may assign to other officials of the Department such of the power delegated to him as, in his judgment, may be warranted in the interst of efficiency and good administration.

ORGANIZATION

Five institutions comprise the District's penal system. Four of them, the Workhouse for male misdemeanants, the Women's Reformatory for both misdemeanants and felons, the Reformatory for male felons, and the Youth Center, for male commitments under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, are situated on a 3,500-acre reservation near Lorton, Virginia, about 20 miles from Washington. This site was purchased in 1910 by the District of Columbia; title is held by the Federal Government. The Jail and Departmental Headquarters are located in Washington.

The Department is composed of 12 divisions, the five institutions and the service units: Agriculture, Business, Engineering, Health, Industries, Personnel and Transportation. A Chaplain Unit, The Institute for Criminological Research, and the Psychological Service Center are also included in the Department. Each division head and each of the smaller units are personnally responsible to the Director, who, in turn, reports to the D.C. Board of Commissioners. In actual practice, however, many other subordinates also report to the director.

Recently, conferences have been held by the present Director and his staff with key personnel from the staff of the Board of Commis

sioners, D.C., to discuss reorganizational plans. Several have been suggested for future use, any one of which will provide for delegation of authority, stronger chain of command, and a greater degree of support for line functions than has been exercised in the past. For the past two decades the Department has had strong directors who have been able to recruit, train, and supervise a staff of dedicated people. In spite of serious overcrowding and the problems associated with the large number of admissions and discharges each year, serious disturbances have been held to a minimum. There have been no scandals involving members of the Department. Public relations have been satisfactory.

3

The enabling legislation for the Department, its past, present, and proposed organization and management structure, and its published aims and objectives places this Department among the best in the country as judged by the standards of the American Correctional Association. As an indication of good management, specific rules and regulations for the central office and each of the institutions have been compiled, published, and distributed to those who are governed by them. Training is provided to insure that those responsible for the program not only are adequately supervised, but understand and are in basic agreement with the role of the Department in the correctional process.

The Department has enjoyed good relationships with other District of Columbia and Federal Government agencies, and with those of the various states. Formal and informal agreements provide for assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the District of Columbia Police, the Virginia State Police, and the Chief of Police of Fairfax County, Virginia, in any major emergency. Exchange of prisoners between the U.S. Bureau of Prisons and the Department is made with a minimum of effort. Narcotic Act violators may be transferred to the U.S. Public Health Service Hospitals at Fort Worth and Lexington.

Relationships with social agencies in the District generally have been good, although efforts are being made at the present time to strengthen them. A project that would help improve relations is a Community Action Program submitted recently through the United Planning Organization for action under the Economic Opportunity Act. Basically, this project would seek to identify those inmates who have families in need of assistance or related extramural problems. Social casework would be provided for the inmate and his family, thus extending the correctional process beyond the walls of the institution. Through the use of the 10 Neighborhood Development Centers operated by UPO, thorough coverage would be provided.