munity indoctrination prior to establishment of these so-called "halfway houses," or group-living homes, has been helpful, but not always effective. Furthermore they can be quite expensive if kept small and scattered throughout a community. There already are programs of this type in the D. C. area: The PreRelease Guidance Center of the Department of Corrections and Shaw Residence, a demonstration project supported by a grant to the Bureau of Rehabilitation by the National Institute of Mental Health. These programs should be extended, expanded and diversified to include programs of substitute controlled living and postinstitutional reintegration into the community. This program offers a semicontrolled environment for the poorly controlled offender and provides a bridge for his return to community living. Support for the offender without living accommodations and financial resources is another important use of such facilities. Overall, it is in this type of programing (involving alternatives to incarceration) to which our innovative energies and many more resources should be directed. Bail Bond Unit The Bail Bond Unit, at the completion of its present experimental period, should be incorporated as a function of the Field Services Division of the Department of Correctional Services and, under direction of a case supervisor, its functions should be extended to include screening for the Court. A study conducted recently in New York City 24 produced significant findings in support of extensive use of release on recognizance. For example, the study found that a random group released on recognizance had a failure-to-appear rate of 1%, compared to a failure-toappear rate for bailees of 7%. Even more significant, this study, which had an adequate research design, showed conclusively that with offenses, personal characteristics and previous record held constant, persons who were released on bail or recognizance had a substantially lower rate of conviction. It was also found that bailed offenders found guilty had a substantially better chance to receive probation than the comparable offender who remained in jail for trial and sentencing. Also worthy of special project effort, in cooperation with the courts and police, is the greater use of citation or summons for minor offenses. Experience in other jurisdictions (e.g., New York City, San Joaquin County, Calif.) has indicated appreciable reduction in jail use and greater police efficiency (due to reduced need to leave areas of patrol in order to escort offender to precinct or jail), without risk 65-943 - 71 27 to the public and with a surprisingly nominal failure-to-appear problem of those cited. Consideration should be given to establishment of a 24-hour, 7-day week Court-which would greatly facilitate a release-on-own-recognizance program. Such a Court would result in substantial savings in the cost of supervision and care of jailed persons who could be released. Such a policy assumes liberal use of release-on-own-recognizance (which in fact has been the experience of those courts in other jurisdictions which have implemented this plan). The practice of bonding employees of service organizations has long handicapped effective job placement for parolees and probationers. Bonding companies refused to bond these persons. Under the Manpower Training Act the Labor Department has recently contracted with a national bonding company to pay the bond costs. This is a significant development which makes it possible for probationers and parolees to re-enter the labor market with a more nearly equal competitive position. Staff Civil Service Status Civil Service status should be extended under the proposed consolidation to include the present Probation Department employees of the Court of General Sessions by "blanketing in" procedures commonly used in implementing reorganizations of this nature. Inclusion of the probation services will result in complete Civil Service status and protection for all employees of the proposed Department of Correctional Services. PENAL CODE REVISION A law revision commission or council should be established to review thoroughly and recommend necessary changes in the penal code, including in particular the substantive laws on crimes and sentences. A large number of specific recommendations can be, and are being, made with respect to sentencing policies and practices. More fundamental, however, is the need to provide the courts and parole boards with the greater sentencing latitude which would exist under the Model Penal Code (American Law Institute). Broader legal authority also should be provided to facilitate diversity and flexibility in the movement, training and supervision of inmates, probationers and parolees. For example, the Director of Correctional Services should have the authority to transfer temporarily a jail inmate to any institution in order to protect the inmate or others, and to approve emergency and work furloughs. Legal authority should be established to permit operation of a training furlough plan whereby inmates in the various institutions who may benefit from a particular type of training not available in the institutional program may receive such training by periods of dayfurlough to attend training classes or programs in the community. The District of Columbia should become a signatory to the interstate compact. While the District of Columbia presently is operating informally under this agreement, a more formal arrangement should be made to insure closer cooperation and coordination in the areas of reciprocal interstate parole and probation investigation and supervision, and detainers for placing holds on parolees and probation parolees.2 25 Some years ago, the council of State Governments proposed model laws grouped under the title of "Agreement on Detainers." Under the provisions of these model laws, inmates held under an out-of-state detainer may request, in writing, that disposition be made. If action is not initiated by the prosecutor within a specified time, the detainer must be dropped and no further action may ever be taken on it. Similarly, a prosecutor may bring to trial inmates in states who are a party to the agreement. The transfer of the inmate for prosecution may be made without going through extradition proceedings, but his substantive rights are preserved. Planning a program for an inmate is easier and more meaningful if specific information is available concerning sentences he may have to serve in another jurisdiction. Thus far, the states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina have become a party to the compact. If legally possible, the District should have similar laws. The law revision studies should also consider establishment of a corrections code or act. Early in 1966, the Committee on Standard Act for State Correctional Services of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and the American Correctional Association published its report on a model Act for a State Department of Correction. Article I of the proposed Act states, in part : The purpose of this Act is to establish an agency of state Those responsible for the drafting of this model Act recognized that proper supervision, control, and treatment of an offender had to extend beyond the period of incarceration in a correctional institution. The time spent on parole, therefore, is not only an extension of programs begun in institutions, but also a period in which the inmate assumes much greater responsibility for making decisions for his conduct. In order to cover as many of the variations found among the states as possible, several alternatives are suggested for the administrative functions of the proposed model Act. In all of them, however, there is a provision for institutional and parole services to be combined in a single unit. REORGANIZATION OF INSTITUTIONS The institutions administered by the Department of Correctional Services should be redesignated as the Detention Center (Jail), the short-term Correctional Facility (Workhouse), the Correctional Institution for Women, the Correctional Institution for Men, and the Clemmer Youth Center. These institutions should be reorganized to establish program administrative-treatment units. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS This concept involves establishing what may be called "program administrative units." A relatively small population (300–600) and staff comprise a unit headed by a Program Administrator who supervises all custodial and counseling staff assigned to the unit. The size represents a maximum for any kind of effective and efficient operation. In this type of organization, it is imperative that counseling service be provided at the ACA minimum standard of one counselor to 150 inmates. This organization and staffing standard is generally applicable to an intensive treatment institution such as the Youth Center (in which case, however, the staffing ratio should be substantially lower-closer to one counselor to each 75 inmates). Whether or not the program unit organization is adopted, effective counseling and program planning in the institutions will require the counselor staffing ratio indicated. With this staffing it is expected that counselors will participate in all classification and disciplinary activities regarding inmates in their assigned caseloads. They will conduct pre-parole training and prepare the parole release plan for referral to the Parole and Community Services Division for investigation and evaluation. The diagnostic and program plan for each offender should also be the responsibility of the receiving institution. This responsibility lies primarily with the program unit counselor (classification and parole officer) This proposal does not involve a difficult change for the D.C. correctional institutions, as many aspects of the "treatment team" concept already are in use. Very little more can be done, however, unless classification and parole officer caseloads are reduced to the recommended level. One exception will be the Youth Center, where the classification and parole officer caseloads are adequate. There may be need, also, to supplement existing staffing in order to provide each program unit with an administrator, a senior level classification and parole officer, a lieutenant for second watch with full relief, and a sergeant for second and third watches and full relief. Whether these new positions can be established by reassigning existing positions can be determined only after an in-depth study of each institution's organization and staffing plan. Each institution has submitted custodial-post assignment schedules and an overall inventory report of its programs and facilities. Most of these reports request additional custodial posts. This survey, as indicated, is not prepared to evaluate the need for these posts. The problem of assisting the inmate in the development of more personal or self-controls while concurrently exercising external controls is not easily resolved. Without an effective plan, the development of personal controls is negated by the presence of relatively extreme external controls which must exist in a prison. In the evolution of the correctional program certain things were learned: 1. The correctional officer staff, even without formal casework training, could be trained to function effectively in counseling inmates. 2. It may be safely surmised that institutions could never provide sufficient professionally qualified casework staff to provide for all inmate counseling needs. 3. Those having the greatest impact on change of attitude and development of responsible behavior by the inmate were the people in most constant contact with him, specifically correctional officers in the housing units, work supervisors and instructors. 4. The professional, non-custodial staff must share in the responsibility for maintaining custodial controls in the insti tution. 5. Food, clothing, laundry, bedding, and housekeeping services also have an important relationship to the total effective operation of developing controls of both types. Providing for the management requirements and needs of inmates in institutions in the most effective and efficient manner evolved rather logically to the division of the institution into smaller, manageable units. Each of these units is under the direction of a program admin |