verted into the vocational education building and the inmate barber shop. The construction of a factory-type building for the making and repair of furniture had also been recommended. A building within the wall unit was converted to a furniture repair shop. In further compliance with recommendations of the Committee three existing factory buildings were remodeled into housing facilities and were ready for use in 1959. Factory operations were then transferred to a new industrial building which was under construction at the time of the study.

The rated inmate capacity is now 1,218, which can be expanded to 1,345 during times of need without seriously impairing the orderly functioning of the institution. The average daily population in fiscal 1958 was 1,872; by fiscal 1960 it had dropped to 1,830, then to 1,680 in fiscal 1962 and to 1,307 in fiscal 1965. There is reason to believe the average daily population will continue to drop slowly, particularly if the Department's plans to have many individuals on a work-release program within the next five years materialize.

In spite of the drop in the number of inmates, part of which must be attributed to the opening of the Youth Center, there is still some overcrowding at this institution. Most correctional administrators feel that filling an institution to more than 90 percent of its rated capacity reduces the effectiveness of a correctional program, as the ability to move inmates to different housing units is severely limited. Expediency rather than an orderly classification procedure is used for housing assignments when bed space is at a premium. At the beginning of the 1965 fiscal year there were at least 200 more inmates than the rated capacity and more than 350 over the 90 percent optimum capacity of the institution.

As is the case at the Jail and Workhouse there is some doubling of bunks and compromising of the Department's regulations of a space 6'0" by 8'6" for each bed. In addition to the usual problems associated with overcrowding, in this institution the lack of privacy is evident. The inmats, serving longer sentences, accumulate more personal property. Of more importance, however, is the significant increase recently in the number of inmates who attend academic and vocational school, and who need workspace and relative quiet for study. The easiest and least expensive way to provide these conditions is construction of cubicles within existing housing units. This, however, reduces capacity and will have to be correlated with further drops in population. Otherwise, to achieve the goal additional housing facilities, of the cubicle type, will have to be constructed.

During the past 10 years additional correctional officer positions of various grades have been added to the complement, which now

totals 216 (a ratio of 1 officer for 6 inmates). Lately, there has been some difficulty in recruitment for these positions, and there are now 22 unfilled positions. As a result, there are instances of inadequate supervision of the dormitories and cell blocks, a condition which easily can lead to serious difficulties. The physical plan of the housing units makes supervision somewhat easier than at the Jail, but the doubledecking of bunks, and the cubicles, place additional obstacles in the way of an officer trying to see what is taking place in his unit.

Reception and initial classification studies are good. Some difficulty is experienced in the follow-up needed for each inmate as he progresses through his program. There are five social workers and one social work trainee, six vocational and academic teachers, and two clinical psychologists assigned to the institution.

Late last year the Department started an experimental project at the Reformatory whereby inmates could not receive increases in the pay scales (ranging from $2 to $13 per month) and get promotions in job categories unless they participated in academic, social, and/or Vocational education and maintained a good conduct record. Thus far, there has been a heavy demand for further study in all three areas, throwing a difficult load on the professional staff. Much of the demand for academic and vocational courses undoubtedly could be handled by increasing the number of night classes. This would mean additional teaching staff, but many of them could be hired on an hourly rate. An added advantage would accrue, as the teachers could be selected from surrounding school districts and from those who have already demonstrated their competence.

As an additional means of maintaining interest in individual cases, the Department is contemplating assigning eight or nine inmates to many of the correctional officers. Every month the correctional officer will be required to submit a report on one of his cases to the Inmate Classification Committee, thus insuring that each inmate has a review of his status every eight or nine months.

As a direct result of the 1957 study of the Department, the Psychological Services Center was instituted at the Reformatory. Using a multi-disciplinary approach, with five clinical psychologists and two clinical social workers, a pioneer experimental project was launched to reduce the large number of recidivists found in the inmate. population.

The Reformatory operating budget for fiscal year 1965 was $3,983,983, resulting in a per capita cost of $8.38.

The types of offenses committed by inmates assigned to this institution are typical of those normally found in a medium-security penitentiary. Of the 1,249 inmates at the end of 1965 fiscal year the

average age was 35, the average sentence 113 months. There were 310 incarcerated for robbery or attempted robbery, 180 for housebreaking, 174 for drug laws, and 99 for aggravated assault. Of those released in 1965, the average time confined was 38 months.

Using medical facilities, such as the institution at Lexington, for care and treatment of drug addicts could reduce some of the overcrowding, as 14 percent of the total population are serving sentences for drug law violations.

682

65-943 O 71 24

Chapter 3

Court of General Sessions:

Probation Services

In 1965 the 15 judges of the Court of General Sessions of Washington, D.C. were confronted with about 81,000 new cases. The judges must determine whether the Court has jurisdiction to intervene in the affairs of the individuals who come before it and must make appropriate dispositions in cases where it does. The legal problems relating to the first phase of judicial responsibility do not come within the purview of this survey; its concern is with the procedures of the Court and dispositions made insofar as these relate to probation and ancillary services of the Courts.

A number of surveys have been made of the Probation Department in the Court of General Sessions. These began with the Karrick Report of April 1957, and were followed by reports covering specific areas, e.g., reports on the drunken offender, court screening process, etc.

For this study, a number of judges of the Court of General Sessions were interviewed, as well as the administrative staff of the Probation Department. Information on the handling of probation cases came from a random sample of case records initiated in the Probation Department during the months of January and February of 1965. Onehundred thirty case records (80 placed on probation and 50 denied) were studied. This review was designed to focus attention on significant aspects of the cases and to evaluate casework techniques. Probation officers were interviewed about the content of their jobs, their attitudes and objectives in connection with their work, their education, work experience, and general background.

COURT STRUCTURE

The Court is composed of a Criminal Division and a Civil Division. In the Criminal Division, these are four branches: (1) United States Branch, for the trial of offenses against the United States; (2) District of Columbia Branch, for the trial of offenses against the District of Columbia; (3) Traffic Branch for the trial of violations of traffic

laws and regulations, including the Central Violations Bureau which processes non-moving traffic violations; and (4) Jury Branch, for the disposition of cases from the above three branches where jury trials are demanded.

The five branches of the Civil Division are: (1) Small Claims Branch; (2) Landlord and Tenant Branch; (3) Motions Branch; (4) General Assignment Branch, embracing non-jury civil cases other than those allocated to the foregoing branches and all civil cases where jury trials have been demanded; and (5) Domestic Relations Branch, including the Reciprocal Support Section.

The volume of cases in the Court has grown at an ever-accelerating rate. The members of the judiciary have been subjected to charges in recent times of a lack of concern; and it has been charged that not every citizen receives justice in this Court." This may not be warranted, but the extreme workload pressures and the backlog are due in part to the lack of supporting probation personnel to conduct investigations and supervise defendants in the community. This personnel inadequacy, in turn, has had considerable impact on the sentencing practices of the Court.

Where judges sentence without a presentence investigation, the court obviously is handicapped in distinguishing between one defendant and the next. While the net effect is a uniform tendency toward leniency rather than security, neither the defendant nor the public is helped by such apparently superficial dealing with one of society's major problems.

FUNCTION OF PROBATION

In sentencing an individual, the Court has four alternatives: probation, suspended sentence, fine or imprisonment. (Work furlough may be considered as a fifth alternative, or simply a combination of probation and imprisonment used concurrently.)

Probation, which legal scholars have called the most important development in the administration of criminal justice during the past century, is a disposition made by the judge as an alternative to imprisonment. Its goals are to rehabilitate convicted offenders and thereby protect society. It permits the offender to retain his freedom in the community, subject to the control of the Court under the supervision of a probation officer. Probation is neither a legal right of defendants nor a gesture of judicial leniency.

The philosophy of probation, with its emphasis on protecting society via rehabilitation rather than punishment, is based on respect for the individual, belief in the ability of people to change, and a concept of treatment tailored to fit the probationer. Among its purposes are