Senator MATHIAS. On your chart you show education and training at 1.7 percent.

Mr. HARDY. That's appropriation. That's from direct appropriation. That's money approved by Congress.

Senator MATHIAS. It does not include the grant moneys. Mr. Moore just testified it was a grant.

Mr. HARDY. It does not include grant moneys; no, sir.

Senator MATHIAS. Does education and training apply to inmates or staff?

Mr. HARDY. This is for inmates. As a matter of fact, that pie chart is a chart relating and giving an idea on how the Department has moved from a custodian agency to a department where 70 percent of the appropriated funds 3 or 4 years ago went to correctional officers, hiring correctional officers for basic security functions of the Department. It has now been reduced to 50.9 or 70 percent increased in the other areas such as community and social services, which at one time was 1.7 percent for community and social services and now it is 24.7 percent. In support of services such as engineering and other activities we run around 15 percent compared to 17 percent some years ago. But in the area where you see planning and research and education and training, psychological services, and employment services, we still feel this is such a small spectrum of our bookkeeping and that is where we are channeling most of our plans in order to supplement the need for expanding on these programs.

Senator MATHIAS. I am encouraged to hear that because it seems to me that if the fact that the figures on the charts were the actual case the 2 percent in education and training and 0.6 percent in employment services really weren't improving the end product very much. I would hope that individual progress made in these programs because of special help by LEAA could be made a part of the budget. Unless you are training people to do something useful in the Department of Corrections is not fulfilling its designed function.

Mr. HARDY. But it continues to warehouse if you don't build in these things. Senator, I have submitted for the record a chart showing how active we are in proposed projects. You are speaking of $5,230,000 in grant funds as a grant. These programs don't have the appropriated funds and this, I am hoping, could put Congress on notice that we are coming back some day for a review in our budget on this segment of money that is now being given to us by Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, EPW, and Labor in the operating budget. So I'm saying that $23 million, as it stands today, will not operate this Department effectively. We need something like $28 million and I am only speaking of a budget that would maintain the level or keep up the level of operating efficiency before the Court Reform and Criminal Procedures Act came into law. After that the figures are tremendous. I see we have four or five more witnesses and I'm wondering if you—

Senator STEVENSON. Perhaps we had better continue with the next witness.

Mr. HARDY. The next one is Mr. Allen Avery, who is Associate Director of Community Service. Much has been said about work release and I'm sure that he will be able to help you there.

STATEMENT OF ALLEN AVERY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SERVICE

Mr. AVERY. Thank you, gentlemen. We will respond to the President's Commission on Crime recommendations 6.25 and 6.26, which deal with the expansion of work release and community-based rehabilitation programs respectively. Our work release program began in April 1966 and was housed at the Lorton Reformatory. The program, at this time, shortly after the Commission's study, had 100 participants. In January 1968, the program was moved from the Lorton correctional complex to CB-4 of the jail, which allowed us to increase the number of participants to 140. Although this program was deemed rather successful, it did not, in this setting, meet the challenge of the recommendations made by the Commission with reference to 6.26. We were able to secure, through fiscal year 1969 supplemental budget authority for expansion of program on a communitywide basis. Funds, at this time, allowed for the expansion of the program to accommodate some 175 beds in four community centers plus the authority to contract for 35 beds with the Bureau of Rehabilitation.

Additional funds were made available December 24, 1969, and in the fiscal year 1969 budget that permitted us to operate seven community correctional centers with approximate capacity for 220 men. Three of these facilities were by contract arrangements and four run by the Department. The program emphasis of two of the facilities was specifically geared to the narcotics program, which was becoming a plague on the city. At the present time, the Department is operating, exclusive of the Youth Services Division, 12 community-based programs with a capacity of 320 for rehabilitating offenders.

President's Commission on Crime recommendations 6.27, 6.34, 6.35, and 6.37, all deal with improved parole services in several areas, in which the Department has made satisfactory progress. In early 1969 final plans were made to utilize three multipurpose centers located in upper Cardozo, Tivoli Theater, Arthur Kappa in southeast, and the Highland Dwellings. These centers were to be staffed with a complete parole unit composed of six parole officers, two clerks, and one supervisor. Problems were immediately experienced in making the office settings workable because of a variety of reasons, ranging from inadequate lighting and heating facilities coupled with continued theft of office equipment, and the inability to make the buildings secure for the purpose for which they were originally designated. After a series of discussions and careful review, it was felt that better service could be rendered to the parolees by reorganization of the case workload, developing differential case loads, which would reflect intensive supervision where needed and servicing areas of high crime rates with more concentrated effort.

We were able to have funding to increase our parole officers from 14 to 18, which reflected in the caseloads being reduced from 80 parolees per parole officer to the point where now each parole officer is exercising parole supervision over no more than 52 or 53 parolees at any given time. At the same time, through added responsibility for presentations and Parole Board appearances, we were able to

rewrite the job description of the parole officer in a manner to reflect these new responsibilities and merit an upgrading of job position from GS-10 to GS-11, which, of course, allows us to recruit more competent persons for this work.

Before the Commission's report and continuing up to the present time, parole officers have been in an ongoing inservice training program. In our training effort we have been helped by such noted professionals as Dr. Kushner, former director of legal psychiatric services, who worked with our parole officers for a period of almost 2 years. The emphasis of this training was to help them to establish better rapport with parolees and to conduct group counseling on a truly professional level. Following training by Dr. Kushner, we were able to have the services of Dr. Lanham, the current director of legal psychiatric services, who instituted weekly seminars, which dealt with helping the parole officer deal with abnormal behavior patterns, alcohol, and drug addiction problems, and identifying certain psychological problems that might need professional attention. In 1968, we were fortunate enough to have Dr. DuPont to run a series of training sessions with parole officers in the area of staff development and during 1970 Dr. Abrahams, psychiatrist, also conducted weekly staff development sessions. At the present time, a course of study designed specifically to meet the inservice training needs of the parole officer is being designed by the training academy and will be held for all parole officers over a 3-month period, beginning in September and ending in November.

With the development of proficiency by our parole officers through inservice training`and experience counseling, it became quite easy to completely comply with recommendation 6.39 relative to the discontinuance of the District of Columbia Board of Parole to conduct disciplinary interviews and allow the parole officers to assume the exclusive responsibility in this field.

We are also pleased to report that recommendation 6.42 is now in operation by the Parole Division. The manual, which this recommendation refers to is continually being updated and revised, but has proven to be an excellent guideline not only for new parole officers entering the field, but as resource material for the Parole Division. Attention is called to recommendation 6.48, which recommends that the U.S. Employment Service for the District of Columbia establish a unit to coordinate effort to provide employment for former offenders. In this regard we would like to state that the Department did not deliberately ignore this recommendation, but for our own purposes implemented the following recommendation, 6.49, which relates to the transfer of the administrative operations of the Employment Counseling Service from the District of Columbia Parole Board to the Department of Corrections and to increase its capability to serve all releasees from the Department's penal institutions. In December 1967, the Office of Parole Supervision was transferred to the Department of Corrections along with Employment Counseling Service. The mission of this unit has been, and continues to be, to find suitable employment for those persons released from prison under parole-mandatorily released-for those persons on probation, and recently, to offer job supportive services