The figures shown in the accompanying table would seem to indicate that the Board of Parole of the District of Columbia is a rigid board not realistically oriented to the theory of reasonable probability which is adhered to by many other efficient Boards of Parole.

Parole Board officials acknowledged that the number of individuals favorably considered for parole was small, but pointed out that the Board had to be extremely careful in the matter of granting paroles since most of the parolees released from District of Columbia institutions would once again take up residence in the small geographical area of the Nation's Capital. If they become involved in further violations of law, their misconduct would be prominently reported by news media with the result that the Board of Parole would continually be on the defensive and, in fact, could be abolished if the number of rearrests of parolees proved to be high. Moreover, the suggestion was offered that, for whatever reason, the number of serious crimes against the person committed in the District of Columbia perhaps was significantly higher than the number committed in other areas. No effort was made to offer this as an established fact. It was merely offered as a probability.

The Concept of Reasonable Probability

Much conflict inevitably develops in discussion of sentencing practices. It is so rare as to be virtually unheard of that those exercising sentencing authority are acting under motives of less than sincere. concern for doing the "right thing." Their decisions are a matter of balancing considerations of relative risks to society against the question of how much incarceration, in any, is required to satisfy the public's expectations and tolerance. An added factor in sentences involving incarceration is what can be accomplished constructively to assist the offender upon eventual release back to the community.

The facts involving comparative sentences also are clouded by varying definitions of offenses and law enforcement practices.

The dialogue on this subject is too often confused by irrational emotionalism on individual cases applied to all cases. For example,

discussions of early release of alcoholics often become involved with the atypical case where the alcoholic has also been a hazard to public safety, as in driving while under the influence.

With these necessary qualifications, and much more could be said to point up the pressures on paroling authorities to increase punishment, there is hardly any disagreement among reflective sentencing practitioners and experienced correctional administrators, educators and researchers in this field that:

1. Too many offenders are put on probation who could be given suspended sentences or fines.

2. Too many offenders are carried on probation and parole for longer periods than necessary.

3. Too many offenders are sent to jail when probation and/or suspended sentence would suffice.

4. Too many offenders are kept in jail too long.

5. Too many offenders are sent to prison who could have been given probation.

6. Too many offenders are kept in prison too long and could, instead, be released to parole supervision.

7. Too many offenders are carried on parole for too long a period and could be discharged earlier.

In many cases discretion in these areas is not possible because sentencing laws do not provide the indicated flexibility. They should be changed accordingly. Even within existing laws, sentencing practices in the District of Columbia are more severe than in most other jurisdictions. This conclusion cannot be supported by factual evidence but only on the experienced judgment of the authors of this report (including the Field Study Consultants and Review Council). Examples of excessive prison terms, however, are indicated in the average prison sentences of property offenders for 1965 in the Men's Reformatory.

These sentences in many other states would average almost 50 percent less. Also, many of the good risks in the D.C. prison population would, in other states, not have been sentenced to prison but to probation.

The economic implications of this situation may not be appreciated. If average prison terms of the 302 property offenders were reduced 50 percent, there would be 10,766 man-months of prison care not required or 897 inmates for one full year. Nearly one half of these may be expected to be returned within 12 months, so there would be a calculated net population reduction of 448 inmates each year. Using a hypothetical per capita cost of $2000 per year per prisoner, $897,000 could be saved in one year on the Reformatory population of 1,209. If more prisons must be built to accommodate increased population, construction of a new, medium security prison will cost approximately $15,000 per bed or cell. The major capital outlay to add 448 new beds will cost, therefore, over $6.7 million.

Considering the nominal risks these property offenders represent to society, remembering that those who might present some risks are not released and are in the "average" of those kept in prison for the period indicated, the District of Columbia could make better use of funds spent on their continued incarceration. Among other uses for the money might be the improvement of probation and parole and ancillary services (which could do much to protect the public by successfully assisting these offenders to become self-supporting and detecting and removing from the community those who are about to recommence their prior criminal activities).

Disciplining Interviews

It is the policy of the Board of Parole and its staff to permit individuals to remain in the community for as long as possible provided they do not give evidence of being dangerous to themselves or others. The Board demonstrates its agreement with this philosophy and its desire to assist parolees and members of its staff by conducting disciplinary interviews and counseling sessions in the Board's central office on Tuesday mornings and one evening a month. During these sessions, three members of the Board of Parole are present. Parole officers who have been experiencing difficulty with a client can arrange through their supervisors to bring the parolee before the Board, at which time the parole officer will give a resumé of the situation to the Board members. Thereafter, the members will reinforce the efforts of the parole officer by counseling with the parolee and spelling out for him the alternatives available, together with the consequences of future action.

It is apparent that Board members can be occupied with more important assignments. When parolees need a disciplinary interview the situation should be handled by the parole officer and reported in chronological record for future consideration of possible parole violation.

CONSOLIDATED PROBATION AND PAROLE

SERVICE

A consolidated probation and parole service should be created within the proposed Department of Correctional Services. This proposed consolidation would include probation services presently administered by the Court of General Sessions and the parole services presently administered by the District of Columbia Parole Board. The consolidated services would be redesignated as the Field Services Division of the proposed D.C. Department of Correctional Services and would be directed by a Deputy Director. (Excluded from this Division would be probation services administered by the U.S. District Court and juvenile probation and aftercare services.)

This recommendation is particularly appropriate in view of the size and compactness of the District of Columbia and its relative freedom from multiple jurisdictional complexities so characteristic of most state systems. It must be stressed that there are effective alternatives to this organizational question in other jurisdictions of different characteristics.

Existing services are poorly developed, fragmented and lacking in effective integration with the total correctional process. There is an absence of coordinated functioning of probation and parole services in relation to institutional programs. Fractionation has resulted in uneven development of services, inefficient utilization of staff and the lack of strong, effective leadership, particularly with respect to the probation service.

There are a number of advantages to a unified, integrated division of parole and probation services. Enlargement or expansion resulting from consolidation makes possible the development of more diversified or varied staff services. Staff development and training functions can be more fully diversified, leading to a versatile, well-trained, more professionally-qualified staff. Integrated services can result in more effective utilization of staff, broader use and increased effectiveness of supervisory and administrative staff. A larger department makes possible more varied experience and flexibility in development of personnel in terms of geographical and differential caseload assignment.

Such a program pays dividends in terms of better protection of the public and rehabilitation of the offender.

There is a growing acceptance of the principle that the adult offender should be dealt with most effectively in a continuous, coordinated and integrated correctional process, and that he should not be dealt with successively by independent and loosely coordinated services, each of which frequently pays little attention to what the others have done or may do later. The compartmented approach often involves the same questions and examinations over and over again. The repeated use of methods that have already been tried and failed tends to increase the bewilderment of offenders, especially the younger and less sophisticated ones, and to create distrust of correctional guides and contempt for law enforcement in general. It is recognized, moreover, that responsibility for failure is difficult. to fix when the offender has been dealt with by a series of independent agencies and services whose scope has not been clearly defined and whose efforts have frequently overlapped and conflicted. There is usually a higher degree of coordination among the agencies and services dealing with juvenile delinquents than among those dealing with adult offenders.19

A variety of community-based programs are necessary; some are currently in limited use; others will require appropriation. Some examples are covered below.

Work Furlough

Work furlough, already authorized in the law, should be utilized more extensively for those inmates who can be safely released to work programs in the community. They can thus contribute to their support, to the support of their dependents, make restitution where appropriate to previous victims, and still receive the supervision necessary during those evening and weekend periods when they are not actively engaged in work.

It is expected that this program will have significant impact on both institutional cost and welfare cost to dependent families. The Board or Court will be able to consider early release for prisoners successfully completing a period of work under this program, and there will be a reduction in the obligation to provide appropriate work or training within the institution.

The so-called Work Furlough Plan, initiated in Wisconsin 20 years ago for jail prisoners, is now being used successfully by several states, notably North Carolina, with prisoners convicted of felonies. Under this plan, carefully selected prisoners are allowed to work during the day at jobs in the community, frequently those they held before being committed. They return to the institution at night. The employer deposits regular wages with the authorities, and a charge is made against them for the prisoner's "room and board."