from attempting to reach workable solutions on the basis of facts we have always known.

We think the main result which came out of the Crime Commission in its objective study was the knowledge that any time you take steps to improve a part of the system you must at the same time look to the balance of the system because if it does not operate as a cohesive whole you are losing the advantage of the improvement that you have tried to impose on a part of the system. We have hence seen in the District of Columbia a substantial increase in the number of police officers. We have seen a substantial reorganization of the police force. We have seen increases in the number of prosecutors assigned to the U.S. Attorney's office. Now, under the present format, we have seen a substantial increase in the availability of individual manpower and support personnel for the courts. The new superior court, in turn, has and will engender a substantial increase in the number of individuals going through the system.

The question which this committee has readily posed upon is: What steps have been taken, what steps can be taken, and what should be done with respect to the correctional system and all the outshoots thereof? We all know sitting here that there is going to be a substantial increase in the number of individuals who are convicted in the District of Columbia.

We can further assume and I think properly assume, that there will be a substantial increase in the number of inmates in Lorton and other places of incarceration. I know that the correctional system, in conjunction with the other elements of the District of Columbia, have concluded on the basis of projections, that may or may not be correct but probably are actually low, that facilities at Lorton which have a rated capacity of 1,384, by the end of fiscal 1972 may well have inmates in the numbers of 2,300 to 2,400, and an obvious problem with overcrowding.

The same thing we would find in respect to the youth center at Lorton which has a rated capacity of 324 and it is suggested that there would be from 495 to 618 inmates there by the end of fiscal 1972.

There are several ways, obviously, that the problem can be attacked. One way, which I don't think there's time to use to attack it, is building some new institutions. I think the time has gone by. The plans to build a larger and better medium of confinement in the system should have been started years ago. We face the problem now and we have to focus on it. That is why I'm so glad that the committee has decided to look at this problem. How the present system, and by that I am including probation, parole, work relief, and all the other programs, in fact handle the substantial increase in the number of convicted felons in the District of Columbia.

I think it's obvious if you merely take and incarcerate a substantial number of the increase of convicted persons in Lorton that all the good that has been done over the last 2, 3, or 4 years with respect to those educational and rehabilitation training courses in the last, will be downgraded. The reason is very simple. Where

you have overcrowded prison institutions the very functions of rehabilitation tend to fly backwards. It's impossible to run a successful rehabilitation effort where the prison itself is overcrowded.

I am informed that right now there is a problem with the youth centers. There are currently individuals who are waiting in the District of Columbia jail for transfer to the youth center. Judges will sentence individuals, they think under the Youth Correctional Act and because of the fact that there are insufficient facilities, they remain in the local jail until such time there is a slot available at the youth center.

I am informed that the work relief program is operating at capacity but that additional budget funds have been requested and it is anticipated that a substantial increase will be made in that particular area.

I think what we have to do is focus upon the release of the offender back into the community under as strict control as may be required. I think in the long run it is self-defeating to place a convicted felon in an institution which is overcrowded and unable to perform any rehabilitation with respect to that individual.

Consequently, of course, this entails the judicial system in substantial part. I think the courts themselves are going to have to consider very carefully which individual they will in fact sentence to incarceration and which they will place on probation. I know we found, at the time of the Commission report, that the probation rate in the District of Columbia for felonies was approximately 36 percent. This is very low compared with the rate of those offenders given probation in other jurisdictions. We can argue that this jurisdiction is not comparable because for a substantial period of time most of the individuals going through the process were the most serious offenders. The others being broken down in deciding where to put them by the court of general sessions.

The Department of Corrections can do much, and has done much, with respect to the rehabilitation of the offenders. The Department of Corrections cannot determine what sentence the individual felon will receive. That is a matter for the judiciary. Yet if the judiciary is going to sentence individuals to incarceration, when the correctional system does not have available space for that individual, obviously the whole process becomes self-defeating. And that is why, frankly, I would hope that this committee by oversight hearings can ascertain that, almost on a monthly basis the availability of slots in the prison system, the trend which will be forthcoming out of the new superior court, and be in a position to know where or whether the prison system is reaching a point of materially overcrowding. And whether or not suggestions can be made with respect to probation. Fortunately, we are aware that probation and the other programs which mean that the individuals can go back into the community under strict supervision, can be made available.

As the chairman well knows, the Crime Commission made several recommendations with respect to the correctional system. In fact much of what we did was based on a long survey made by

the American Correctional Association in 1966. A copy of that report is in the appendix to the Crime Commission report.

In addition, the chairman will note there were published by the subcommittee a series of investigative reports, by Merrill Alexander, with respect to the correctional system of the District of Columbia. I do not know from my own personal knowledge what has happened since that time. I have read documentation and reports prepared by Mi. Hardy, who knows the work, and I must say if the reports are correct, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, that the correctional system in the District of Columbia has indeed made great strides over the past 2 or 3 years. I think it's time that the correctional system should no longer be ignored in favor of the police, the prosecution, and the courts. I think it's gratifying the way it's handled in this jurisdiction. We have a correctional system which has moved forward while I think that there is room for improvement, and all I am saying is that on the basis of what I have seen that the correctional system has accomplished. I do think they are faced with a very serious problem that greatly needs the help of this committee. If the overcrowding foreseen comes to pass we are going to have, I think, a breakdown of the rehabilitation process that has been built up in the system and the net result will be an adverse impact on the system. Our whole process will insure that when a man comes out of the system he will be able to work back into the community and perform as a useful citizen.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Senator STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Miller. You mentioned the overcrowding that exists now at various institutions, particularly the youth center at Lorton, and also the adult facilities at Lorton, and the projected increases in population. Is that projected increase pertaining to changes in the judicial system or is it projected on the basis of social changes or a combination?

Mr. MILLER. Let me go back a step. Senator, as you probably are aware, in this jurisdiction there was, for a long period of time, a substantial problem with trial delay. In 1950, for example, the time between indictment and trial in the district court was 1.2 months. That has risen. In 1966 I think it was up to 6 months and it has hit as high as 9 to 10 months. As this delay factor has crept into the system, more cases are broken down from felonies to misdemeanors. More cases were dismissed because of the time delay factor involved. So actually you had fewer people actually convicted of a felony than you did maybe in the January before because of the number reduced or dismissed. But anyway the backlog had built up. Now this has been substantially changed by the Court Reorganization Act of 1970 where you have cases tried in the superior court and you will have added a substantial number of judges appointed to that court. So that you have to expect that the output of convictions from that court will substantially increase. You just have to be prepared. And that is what I understand is the projection basis.

Senator STEVENSON. Will the average terms to which they are sentenced increase too?

Mr. MILLER. That is a real possibility under some of the sentencing provisions of the Court Reform Act. The concept of a longer sentence was built in.

Senator STEVENSON. To mandatory limit sentences.

Mr. MILLER. Yes. The idea being that in cases of armed, violent, and the like, a substantial sentence should be imposed. Now compare a situation where a man utilizes a gun in the commission of an offense. That is one situation. You have another situation where you have a young fellow, 19, who steals an automobile for a joyride. Between all of them you will find a surprisingly substantial number of the young adults who steal cars for joyrides at least up to 2, 4, and 5 years ago throughout the United States would get a prison sentence. If he is a first offender, I think it's just a waste for that individual to serve time. What happens to him is he is incarcerated and comes out the worse for it. If a man utilizes a gun in commission of a bank robbery that's another question. I would expect that based on the changes in the sentencing procedure, and I have not studied them carefully, there the tendency would definitely be for longer sentences.

I would bring you to another point. There has been in the District Code a provision which permits correctional officials to make application to the judge for sentencing an individual to probation if the prison officials themselves are satisfied that the individual is a good probation risk and if the judge then agrees, the sentence can be commuted to time served and he will be released on probation. I will be perfectly frank with you, Senator, I have not checked. I thought about the statute last night and I have not checked to see if that statute still remains in the Code or whether it was written out by the Court Reform Act of 1970. That legislation, to my knowledge, has not been used at all and I've often wondered why because I think the whole concept of rehabilitation is the prison officials feel that an inmate with a long sentence is a good risk factor for the community, then he should go back into the community and work with this program on probation. I know I discussed, with Mr. Montilla, the particular statute, and it was not in the new law and I would strongly recommend this be put back in.

Senator STEVENSON. You say there are such programs that are in operation now?

Mr. MILLER. Yes; there are. It is my understanding that correctional systems, as soon as budget funds become available, are expanding. They are here today and I think they probably are going to tell you why they are increasing work relief programs. The fact is that the money is not available, and they may very well agree to limit now until they get the funds.

Senator STEVENSON. There is a statutory reserve?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. Suppose a man has been sentenced and has been in the correctional system and they feel that the sentence is much too severe and the man is capable of going out in the community and would be a good risk. Then those individuals should have the right to apply to the courts for reduction of that time sentence. Senator STEVENSON. Mr. Miller, you said that increasing the institutions is not going to solve the problems. You mean to suggest by that there's not going to be need for new jails?

Mr. MILLER. Oh, no, on the contrary. That's one reason I said there wasn't enough time. In fact in 1967 that was one of our strong recommendations. That we get rid of the monstrosity which is now called District of Columbia jail. Last night I was reading some of the trial stipulations. That planning money is now finally in. Senator Tydings worked very hard to get a new jail and at last we now have the planning money. We hope we will have a new jail in 3 or 4 years. But the last time, in 1967, and even before, we wanted a new jail, there was a need for maximum security and institutions of the type of Lorton. You would have a lapse of 7 years and all I'm saying is we can't wait that long.

Senator STEVENSON. Would you, for the benefit of the committee, go into the recommendations that the Commission made in that area? Mr. MILLER. Yes; the Commission recommendation is set forth on page 471 of the report. There is a preceding chapter in which this was discussed in detail. A substantial part of the appendix contains the report of the American Correctional Association on which we base many of our recommendations.

Now the first of the recommendations was the one you just mentioned-namely new detention facilities to replace the present jail structure. The recommendation, as I say, was made January 1, 1967. As far as I know we now have a planning fund budget.

Senator STEVENSON. Do you have any news about the location of that jail?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I have not studied the matter carefully but it's based on what I have seen. Also based in fact. as a practicing lawyer, I think the jail facility should be adjacent to the new superior court structure. It's amazing, I have been told by correctional officials in the past, how much manpower it takes to move prisoners from the jail to the courtroom and back. That's one thing-but the other thing, of course, from a practicing lawyer's standpoint it is even more important if the prisoner is available in the courthouse or adjacent thereto. It is much easier to interview a defendant to find out what the possible charges are and to go back to check with them. As it is now the individuals in the District of Columbia jail are somewhat inaccessible. It is a little difficult to maintain contact with the man that you want to represent. I feel quite strongly that the new facility should be adjacent to the superior court building.

Another recommendation we made, Senator, was that 100 correctional officers be added to the Department of Corrections in order to remedy deficiencies in the security of the prison supervision. I am informed that not only have the 100 correctional officers been added, but that perhaps another 100 to 150 on top of that. I don't have the exact figures but I do know that in part of the report that the correctional system has made they have, in fact, gone beyond the recommendation of the Crime Commission with respect to correctional officers, which I think is fine.

I understand that the position of the director of counseling has been established which assists inmates in dealing with family and personal problems. With respect to the diagnostic and outpatient clinic-I assume that that will be a part of the new jail when it is finally constructed. We also recommended that the Department of