It is only a question of time, however, until the Probation Department, as the social arm of the court, will be called upon to assist the Bench in determining who is an alcoholic. There will be need for some criteria other than the number of arrests. At such time, the screening techniques needed will require even greater sophistication than previously recommended in this report. The probation professional, in general, has no more competence to make a medical determination than has a judge. However, as this responsibility has been forced upon the court by the Easter Decision, some initial steps can be taken to meet the challenge.

It should be possible to develop, through conferences between the Alcohol Rehabilitation Clinic and the Probation Department, a set of social indices of alcoholism for use by the Probation Department's screening unit. This would allow the Department to inform the court that a particular defendant should be sent to a medical facility for final decision on whether he is an alcoholic.

Whatever the ultimate application of the Easter case, the fact remains that at the present time public intoxicants are arrested in the District of Columbia, and the current treatment policy should be reviewed. Even if the decision is reached not to make arrests for public intoxication, there always will be people arrested for crimes, but whose major problem is the excessive use of alcohol. These individuals must be coped with by the courts (including the Probation Department).

The Probation Department of the Court of General Sessions, under its present Director, was one of the first departments in the country to make any real attempt to cope with the revolving door handling of the drunken offender when it instituted an Alcohol Rehabilitation Unit in 1946. Starting with one officer, it has now expanded to a separate unit of the Department with five staff members (a supervisor, an assistant supervisor and three probation officers). Unfortunately, the degree of specialized care initially envisioned has not kept pace with the expansion of this unit. What started out in 1946 as increased services for the offender now offers him less than the regular probationer.

Essentially, this Unit's program utilizes some of the techniques of Alcoholics Anonymous. This program screens individuals to determine their motivation. If their motivation appears positive, the court is so informed. The court invariably sends this man to jail for three to five days for "drying out." Then he also undergoes a medical examination. He is then returned to court and is interviewed by a staff member of the Alcohol Rehabilitation Unit and several representatives of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). The workings of Alcoholics Anonymous are explained to him, and if he expresses an interest in trying

it he is placed on probation. Failure to go along with this proposal usually results in a jail sentence.

The offender is placed on probation without a presentence investigation, and the actual treatment consists of his attendance at a large group meeting about Alcoholics Anonymous. At these meetings, held twice a week, persons who have recovered through AA explain how they have been helped and how the group can also help the probationer.

In 1965, 5,416 persons were screened by the Alcohol Rehabilitation Unit; 1,231 of these were continued for investigation by the unit and 838 placed on probation.

Despite the fact that the program has been in effect for 20 years, no evaluation of its effectiveness has ever been made by the Department. The following analysis is by no means exhaustive, and is not a substitute for a comprehensive evaluation of this project.

ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS

The program director of the Alcoholic Rehabilitation Unit, as well as the general headquarters of Alcoholics Anonymous in New York City, continually stress that this is not an AA program, but rather a meeting about AA. There is some understanding of how, but not why, AA works. Basic to the work of AA is that the subject must to some extent want to give up alcohol and must admit that alcohol is a problem.

AA is basically a loosely-knit association of small groups in which the individual tries to discover the reason for his own use of alcohol. The structure protects the anonymity of the membership. The alcoholic is accepted by AA-they all have been in the same position. They feel for him and with him. Each member has a sponsor who tries to relieve the guilt of the new member. The new member initially leans on his sponsor, developing an almost father-son relationship. Eventually each member makes a moral inventory which must be shared with another, but this person is an equal and not a status figure. Eventally, by being given someone to sponsor he begins to do something for others. A member controls his own egocentricity by testimonial. And finally there is a continuous reminder of the problem by occasional slips of older members as shown in their testimonials. The program currently in operation in the Court of General Sessions actually offers none of the strengths that one normally associates with Alcoholics Anonymous. While the probationers are continually told about the effects and workings of AA there was no record of any of the current probationers in the Unit becoming involved in an AA program.

The national headquarters of AA as well as the research agencies in the field (such as the National Council on Alcoholism and the School of Alcohol Studies at Rutgers) say that not everyone with a drinking problem can be helped by AA. In general AA is most effective with the individual who, while he has "hit bottom," has not lost all contact with the general community. If an individual has family, community and employment ties, a base to build on, plus enough awareness of his situation to realize that his life is being controlled by alcohol, he presents the best prospects for an AA program.

This is not the person who is usually arrested and appears in the Court of General Sessions as a public intoxicant. It has been pointed out repeatedly that there is a differential pattern of arrests in the District of Columbia; one is more prone to be arrested in certain precincts than in others. The person with the greatest amount of community stability tends to frequent those communities with the lowest arrest pattern. An individual who is arrested for public intoxication is permitted to post bond at the local precinct and if he does not wish to appear in court he can merely forfeit his bond. It is estimated that close to 40 percent of the public intoxicant arrests use this means of escaping court appearance. To the extent that economic stability is a reflection of social cohesion, it would appear that the best prospects for rehabilitation by AA are the 40 percent who do not appear in court and hence are not subject to the program of the Probation Department.

PROBATION ASPECTS

In the actual operation of the program there is no planned contact between the probationer and his probation officer. Participants in this program appear in court twice a week, where they sign in at the Probation Department and then go upstairs to the court for the onehour lecture about AA. If the probationer is not re-arrested and appears for at least one of the two meetings per week, he can spend the usual six-month probation period without ever having a direct contact with his probation officer.

If one assumes that the only problem presented by the inebriate is his excessive drinking, that there is no underlying social pathology, and that he is otherwise a socially viable individual, then a program where he is exhorted to refrain from the use of alcohol and is informed that services are available to him when he needs them would be adequate.

As summarized in the recent conference proceedings on The Court and the Chronic Inebriate held by the U.S. Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare in April 1965, there are some clear-cut generalizations that can be made about those arrested for public intoxication and brought before the court. 16 It is evident that there is more pathology in this group of offenders than in average probationers. They are, therefore, in need of sound, effective probation, supplemented by intensive use of community resources such as public health clinics, regular Alcoholics Anonymous chapters, group therapy, etc. Since his problems are more deepseated than most probationers, the inebriate is entitled to at least as much care as any other probationer.

The public intoxicant is, and will continue to be, one of the most difficult cases to handle. To saddle one officer with an entire caseload of this type is unfair both to the officer, the client, and society. If these clients were distributed throughout the regular caseload and all members of the Department taught, via in-service training, the special problems of this group as well as the resources available for their treatment, these probationers would receive more help.

703

Chapter 4

Board of Parole

The District of Columbia Board of Parole was created in 1932. It was then composed of unpaid part-time members only. Until 1940 the funds for the operation of the Board of Parole and its staff were made available through the Department of Correction's budget. In 1940 the Board of Parole was charged with the responsibility of submitting its own budget requests with appropriate verification of the needs outlined. The first real expansion of the Board was delayed until 1958. This expansion was brought about as a result of the approval of several of the recommendations submitted in the Karrick Report.

ORGANIZATION

The latest reorganization of the Board of Parole occurred in June 1965. The Board is now composed of one full-time member who is also known as the "parole executive" and four part-time members who are known as public members. The full-time Board member is in salary grade 15 (a range of $17,550 to $22,365 a year). The maximum salary is achieved after 15 years of service. The full-time Board member is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia. The four part-time public members of the Board of Parole work as many hours as required to carry out their duties and are paid at an hourly rate of $8.75. The part-time members are appointed for three-year terms by the Board of Commissioners. Beginning with 1966, the termination dates of these Board members will be staggered. Under the change in the law effected in 1965, the part-time Board members are limited to two consecutive three-year terms, and they cannot be immediately reappointed. They must remain off the Board for at least one year.

Personnel

The professional members of the staff of the District of Columbia Board of Parole are Civil Service employees who are appointed after successfully competing in examinations. The qualifications are high and most of the staff have had broad experience in professional areas