y4 ,16912.: P93//4 

ZP,t1

PRISONER WORK RELEASE

GOVFRN MEN 1 

Storage

HEARING

BEFORE

A SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

ilITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

JNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 1808

TO AMEND SECTION 4082 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES

CODE, TO FACILITATE THE REHABILITATION OF PERSONS

CONVICTED OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES

JULY 29, 1965

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

53-542 WASHINGTON: 1965
•gf5 7 • .1-,c3;;41-• 4 .

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY '

rAittEs o. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman

JOHN L. McCLELLAN. Arkansas

SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina

THOMAS J. DODD, Connecticut

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan

EDWARD V. LONG, Missouri

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota

JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Maryland

GEORGE A. SMATHERS, Florida

EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, flhlnois

ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska

FIIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii

HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania

JACOB K. JAVITS, New York

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE

EDWARD V. LONG, Missouri, Chairman

QUENTIN IsT; BURDICK, North Dakota ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska

HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania

-

II

yolp

4tk;
'

DEC

1965 

14

CONTENTS

Statement of— Page

James V. Bennett, American Bar Association, former Director of the Bureau of Prisons 21 Hon. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Attorney General of the United States, accompanied by Myrl E. Alexander, Director of the Bureau of Prisons 7

George W. Randall, director of prisons, North Carolina Prison Department 16 Statement submitted by—

Hon. Sam J. Ervin, Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina 5

Hon. Roman L. Hruska, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska_ _

EXHIBITS

Copy of S. 1808 1

Editorial dated May 27, 1965, from the South Omaha Sun entitled "The Hruska-Long Bill" 25 Article, "Halfway Houses for Delinquent Youth," by Kenneth S. Carpenter, inserted by Senator Hruska 26 Article, "A Boston Halfway House," by James V. Bennett, inserted by Senator Hruska 32

PRISONER WORK RELEASE

THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1965

U.S. SENATE,

AD Hoc SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DX!.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m.., in room

2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edward V. Long of Missouri

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Long, Burdick, and Hruska.

Also present: Francis C. Rosenberger, professional staff member.

Senator LONG. The committee will be in order. The hearing

this morning has been called on Senate bill 1808, to facilitate the

rehabilitation of prisoners convicted of offenses against the United

States. At this point I would like for a copy of the bill to be printed

in the record and so order it without objection.

(The document referred to follows:)

[S. 1808, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend section 4082 of title 18, United States Code, to facilitate the rehabilitation of persons convicted of offenses against the United States

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That section 4082 of title 18, United States Code,

is amended to read:

"§ 4082. Commitment to Attorney General; residential treatment centers:

extension of limits of confinement; work furlough

"(a) A person convicted of an offense against the United States shall be committed, for such term of imprisonment as the court may direct, to the custody of

the Attorney General of the United States, who shall designate the place of confinement where the sentence shall be served.

"(b) The Attorney General may designate as a place of confinement any

available, suitable, and appropriate institution or facility, whether maintained

by the Federal Government or otherwise, and whether within or without the

judicial district in which the person was convicted, and may at any time transfer

a person from one place of confinement to another.

`(c) The Attorney General may extend the limits of the place of confinement

of a prisoner as to whom there is reasonable cause to believe he will honor his

trust, by authorizing him, under prescribed conditions, to—

"(1) visit a specifically designated place or places for a period not to

exceed thirty days and return to the same or another institution or facility.

An extension of limits may be granted only to permit a visit to a dying relative, attendance at the funeral of a relative, the obtaining of medical services

not otherwise available, the contacting of prospective employers, or for any

other compelling reason consistent with the public interest; or

"(2) work at paid employment or participate in a training program in the

community or voluntarily serve a public or nonprofit agency, while continuing as a prisoner of the institution or facility to which he is committed.

"(d) The willful failure of a prisoner to remain within the extended limits of

his confinement, or to return within the time prescribed to an institution or

facility designated by the Attorney General, shall be deemed an escape from the

1

•
2 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

custody of the Attorney General punishable as provided in chapter 35 of this

title.

"(e) The authority conferred upon the Attorney General by this section shall

•extend to all persons committed to the National Training School for Boys.

"(f) As used in this section—

"the term 'facility' shall include a residential community treatment center;

und

"the term 'relative' shall mean a spouse, child (including stepchild, adopted

child, or child as to whom the prisoner, though not a natural parent, has

acted in the place of a parent), parent (including a person who, though not

a natural parent, has acted in the place of a parent), brother, or sister."

SEC. 2. The chapter analysis of section 4082 of title 18, United gtates Code, is

amended to read:

"Sec. 4082. Commitment to Attorney General; residential treatment centers; extension of limits of confinement; work furlough."

SEC. 3. Sections 751 and 752 of title 18, United States Code, are amended by

inserting the words "or facility" following the word "institution".

Senator LONG. On April 23, 1965, Senator Hruska and I joined

with a number of our colleagues in and introduced Senate bill 1808,

a bill which was recommended by the administration and which was

referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On May 11 the committee chairman appointed this subcommittee to consider the measure. On July 22, notice of this hearing was published in the

Congressional Record.

Mr. Francis Rosenberger, a member of the committee staff, the

gentleman here to my right, is serving as counsel to this subcommittee.

' The members of the ad hoc subcommittee have a special interest

in the bill under consideration today. As members also of the Subcommittee on National Penitentiaries we have in our last two annual

reports urged the development of this legislation. Further, the reports

filed with the subcommittee by the individual members, following

inspection trips to Federal institutions, have almost invariably commented upon the potential value of the proposed work-release procedures in the rehabilitation of offenders.

Each of us has observed the requirement for more flexibility hi the

correctional treatment of offenders, particularly during the crucial

period of readjustment from institution to community life. As matters now stand, most prisoners are released abruptly to the community, whether by parole or expiration of their sentences. They are

immediately confronted by a staggering array of problems—personal,

financial, food and shelter, and so on. Many ex-prisoners manage to

stay out of trouble despite these obstacles. But many of them do not.

This bill is intended to help more ex-prisoners get successfully

through this difficult transitional period. We believe that it is in

the best interests of society to help them in their efforts to avoid

sinking back into criminal behavior.

The provisions of the bill are based in large part on the experience

with the prerelease guidance centers that have worked out so well in

Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, and New York City. Members of

this subcommittee have visited these centers, and know from personal

observation how valuable they have been in getting young people

started on the right path after being released from Federal institutions.

The bill would extend similar programs—the community center,

the privilege of working for a wage in private industry, and the

privilege of going home for a brief visit when compelling reasons such

as death or critical illness exist—to adult prisoners who have demonstrated their readiness and fitness for such trust.
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 3

Many of the States have already adopted one form or another of

the work-release plan. North Carolina has made perhaps the most

ambitious use of the idea and for that reason we have invited Mr.

George W. Randall, director of the State prison system, to testify on

his experience with it.

My own State of Missouri, I might point out, has a work-release

plan with many desirable features. The privilege may be extended

to select prisoners who have been convicted of virtually any type of

crime but who are serving their sentences in jail rather than the State

penitentiary. As with the bill before us today, Missouri's statute

authorizes work release for such additional purposes as attending

educational institutions, obtaining medical treatment, and visiting

prospective employers for prearranged interviews.

Another witness that we are pleased to have with us today is our

old friend, Jim Bennett. While he is representing the American Bar

Association, he is highly qualified to comment on the bill in his own

right. His connection with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons over the past

35 years is well known to all of us. Also, it was during his last year

or so as Director of the Federal Prison System that we began working

with him on the development of S. 1808.

I am delighted to know that the new director, Myrl E. Alexander

is highly enthusiastic about the measure and has made its realization

the primary objective of his first year in office. That he has the full

backing of the Department of Justice in this objective is attested by

the presence today of Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach

as our first witness.

The value of the bill seems underscored by the fact that the President has included it in the legislative package he has requested to

equip the Federal Government for a stepped-up fight against crime

in this country. I am sure that the members of this subcommittee

share the President's deep concern over the problem and concur

with him in the judgment that S. 1808 is one of the many resources

needed in the national commitment to reduce crime.

I am confident that this subcommittee will give prompt and

sympathetic consideration to S. 1808.

Senator Burdick, do you have any comments?

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I think you outlined the situation

very well.

Senator LONG. Senator Hruska?

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Chairman, I am gratified that prompt

action is being taken to advance this bill on the calendar of the

legislative program. I do have a statement here which I would

have inserted into the record at this point. I shall not impose on

the time of the committee or the witnesses. I would like to add my

welcome to that which you extended, Mr. Chairman, to this very

fine list of witnesses, the Attorney General, accompanied by Mr.

Myrl Alexander, present Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,

also the emeritus director, Mr. Bennett, who is now in a new role

representing the American Bar Association. And, of course, Mr.

George Randolph, of North Carolina, whose testimony I am looking

forward to with great interest because of the experience of that

State in this same field.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to make

this brief statement and I hand the reporter here with a copy of my

remarks that I would otherwise make.

S.
4 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

Senator LONG. Thank you, Senator; without objection, Senator

Hruska's statement will be included in the record at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROMAN L. HRUSKA ON S. 1808

Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of S. 1808, the work release bill, I am pleased

with the prompt action which you have taken on this bill. In my opinion, the

work release concept can represent a significant milestone in the Federal correctional procedures.

Briefly, the bill we have before us today would give the Federal prison system

the authority to extend to certain carefully selected prisoners the privilege of

taking private employment in the community, of going home briefly if an emergency occurs, or of serving at least the concluding portions of their sentences in

community centers similar to the "halfway houses' now provided for juveniles

and youths.

This bill provides Federal correctional officials with a new set of tools in their

important work and with the authority needed to achieve a necessary flexibility

in dealing with the rehabilitation of prisoners.

The bill contains three major provisions:

First, it gives the Attorney General the authority to commit or transfer selected

prisoners to residential community treatment centers, commonly called halfway

houses.

Second, the Attorney General could grant brief periods of leave under emergency

conditions or for purposes related to release preparation.

Third, the Attorney General may permit prisoners to work in private employment or to participate in community training programs while continuing as

inmates in and under the supervision of the institution to which they have been

committed.

Mr. Chairman, in reviewing the testimony of the Attorney General before the

House Judiciary Committee, I was impressed by the significant help that the

halfway house can be in decreasing the rate of recidivism. The limited Federal

experience indicates that there was a dramatic 20 percent drop among those who

had the benefit of this program.

Impressive, too, was the fact that more than 90 percent of those released from

Federal institutions make an honest attempt during the first weeks after their

release to find legitimate employment. But just as impressive is the cold statistic

that, lacking the kind of help proposed in this bill, one out of two return to prison.

On July 26, the Department of Justice released the FBI's annual publication,

the Uniform Crime Reports, 1964. The report summarizes the result of a special

2-year study conducted by the FBI of the criminal records of almost 93,000

offenders. These records disclosed that 76 percent of these offenders had been

arrested at least twice. By age group the overall rate of recidivism for those

under 20 revealed 47 percent had been arrested more than once. For those

between 20 and 24 the rate increased to 69 percent. From the 25 to 29 age group

the rate increased to 79 percent and then leveled off at about that figure for other

age groups.

These figures apply, of course, to all former prisoners, not just those in the

Federal penal system. For Federal prisoners, the rates are somewhat lower, as I

have previously indicated. However, the inescapable fact still remains. Something must be done to prevent these careers in crime from becoming the way of

life for those who have run afoul of the law.

The testimony of the Attorney General also revealed that State experience

with the work release programs has been successful. We will hear this morning

from Mr. George Randall, director of prisons for the State of North Carolina. I

will be interested to learn the details of how work release achieved a reduction of

2,000 in the State's prison population for the few short years it has been in

operation.

My firsthand observations of the dedicated men who operate the Federal correctional system lead me to believe that they are competent to properly handle

this authority. They have the professional training and experience to use it

expertly, They now make similar decisions, using individualized studies and

procedures to screen prisoners for assignment to open camps and for minimum

custody assignments at various institutions. I have seen scores of prisoners

working in positions of trust that are fully comparable to the situations contemplated by the bill.
PRISONER WORK RELEASE

As a member of the National Penitentiaries Subcommittee, it has been my

privilege and I have felt it was my responsibility to visit most of the institutions

of the Federal prison system. Some I have visited more than once. I know

their personnel, their programs, and their budgets. I feel fairly well qualified

-therefore to state that the additional controlled discretion that S. 1808 provides

in the treatment of Federal offenders will be in good hands.

The Bureau of Prisons has already demonstrated in its programs for juveniles

and youths that the provisions similar to those in S. 1808 can assist in the prevention of further criminal behavior. There is no reason to believe that it will

not work in the case of adult prisoners as well.

It is my hope that these hearings will build a solid record to which the Congress will respond by enacting S. 1808 promptly and provide these needed treatment measures for adult offenders who show promise of rehabilitation. I am

confident that the results will be of great benefit to law and order in the United

States.

This morning we are privileged to have some new faces appearing before our

subcommittee. Mr. Attorney General, I join the chairman in welcoming you

to our hearings.

Mr. Alexander, although you are not a stranger to the members of this subcommittee by any means, I believe it is the first time you have appeared before

us in your new capacity. We wish you well in your new assignment. I believe

it is safe to say that you can count on continued interest and support from all

of us here to carry on your important work.

Mr. Bennett, again we welcome an old and trusted friend but today in a new

role. I understand that you are now a representative for the American Bar

Association. As usual, we will listen with great interest to your sage counsel

and advice.

Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear that the Judiciary Committee of the other

body, meeting in executive session last Tuesday, has agreed to report favorably

the work release bill. It is my hope that Senate action will be expeditious and

favorable. We have before us an important measure which has broad-based

bipartisan support in the Senate. I am happy to be able to do what I can to see

that the bill becomes law.

Senator LONG. Also, the chairman has here a statement from

Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., of North Carolina. Without objection I

would like to have it printed in the record at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM J. ERVIN, JR., ON S. 1808

Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend you for calling early hearings on S. 1808,

and appreciate very much the opportunity to express my views on this worthwhile

measure. Because this bill offers effective and tested techniques in the rehabilitation of persons convicted of Federal crimes, it was a source of great satisfaction

to me when I joined you and Senator Hruska in sponsoring this very realistic

legislative proposal.

I am distinctly proud that this subcommittee is now considering the passage of

a reform measure which has proved so successful in my home State of North

Carolina.

This bill is designed to facilitate the rehabilitation of persons convicted of

offenses against the United States. It promises a sound answer to an inquiry,

recently posed by the President, to find correctional programs which could prevent

a first offender from embarking on a career of crime.

Certainly the most important goal to be achieved by S. 1808 would be to duplicate what has been accomplished through the Federal halfway houses and State

work release programs; namely, diminishing the likelihood among inmates to

return to a pattern of criminal behavior.

This measure, before you today, gives the Attorney General the authority to

commit or transfer prisoners to residential community centers. This authority

extends to inmates of Federal penitentiaries the treatment and counseling comparable to those now provided youth offenders in Federal halfway houses. The

halfway house concept has been proven to be an important rehabilitative concept since its introduction into the Federal prison system, almost 4 years ago.

Mr. Chairman, the most critical decisions—the decisions involving employment

and residence, for example—are made by prisoners soon after their release. Statistics show that the choice and temptation to return to a life of crime occur after

a passage of several weeks in the greater majority of releasees. By providing a

53-542-45-2
6 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

period of terminal confinement, inmates may receive a gradual orientation to the

best means of coping with their problems in outside life. Here, more importantly,

they can receive intelligent and conscientious counseling in the conduct necessary

to embark and attain a productive, lawful life in a free society.

Another provision of the bill, subsection (c) (1), would authorize emergency

leave and release preparation leave for inmates. Under emergency conditions,

such as the death of the inmate's wife

'

or for purposes related to preparing the

inmate for his subsequent release, the Attorney General can grant brief periods

of leave. Leave is now granted in seven States to allow an inmate to seek employment. Seven States grant inmates leave to conduct their own business,

profession, or housekeeping. Four States grant periodic leave for prisoners to

attend school; four other States release inmates for medical treatment. As noted

by the senior Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hruska, rehabilitation leave has already been incorporated into the prison systems of 10 States and several European

nations.

A singularly important provision of the bill would permit prisoners to work in

private employment or to participate in community training programs while still

inmates of the institution to which they have been committed. Most Americans

lose sight of the fact that 97 percent of our prisoners will some day be released.

It is critical, therefore, that when these people are eventually released, they be able

to obtain gainful employment, regain their self-respect, and be fully equipped to

make a contribution to society.

I am quite sure that this subcommittee will benefit from the testimony of

Director George Randall of the North Carolina State Prison System, but I would

like to refer to something he was quoted by the New York Times on August 18,

1963, as having said of the work-release program:

"* * * As a dollar and cents proposition, it's a good thing for the taxpayer, but

there's also the humanitarian aspect.

"Under the old concept, prison was supposed to degrade a man—the ball and

chain, stripes, things like that. Now we try to build him up. When a man

supports his family, it gives him a degree of self-respect and is helpful in rehabilitation.

"You can't put a dollar value on giving a man hope and restoring him to the

community with a chance."

Under the work-release provision of this bill, these considerations alluded

to by Mr. Randall would become more meaningful.

As you well know, Mr. Chairman, we have been making great strides with a

comparable work-release program in North Carolina. In operation in North

Carolina since 1957, the work-release applies to the entire State on an optional

basis with each eligible inmate.

The program includes misdemeanants and felons with sentences up to 5 years.

At present there are nearly 1,000 inmates, including misdemeants and felons, in the

program. Apart from promoting prisoner rehabilitation, this program—because

fewer former prisoners return to a life of crime and prison—has saved the taxpayers

of North Carolina about $800,000 annually.

The North Carolina program is designed primarily for inmates who are employed by a company or an individual willing to retain them under this plan.

Indeed, the evidence shows that in North Carolina and Wisconsin, where the

work-release idea was first conceived, prisoners under the release programs are

usually those who were employed before or at the time of sentencing.

Less than 12 percent of all the prisoners in the program have been withdrawn

since its inception in 1957. Moreover, the most common violations committed

by the releases which require the withdrawal are taking a drink or slipping off

to see the wife and family.

Until recently, North Carolina was widely reported to have been the only

State with a declining prison population. This is happily no longer the case.

Over the period from 1957 to 1963, 12 States had such a decline. Of these,

North Carolina ranked third with a 13.2-percent decrease in prison population,

behind Minnesota and Michigan. I point to this record with great pride since

many of these States had a work-release program in operation which is similar

to that proposed in S. 1808.

This legislative measure is not an experimental or pilot project. On the

contrary, the bill was drafted after viewing and appraising the humanitarian

efforts of the many States which have used the release programs and have

benefited by them. This bill also is based on the experience with the halfway

houses for young inmates in the Federal prison systems in Los Angeles, Chicago,

Detroit, and New York City.
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 7

Recently, the Senate passed S. 1319, to authorize a work-release program

for persons sentenced by the courts of the District of Columbia. In the committee

report on this bill it is noted that, apart from the money to be saved from the

daily expenses of inmates, the bill would assure "continued contributions toward

the inmate's family's financial support, and reduce the likelihood of relief or

welfare costs for his dependents."

Mr. Chairman, the enactment of this sound proposal will make a great contribution toward improving the effectiveness of our prison system. Furthermore,

it will demonstrate our continued interest in rehabilitating our prisoners so

they can contribute to our society rather than return to a life of crime when

released from prison.

I would like to take this opportunity to compliment Mr. George Randall,

director of the North Carolina Prison Department, for the outstanding service

he has rendered to his State. Prison reform and other legislation which he has

recommended to our State have been among the most progressive in the Nation.

He is a man of great ability and much experience and I feel sure this subcommittee

will benefit greatly from his testimony.

Senator LONG. Our first witness this morning is the Attorney.

General of the United States, Nicholas Katzenbach, and he is accompanied by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Myrl E. Alexander.

We will be glad to hear from you gentlemen at this time.

STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS deB. KATZENBACH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ACCOMPANIED BY MYRL E.

ALEXANDER, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS

Mr. KATZENBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I do have a brief

statement which I would like to read if I may.

I am pleased to appear before you today to urge favorable consideration of S. 1808, the prisoner rehabilitation bill, which has been

written to benefit both law enforcement and prisoners.

I speak as a former prisoner. As a wartime captive in Italian and

German camps, I learned something of the importance of maintaining

morale and hope during internment. These are factors that demand

even greater consideration for men who are serving time in what we

take pains to consider a correctional system, not a penal system.

We do not seek medieval retribution from our prisons; what we

want is rehabilitation. That expectation may be difficult to achieve,

but it is the ultimate standard for success.

This measure is designed to help facilitate rehabilitation. It is

designed to help make first offenders last offenders. It is also designed, therefore, to help reduce the continuing rise in the rate of

crime. It is written to help us break what President Johnson described

as the intolerable "endless, self-defeating cycle of imprisonment,

release, and reimprisonment which fails to alter undesirable attitudes

and behavior."

The typical ex-prisoner is confronted by a dismaying number of

problems on his release. He has little money. He must immediately

obtain food, shelter, and clothing. And he must keep on meeting

these needs until he can get a job and start receiving pay.

His initial exhilaration soon runs up against hard reality. He

finds potential employers reluctant. His own family may have turned

hostile while he served his sentence. Almost always, he is acutely

conscious of stigma. He tends to read the words ex-con" even on

completely unsuspecting faces.

As often as not he will be back in prison.
8 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

His failure is discouraging because, typically, at the time of release,

he is better educated and trained than when he went in. He has had

the benefit of counseling and of various vocational and religious

programs. He is older and wiser.

His failure in the light of this training is especially poignant because

in many cases it could be prevented.

At present, there are only two obvious alternative ways of treating

an offender: imprisonment or probation—in or out. The gap between

the two is enormous. If we are to make significant progress in the

field of corrections, we must find ways to bridge it and to provide

real continuity in the treatment process.

S. 1808 proposes a method of merging—at an appropriate place in

the rehabilitation of the individual offender—institutional programs

with community programs which we believe successfully accomplishes

continuity of treatment.

The bill provides some very simple amendments to section 4082

of title 18, containing the basic custodial authority of the Attorney

General. Though uncomplicated, they would give us three important new methods for achieving continuity.

1. COMMUNITY CENTERS

The prerelease guidance center program for young offenders has been

in operation for nearly 4 years, in Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, and

New York City. Another is under development here in the District

of Columbia. The successs of the program has been striking.

So far, more than 900 young men have been sent to these centers,

several months prior to the expiration of their sentences. While

assigned to the centers, they have taken outside jobs, established

bank accounts, secured continual counseling to further ease the

transition, and, to a high degree, sucessfully made the transition

when ready.

And, although they are admittedly more likely to succeed than

those young people not sent to the halfway houses, the return-toprison rate for these young men is far lower—approximately 30

percent, compared with about a 50-percent rate for youths released

directly from an institution.

The Federal program has served as a model for many State and

local programs. Its influence has extended far beyond the limited

number of young offenders who have received the halfway house

experience.

We now seek authority to adapt this program to the needs of adult

offenders. It is not adaptable to all; there are some, like tax evaders

and bank embezzlers, for whom it is not suitable. There are other

prisoners—seemingly beyond rehabilitation—whom it appears best

to keep under secure custody for as long as legally possible.

But there are a number of prisoners who have demonstrated that

they have benefited from institutional programs and have earned a

trial period in a carefully supervised community program.

If they succeed—if even some succeed who might otherwise have

lapsed back into crime—we will have made a valuable gain. And

we have every reason to believe that a number of such prisoners,

given such a chance, will succeed.
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 9

2. EMERGENCY OR REHABILITATION LEAVE

Prisoners, like anyone else, have such emergencies as deaths and

critical illnesses in their families. For most of them, the time also

comes when they must find jobs in anticipation of their releases.

Authority already exists to permit qualified young offenders to visit

their home communities for such purposes. However, we feel that

our authority as it applies to adults should be clarified by statute.

At present, when adult prisoners have deaths in their families and

are considered a good risk, we may permit them to visit their home

communities under escort of one of our officers. The prisoners or

their families pay all transportation expenses and salaries and per

diem of the employees involved. This is an expensive privilege for

these families, who are often poor.

• Sometimes, when a prisoner is nearing his release date and his

home community is fairly close to the institution, one of our employees

may accompany him as a custodial escort to his home community

while he looks for a job. The employee, in such instances, donates

his own time; it is a tangible gesture of his faith in the accomplished

rehabilitation of the prisoner.

But if a prisoner or his family cannot afford the cost of a guard, or

no employee is available to volunteer his time, the prisoner cannot

see a dying relative, or attend the funeral, or accept a job interview.

His resentment is understandable, and the setback to his rehabilitation

is avoidable.

Our request is simply to permit qualified and trusted prisoners to

undertake such travel alone. The trust reposed in such prisoners

would, assuredly, encourage and assist in rehabilitation.

Needless to say, this authority would be used most judiciously

and applied only to prisoners who do not present a threat to the

community. It involves no costs to the Government.

3. WORK RELEASE

The work-release system has a history in this country going back

more than a half century. It has an equally long record of success.

It was first undertaken in Wisconsin in 1913, as the now widely known

Huber law.

Adaptations of the work-release plan are now authorized in 24

States. Eighteen have adopted the procedure within the last 8 years.

North Carolina, for instance, first enacted a work-release law in

1957. From 1957 through November 1964, the State had some 5,000

prisoners engaged in the program. They earned enough money to

pay nearly $1 million toward the support of their families.

The State authorities believe the program has been a major factor

in reducing the number of repeaters among the prison population and

in reducing the total prisoner population of the State by 2,000.

Maryland has had similar success with its program. When first

introduced in June of 1963, it was restricted to otherwise eligible

inmates "sentenced to terms of not more than 5 years." Last year,

the State legislature made it applicable to any inmate, regardless of

his length of sentence. The State commissioner of corrections reports no complaints about the program. While some employers are

at first reluctant to hire inmates, when they do they are extremely
10 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

pleased. The State parole board has in some instances recommended

that a prisoner be placed in the work-release program before a parole

is granted.

Because of the emphasis on school programs for younger offenders,

we have used the work-release procedure for only limited numbers.

But at the present moment, for example, five boys trained at the

National Training School for Boys are working in barbershops in

downtown Washington during the daytime and returning to the

school at night.

Similarly, under this legislation, we would be authorized to extend

the limits of confinement of a prisoner so that he could work or undertake training in the community during the daytime. He would, of

course, spend the rest of his time in his institution.

In order to allay any fears that prisoners might displace other

workers in areas of labor surplus or work for less than prevailing

wages, we suggest the amendment of the work-release section of the

b ill to spell out adequate safeguards. Labor representatives have

assured us that the amendment satisfies their concern.

The new language I am submitting to your committee provides

that prisoners will not displace employed workers, that they will not

be used when there is a surplus of nonprisoners with similar skills or

trades available, that their compensation will be no less than that of

comparable workers, and that labor union representatives will be

consulted with their use.

The work release procedure would offer our Federal prison system

a number of advantages to enhance rehabilitation for greater numbers

of offenders:

1. For an inmate we train in our institutions, it would supply

valuable experience in actual work situations.

2. The prisoner would become a contributing member of society

even before he completed his sentence.

3. It would give the prisoner a practical way of demonstrating his

ability and trustworthiness and enable him to gain employer and

community acceptance before being released to the community.

4. It would enable a prisoner to contribute to the support of his

family.

5. It would give a prisoner the self-respect which flows from selfsupport.

6. It would give the parole board a means of testing a prisoner in

the community before granting him a parole

In general, we know that the extent to which the prisoner's transition back to society can be eased is the same extent to which his

self-respect is increased and his susceptibility to crime is reduced.

The University of Illinois, in a 4-year study financed by the Ford

Foundation and published last year, found that 90 percent of the

prisoners released from Federal institutions try to find legitimate

employment in the first weeks after their release. Those who find it

are far more likely to lead honest lives than those who do not.

The purpose of S. 1808 is to assist their effort and build on their

good intentions.

Thank you.

Senator LONG. Thank you. The Chair has had an opportunity to

observe a number of these prerelease centers—one in Los Angeles, one

in New York—and I have been very much impressed with them. If
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 11

mat same practice could be instituted in connection with this bill,

I agree with you, it will be a great step forward.

Let me ask you do any of the foreign countries have progressive

legislation of this kind?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes; some foreign countries do have programs

of this kind. I think Mr. Alexander could probably fill you in on

more details.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes; it is spreading, Mr. Chairman, in Western

Europe. France, which traditionally has had a pretty rigid prison,

has introduced the practice of work release in many of their institutions

even within the past few years. It is now being studied also in a number of countries and is a subject which will be coming before the United

Nations Conference on Treatment of Offenders in Stockholm 2 weeks

from now.

Senator LONG. I was under the impression that some of the Scandinavian countries now had similar practices.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes; all Scandinavian countries and all Western

Europe now.

Senator LONG. Senator Burdick, any questions?

Senator BURDICK. I want to thank the Attorney General first for an

excellent presentation.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Thank you.

Senator BURDICK. I also attended the halfway house at Los Angeles

and I was impressed with the program very much. Of course, the

question comes to my mind, Do you think the same factors are present

when dealing with older prisoners? Do you think you will have the

same dramatic results with those in the higher age brackets?

Mr. KATZENBACH. No. I think older prisoners will be much more

difficult to get results from than younger prisoners but I do think it is

worth a try so far as the older prisoners are concerned, and I think it

will be successful in a significant number of cases, but I would not anticipate that we would have as much success with older prisoners

as we would with younger.

Would you agree with that?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I would agree with it. The success is going to

be dependent largely upon the work of our diagnostic people, the

professional people, psychiatrists, psychologists, the case workers,

and those who have these decisions to make. The decisions are now

being made, as all members of the committee know who observed

the work in our institutions by our classification committees. We

receive nearly 20,000 prisoners every year and within a month or two

after they are received, some of them are in segregation in Atlanta,

Leavenworth, or in very security situations. Others will be in

camps on farms. We have had now some 30 years' experience in

diagnosis, in prognosis, indicating behavior, in evaluating the results

of treatment within institutions. The young adult and the older

offender, I am sure can be pretty accurately diagnosed and the success

is going to be dependent upon the use of this kind of experience with

the adult prisoners.

Senator BURDICK. In other words, what you are saying, Mr.

Alexander, is that this is just another tool in the kit in the process

of getting rehabilitation. I attended some of these classification and

evaluation sessions and I am very impressed with them. In other

words, what you are saying is that it is going to depend a lot upon the
12 PRISONER WORK RELEASE,

prisoner, a lot upon the background, whether he will fit into this

notch of work release.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, sir.

Senator BURDICK. And this gives you another tool.

Mr. ALEXANDER. It gives us one of the most valuable tools which

will have been added to our armory of tools in many, many a year.

The critical time, as the Attorney General has testified, is at this 

timeof release and at his juncture in our developments, an inmate

will be trained, employed, diagnosed, handled in our institutions

and then suddenly there is a parole or release without any other than

minimal supervision, of going to report to a parole officer in a city

and picking up a normal routine kind of supervision.

This will provide a bridge and a kind of intensive supervision

not liow available to us. It will give us the opportunity for trial

and experimentation with those diagnosed more likely to succeed.

Not only to those of us who administer the prisons, but of equal

importance, I feel, to the board of parole who must make this almost

Solomon-like decision at times as to whether a person should be

transferred to parole.

Under the work-release provisions a man will have been tested for

a period of a month or two or three and this will give the parole board

these additional criteria on which to base judgment. I agree with

you, Senator Burdick, that this is one of the most important tools

that can come our way and will accomplish many things we are not

able to accomplish at this time.

Senator BURDICK. The Attorney General stated here that in the

halfway houses the return to prison rate has been reduced from 50

percent to approximately 30 percent. I think that is very dramatic.

If you can achieve something near that for adults, it would certainly

be worthwhile.

Mr. KATZENBACH. I think it is important to emphasize, Senator,

that not merely are these people rehabilitated but you have contributed significantly to cutting down the crime rate at the same

time because so much of crime is done by repeaters within this country. If you can lower the rate of recidivism significantly or even

10 of 15 percent, you can make a big bite on the crime rate.

Senator BURDICK. Isn't this also going to require some cooperation

and understanding on the part of the community? Here is a man

who has been behind bars and he has had a number of years of incarceration and all of a sudden you throw him into a peaceful community and he has to prove himself. Isn't this going to require a

considerable lot of understanding by the community?

Mr. KATZENBACH. It certainly does. Of course, it already requires understanding, and sometimes there is too little, but we have

had a good deal of help from businessmen and from labor unions in

finding jobs and helping to place people. The same would be true

under this program with appropriate safeguards in labor surplus

areas, but I am sure that we would get the same cooperation and

build up community interest in this.

Senator BURDICK. Well, I certainly feel that this is very fine legislation and I want to thank you both.

Senator LONG. Mr. Alexander, are you able to give us any estimate

as to the number of prisoners that may eventually be involved in this

program?
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 13

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Initially, of course,

as we develop the procedures and test our methods for the first year

or so, it would be a very limited number obviously. But ultimately

we estimate that probably not more than 5 or 6 percent of our total

population would be involved in this type procedure as of any one

given date. With a population of 22,000 prisoners we would estimate

between 1,000 and 1,500 would be under this program at any one time.

Of those who would ultimately be under the program before release

at the later stage of the sentence, we would hope that this could run

as high as 50 or 60 percent who prior to release would be tested under

this.

Just what that figure will be will be dependent upon our experience.

Senator LONG. Do you envision cooperation of work with other

agencies of the Government in this program?

Mr. ALEXANDER. We not only envision it, Mr. Chairman, we have

been assured of this kind of cooperation, with the Office of Vocational

Rehabilitation, with the Labor Department. We are initiating, this

fall, crash saturation programs with both inmates and institutions,

parolees and probationers, evaluating vocational skills, providing

crash training; for example, in low index skills. This is a very

valuable kind of service to us that we are now developing with the

Department of Labor.

Other work with the National Institute of Mental Health, some with

0E0 in the war on poverty. We are dealing with the products of

poverty, of course, in our institutions. We not only envision we,

have assurances of a wide range of help and services from other

related Federal agencies.

Senator LONG. Well, if this program initiated, there will be more

responsibility on the Department on the Brueau of Prisons, to find

suitable employment for these people. How are you going to go about

finding these jobs?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have a corps

of employment placement officers. At present there are 9 or 10 of

these working out of our institutions contacting labor unions, employment officers, industries. If this bill is passed and with its

implementation, we look forward to doubling, tripling this staff of

people, but even more importantly, through councils within the

communities, we have, for example, in Dallas, talked with industrial

people, with labor leaders. There we anticipate that through councils

of this kind, we will not only generate but receive widespread community cooperation in this. And so it will be through our own resources, using and capitalizing on and developing the resources in all

of the community in which we will be working.

Senator LONG. I recall the Attorney General mentioned that some

of the labor unions have been very helpful in finding work of this kind.

Do you have some information about where this has been accomplished and do you still anticipate cooperation from them?

Mr. ALEXANDER. We anticipate cooperation and have no question

about that. In a number of our institutions, we have apprentice

training programs developed by and even taught by people representing labor councils.

For example, at the Federal reformatory at Chillicothe, Ohio, we

have 14 apprentice courses recognized by unions in those respective

fields.

53-542-65--- 3
14 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

At the institution at Lompoc, Calif., 13 courses have been developed with the local labor councils, are approved by them, and

as its inmates are released they are given their apprentice cards.

McNeil Island, a major penitentiary 

Senator LONG. Do you mean they can go right out and go to work

in jobs where they have union membership?

Mr. ALEXANDER. They can follow the apprentice training in

institutions directly into the union and employment and indeed in

instances—at our juvenile institution at Denver, Colo., frequently the

person who has been teaching or is the coordinator of the union with

this course has actually come to the institution, taken the young man

back to his home for dinner and acted as his sponsor and adviser.

Our relationships in this area particularly with juveniles and youth

have been remarkably successful.

Senator LONG. One more question. Are there certain categories,

certain classes of prisoners that you anticipate will be given this

treatment more than others or some that would not be considered at

all for it?

Mr. ALEXANDER. The primary use of this will be made for first,

those who have received training, who have demonstrated a kind of

developing maturity, and for whom the use of this bridge of community work will likely be most successful. Then, too, there will be

those whose families are on relief rolls, whose work in the institution

has, well, let's say been of minimal value there but who can by employment in the community contribute to the support of families.

The Attorney General mentioned the Huber law in Wisconsin.

Last year, in Milwaukee, prisoners out of the county and city jails

earned $750,000 which contributed to the support of their families,

which was the equivalent of removal from the cost to the community

of welfare, virtually an equivalent amount of savings in the support

by welfare authorities.

As to those who would not be qualified or for whom the act would

not be used, obviously the person is the organized gangster and the

habitual offender, who simply is returned again and again and who

has shown no progress in the institution. These persons would obviously be screened out immediately.

Then, too, the white-collar criminal, the bank embezzler, the income

tax violator, who has demonstrated that he is a person engaged in

sharp practices; this type of thing, we don't conceive of this bill as

being applicable to him.

Our real concern is with this large body of persons who we see in the

institutions who move through, who take advantage of education

courses, vocational courses, who our psychologists, our psychiatrists,

say as a result of group therapy have developed insight, show maturation. It is for these kinds of people that this act is so tremendously

important.

Senator LONG. It seems to me one of the results of this program

would be very helpful in keeping families together and it would be a

great help in the communities, probably save the breaking up of many

families which would be involved.

Mr. KATZENBACH. I think it is tremendously important to give

emphasis to that, Senator, because if a man can begin to support his

family and keep his family together, he has a family to return to, and

he can return with some sense of dignity because he is a breadwinner

and is earning for that family. He has a much better chance.
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 15

Senator LONG. He has a family and a home to go to.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes. I think it is very important.

Senator LONG. Senator Hruska, do you have any questions?

Senator HRUSKA. Yes.

Mr. Attorney General, you referred to some language you were

proposing to assure that prisoners will not displace employed workers

and that their compensation will be no less than that of comparable

outside workers, and so on. Has that language been prepared?

Have you submitted it yet?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes. I believe you have it, don't you, Mr.

Rosenberger? I have it here.

Senator LONG. I understand the staff has been working on it.

They have been working on language of this type.

Senator HRUSKA. It had come to the attention of some members of

this subcommittee that some of the labor unions had misgivings and

reservations about the work-release bills. I imagine the points

covered by the proposed amendment were the basis for their misgivings; is that correct?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes. That is correct. And this language was

worked out with representatives from the unions. And it is satisfactory.

Senator HRUSKA. Are you informed as to how this aspect is covered

by State plans?

Mr. KATZENBACH. I am not familiar with the differences in the

laws but I believe the guarantees that we are giving here are given in

many of the State laws and given almost throughout the practice.

Senator HRUSKA. What is the budget estimate for this plan? This

question arose when we authorized the juvenile halfway houses. I

suppose much will depend upon the scale that you are going to start

out with and future expansion. Have you any thoughts on that?

Mr. KATZENBACH. Mr. Alexander, have you got an initial budget

estimate? It is difficult to project it out over the years for the

reason that you suggest. If halfway houses are successful, then we

will have more of them. We have been working these out in cooperation with State and local authorities to share the same facilities with

respect to our prisoners and their prisoners, so that they carry part

of the burden and we carry part of the burden.

Senator HRUSKA. If experience is a guide, you are going to have

to have a lean budget. Do you have an estimate of how many

offenders you contemplate for those dollars?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Our experience, Senator, with the halfway houses,

so far as budget is concerned, we estimate $100,000 for a halfway

house which accommodates juvenile offenders with the capacity of

about 25 or 30. That is, $100,000 a year for it. What our experience

with adults will be we are not certain of.

So far as any budget for administering work release laws, we

anticipate no additional costs over our present costs for that. We

will have, first of all, the cooperation with U.S. Employment Service,

with U.S. probation officers. I did testify there would be an increase

in the nu,mber of employment placement officers. These are financed

by Federal prison industries and while it will represent a budget

item, that will be budgeted from the earnings of Federal prison industries. And most of the services which will be provided will come from

the earnings of that corporation.
16 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

Senator HRUSKA. Thank you very much.

These are all the question I have.

Senator BURDICK. Apropos the last question, have you made any

projections of the amount of money you might save over the long

run in reducing the number of returnees to the prisons? It would be

something, wouldn't it?

Mr. ALEXANDER. There is no projection. It will be substantial.

It might be appropriate to ask a witness who follows, Director Randolph of North Carolina, what his precise experience has been on this.

To estimate the savings resulting from persons who no longer commit

crimes is probably as difficult as to estimate the cost of crime in the

country, but that there will be savings and real savings, not only in

dollars, but in social and economic values, of course, it goes without

saying.

Senator BURDICK. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to

comment and compliment the Department of Justice and the Bureau

of Prisons for their training programs, for the plumbers and electricians, and all the prisoners you have trained in these institutions, and

perhaps now you can help to find a place to put them in society.

Senator LONG. Mr. Rosenberger, any questions?

Mr. ROSENBERGER. No.

Senator LONG. Gentlemen, thank you. You have been very

helpful to us. And, Mr. Alexander, we appreciate your being here.

Mr. KATZENBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator LONG. Our next witness is Mr. George W. Randall,

director of prisons of North Carolina.

Mr. Randall has had a very distinguished career and he has been

very successful in it. We are looking forward to his testimony.

Mr. Randall, your distinguished Senator and our colleague on the

Judiciary Committee, Senator Ervin, had hoped to be with us this

morning, but he finds it necessary to be chairman of another subcommittee this morning and he is unable to be present. But he has

asked me to express to you his regrets that he is unable to be present

and for me to introduce you and present you to the committee.

The committee will be very pleased to hear any statement you may

care to make.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. RANDALL, DIRECTOR OF PRISONS,

NORTH CAROLINA PRISON DEPARTMENT

Mr. RANDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am glad to be here

to tell you something about North Carolina's experience with the

programs developed under legislation similar to your S. 1808.

I feel that I am able to speak with some authority about this experience because I have had the good fortune to be appointed chairman of the board of paroles and later director of prisons of North

Carolina by Gov. Luther H. Hodges, more recently Secretary of

Commerce, and presently chairman of the Research Triangle Foundation in North Carolina.

Governor Hodges made modernization of the correctional agencies

in our State one of the major efforts of his administration. As a,

result of his leadership, North Carolina has had the benefits of legislation like the bill you are now considering during most of the years

that I have been a correctional administrator.
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 17

In 1957 the general assembly enacted North Carolina's original

work-release law to permit selected offenders committed to our prison

system to engage in work in the free community while continumg as

inmates in the confinement facility to which they were assigned.

Now, this law limited the work-release plan to misdemeanants who

had not previously served sentences totaling more than 6 months in

jail, but these limitations proved to be too restrictive and in 2 years

only 24 prisoners were recomm.ended for the program. But the seed

had been planted and the soil was fertile.

Several superior court judges expressed their belief that the workrelease Jaw should be broadened to permit recomihendation of felons

and recidivists in deserving cases. The prison department and the

board of paroles became convinced that there were many inmates of

the State prison system not yet ready for parole who were ready for

the more limited freedom of work-release privileges. By granting

this measure of freedom, it was felt a stepping stone could be provided

to help inmates cross the treacherous currents flowing between

conventional prisons and parole.

Acting on the recommendations of the courts and correctional

agencies, the North Carolina General Assembly has enacted liberalizing amendments to our work-release law at every legislative session

since 1957. No longer are there any restrictions with respect to

felon or misdemeanant offenders or previous imprisonment.

With the support of Gov. Terry Sanford and Gov. Dan K. Moore,

we have been making increased use of work releases as a parolepreparation and prerelease program. Work release has also been

utilized as a community-based program between probation and conventional imprisonment in North Carolina.

By reducing the recidivism, work release has played an important

role in curtailing our prison population. Four years ago, it had

reached an alltime high of more than 12,000. Today, in spite of

a fast-growing State population, our prison population has been reduced to 10,600, 3,700 below a prediction made by University of

North Carolina social scientists in 1956. As a result of this reduced

population, we have been able to close 22 of our field units, each of

which was designed for 100 inmates.

Our work-release program has many appeals. First in public

appeal is the program's relief to the taxpayer. In the North Carolina

Prison System today, more than 1,000 work-release inmates support

themselves. Without work-release privileges, these offenders would

be a tax burden on the State. The 6,080 participants approved for

the program between its inception and May 1, 1965, have earned a

total of $4,482,796. From this amount the prison department has

deducted $1,502,000 for their keep and $370,000 for transportation.

Senator LONG. In other words, that $1,500,000 has been actual

savings to the taxpayers.

Mr. RANDALL. It is part of the actual savings, yes, sir.

Now, second, the burden of supporting the inmate's dependents

is removed or reduced from other taxpayers while he, the prisoner,

continues to pay his share of taxes. Work release inmates in North

Carolina had contributed $1,212,000 to the support of their families

as of July 1, 1965.

Bear in mind that we receive their earnings, less standard deductions

required by law, and in North Carolina State as well as Federal taxes

are withheld.
18 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

Third, society contines to benefit from the productive labor of a

work-release inmate. When the offender's attitudes and his crime

do not require complete removal from free society, it seems to me that

it is foolish indeed to keep him from wholesome productivity that

enables him to support his family.

Fourth, the work-release inmate retains his trade skills and work

habits by keeping a regular job.

Fifth, the nature of the work-release program places emphasis

on correction while remaining sufficiently punitive to retain effective

deterrent values.

Sixth, the stigma that falls on the inmate's family is reduced when

he continues as their support and as a contributing member of society.

In view of the fact that juvenile and youth crime is increasing so

much today, I think this is a very important part of the work-release

plan.

Seventh, a work-release inmate is less likely to offend again. He is

less likely because he has the advantages of his earnings, a steady job,

a place in the community, and the personal knowledge that he paid

cash for the punishment he suffered. This is a deterring but not

embittering experience. The recidivist rate of inmates assigned to

our work-release program is only 6.8 percent.

The case of a former felon work-release inmate with a wife and one

child illustrates most of these points. This man was on a work-release

job as a heavy equipment operator for approximately 16 months.

Senator LONG. How soon do they generally go on the job after

they are committed?

Mr. RANDALL. In North Carolina it is possible for them to go on the

job the next day because if the court recommends the offender for

work release, we can run a check on him in our files and if it is all right,

then we can place him the next day. This is unusual, though.

Senator LONG. Do you have difficulty getting jobs for them? Do

they take them into jobs they had had, perhaps?

Mr. RANDALL. Quite often his employer wants him to remain on

the same job. However, we have a job placement section and we

can get jobs for them. Any men or women that have been trained

in our prison enterprises or in our housekeeping jobs, like hospital

technicians, we have no trouble at all getting them jobs.

Senator LONG. What is the average time of service in prison and

before they go out to work?

Mr. RANDALL. This is hard to say, because in North Carolina

misdemeanants as well as Federal felons are committed to our prison

system. So it would be quite a bit of difference there. But this

work-release inmate with the wife and child spent 16 months on the

program as a heavy-equipment operator, and in spite of inclement

weather, his earnings totaled $6,052.93.

Now, out of that he paid the Prison Department $1,172.25 for his

keep, $310 for his transportation, and $2,272 to support his family.

That doesn't include the amount that he spent for his own personal

use which was approved, but he was released with $1,299.92, a steady

job, and a family eagerly awaiting his return.

We recently talked to this former inmate's employer and find that

the man is still on the job, employed with the same firm, and is doing

an excellent job.

Senator LONG. You have different locations over the State where

these men come back? Do they stay with you for the night?
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 19

Mr. RANDALL. Oh, yes, sir.

Senator LONG. You have different camps or local institutions in

the different sections?

Mr. RANDALL. Yes. We have 62 field units and 11 institutions.

Senator LONG. You also have local county jails 

Mr. RANDALL. Sometimes 

Senator LONG. Do they use those?

Mr. RANDALL. Sometimes if the job is not near a prison installation, 

we contract with a county or local jail to house the inmates.

Of course, many inmates have much more money than this when they

are released. It depends on the man. It depends on how long he has

been on the program, and so forth.

Senator LONG. He gets back any excess of his earnings over his family expenses and his own expenses and what he pays the State for his

maintenance?

Mr. RANDALL. I am sorry, I didn't understand the question.

Senator LONG. He pays all the money to your State?

Mr. RANDALL. Yes, sir.

Senator LONG. You support his family and what personal money

he needs is approved, and transportation, and anything left over out

of that is returned to him at the time of his release?

Mr. RANDALL. Yes, sir.

I might mention a welder. It was an interesting case. He was

serving a 5-year sentence for breaking and entering. He used his

savings on work release to establish his own business, his own welding

business.

I know of another man that is extremely successful today. He got

the idea of building these little dairy bars that sell dairy products and

now he—he is over in Durham, N.C.—he has a plant that manufactures these little establishments and is selling them all over the

South.

We have had all kinds of people on the work-release program. We

have a court reporter on it, and the judge came in to see me about it,

and he is still reporting in court and doing a good job.

And now, gentlemen, one thing I certainly do not want: I don't

want to be understood as advocating work-release programs as a

panacea for all prison problems, nor do I want to leave the impression

with you that every committed offender can be brought to the point

of deserving work-release privileges.

Some prisoners are as dangerous and as ruthless as rattlesnakes.

So long as they remain this way, they should be kept in close confinement for the protection of the public. However, keeping a person

locked in prison after he has reached the point where he is no longer a

threat to society is a waste of tax dollars and human resources. This

only hardens the offender, increases the chances of repeating crime,

and denies the community the benefits of efforts that have been spent

in preparing him for release to the free community.

My years as chairman of the North Carolina Board of Paroles and

as director of prisons in North Carolina have convinced me that

justice needs to be tailor made to the individual offenders. Furthermore, the adjustment in my opinion must be made as the offender

changes. North Carolina's work-release law and implementing plan

are tools available to our courts, the prison department, and the

board of paroles to tailor justice to fit the offender.
20 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

In conclusion, may I say we believe our work-release program has

proved to be one of the most effective weapons in our fight against

crime and delinquency and this fight is clearly an important part of

the total war waged against poverty.

Our success with work release is to a significant extent attributable

to the strong support we have received from the business community,

labor, and the general public. Our progress demonstrates that some

inmates can and should be gradually prepared to resume the rights

and responsibilities of free people.

Thank you, sir.

Senator LONG. Mr. Randall, thank you for a very helpful and

enlightening statement. Certainly you and the Governor and the

people of your State are to be commended on a very progressive and

very enlightened program of treatment of prisoners along this line.

It is certainly helpful to me and I am sure it is to our entire committee

to learn of the experiences you have had. It will be helpful to us in

getting some practical experience that you and your State have

had in this problem.

You have gone a long way toward solving it.

Senator Burdick?

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I would like also to commend

Mr. Randall for his excellent presentation. I think you have made

your case just on the recidivist rate of 6.8 percent. It is almost

unbelievable. I would say that you are sold on this program.

Mr. RANDALL. I think that is a safe statement, sir.

Senator BURDICK. That is all. Thank you.

Senator LONG. Senator Hruska?

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Randall, you indicated that you were able

to close 22 of your field units. How many have you left?

Mr. RANDALL. Sixty-two field units. Eleven institutions.

Senator HRUSKA. And those are regular detention buildings for

inmates?

Mr. RANDALL. Yes, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. I don't know that you would have the information at hand, but if not, can you supply for the record the

comparative budget for your prison system in all of its aspects as

of 1957 and what it is now?

Mr. RANDALL. I can't be absolutely accurate on this. Let me put

it this way:

In the last 4 years the prison department has returned to the general

fund in North Carolina over $5.5 million that it did not use, that was

expected to be used for prison operations.

Now, this $5.5 million was returned because the prison population

has been reduced.

Furthermore, it was made possible because of the fact that work

release inmates are paying their way through prison.

Now, in addition to the $5.5 million—I have been director of prisons

since 1960—the working hours of the correctional officers were 72

hours a week. Today it is 40 hours a week. I don't know offhand

how much it costs to employ additional personnel in order to reduce

the hours from 72 to 40, but it was several million dollars. That was

done with no additional appropriation.

Furthermore, we have just completed a million dollar hospital, it

will be open next month, in our central prison at Raleigh, for which
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 21

we did not have to ask for an appropriation. That, too, came out of

some economies we were able to effect, and savings as a result in large

measure on this program and other program plans.

Does that answer your question, sir?

Senator HRUSKA. Yes. It gets at the general area that I had in

mind, but I would still like to have the amount actually expended in

each of those years.

Mr. RANDALL. The amount would 

Senator HRUSKA. I asked for that information because these hearings will be considered by other States and if they see that direct

benefit in terms of budget, that might be a powerful incentive. It

wouldn't be all of the incentive because there are -only many other

byproducts of this system which are very beneficial. If you don't have

the information now, if you could supply it for the record in terms of

the money expended with notations reflecting such changes as a reduction of 72 hours to a 40 hour workweek, I think that would be

very informative.

Mr. RANDALL. I will see if I can get you that information.

Senator HRUSKA. That would be fine if you could.

That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.

Senator LONG. Mr. Rosenberger?

Mr. ROSENBERGER. No questions.

Senator LONG. Thank you, Mr. Randall. We are very grateful to

you for your presentation.

Mr. RANDALL. Thank you very much.

Senator LONG. Our next witness is Dr. James Bennett, former

Director of the Bureau of Prisons, one of the most distinguished men

in our Nation, in our world, in the treatment of prisoners. He has a

very long and very distinguished career. Strange as it may seem, he

is not appearing here this morning as an authority along those lines,

but he is here representing the American Bar Association.

Mr. Bennett, we are happy to have you in this change of costume

this morning.

STATEMENT OF JAMES V. BENNETT, AMERICAN BAR

ASSOCIATION

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Dr. Long.

Senator LONG. The reason Mr. Bennett and I refer to each other as

doctor is that we both have the same degrees from the same college

in Missouri.

Mr. BENNETT. Senator, yes, indeed, it is a new role in which I come

here, remembering very pleasant recollections of this committee, and

it is very heartening and encouraging for me to see that at long last

the great American Bar Association, to which I think all of you belong,

is finally becoming interested in subjects of this kind and at their last

board of governors meeting they were willing to take up this bill and

advocate it. And I think if I may be permitted to digress a little, I

am gratified that the lawyers are doing this. It is partially because

of a reawakening on the part of the lawyers of their responsibilities in

the field of crime, and that stems to a considerable part I believe from

the fact that now they have to represent these people. They have to

go before the judges and courts as counsel. And, of course, this committee has recognized the importance of that by passing the Criminal

Justice Act in which Senator Hruska was so active.

53-542-65-4
22 PRISONE.R WORK RELEASE,

It has brought new life and it has brought a feeling of responsibility

on the part of the lawyers that never before existed.

I have belonged to the American Bar Association for 30 years and

a few years ago we couldn't get a handful of people to come out and

attend our criminal law sessions and take responsibilities, but now it

is growing and it is one of the most active committees of the whole

bar association.

Mr. Chairman, if it is agreeable to you, I think I will file my statement with the committee and talk with you a little bit about this bill.

Senator LONG. That would be very desirable, and without objection

your prepared statement will be placed in the record.

Mr. BENNETT. Knowing that you have visited our institutions and

are well acquainted with the problems, you realize far better than

most people that the critical period of a prisoner is the time when he

leaves the institution. He is bewildered. He is feared. He is

discriminated against at every turn. And he needs help. And that

is one of the things that this bill is going to make possible.

We know from our experience and from the researches that we have

made that 90 percent of the men who leave the institution leave it

with a will and a determination not to return and they make at least

one sincere effort to find a job. But if they don't have the confidence

in themselves to go in and to present themselves properly to the

employer, they are apt to be turned aside, brushed off, they get

panicky, they feel then that nobody wants them, and the first thing

you know is that they are running away and violating their probation

or their parole or their mandatory release.

Now, if we have, as this bill would permit, authority for the individual to go out and let the employer see him, get some experience, learn

what kind of world it is in which he is going, they are not then going to

violate so frequently.

Mr. Alexander talked about the employment placement program

but employers want to see the man. They want to have him come

in so they can look at him. If we don't have authority to permit him

to go in and do that, or if we have to bring him in with a guard, he

loses the opportunity that he might otherwise have.

Now, that is one of the things that this bill would permit, give us

authority to do that. It is hard, as a matter of fact, Senators, to pick

out what appears to me as the most important feature of this bill.

At one time I think it is the humane aspects. As it is under this bill,

we can permit a man to attend a funeral, which is a very important

thing. It prevents embittering him if we can let him go. It will allow

us to send a man to a hospital for treatment of a kind that he couldn't

get in our institution.

Take the case of this man in Winston who had a brain tumor.

Well, the only way we could get him the private hospitalization

he needed was to put him under supervision of an officer while he had

the operation.

And the bill will also give us this great advantage of being able to

let the inmate participate in an active training course. There are all

kinds of opportunities now being opened up under the Economic

Opportunities Act, establishment of training units and we will be able

to allow the man to go into one of these training units in his own home

community. We will be able to allow him to get the experience that

is necessary to qualify as a member of the union perhaps to which

he would like to go.
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 23

Those are all very important provisions indeed.

Senator Burdick asked whether or not this would be valuable for

the older prisoners. It will be very valuable to the long-term offenders,

Senator Burdick. They are the ones that have been in the institution

for a long time. They are unaware of conditions in the community.

They don't know the present value of money, for example, and what

it costs to do things. And if we can allow them to go out for a little

period under a work-release program, which to be sure is an important

program, they can learn to appreciate these values and they won't

be apt to slip back.

As a matter of fact, it is the long-term men where we have a great

many problems in readjusting them in the community.

Women are open to exploitation of any kind. If she goes out with

no place to go, no job, no one to welcome her, well, her chances are

not too good. While we have women's halfway houses in Massachusetts and elsewhere, probably we wouldn't have enough women

to justify the establishment of such a house. Under this program we

could perhaps contract with some agency of that kind that would

help these people.

This bill will, Senator Hruska, cost nothing. I think it will save

money because these trips to look for jobs and for funeral trips, and

so on, which we now have to make with a man traveling under guard,

that amount of money will be saved.

It is a thoroughly progressive bit of legislation. It means, I think,

cutting down a great deal of recidivism and it puts a heart, if you

please, into the Federal prison system.

Thank you so much.

Senator LONG. Doctor, you mentioned the long-term prisoner. As

I remember, a prison official told me that one of the problems they had

is that they had been regimented to such an extent for the years they

served in the prison that after they were out they didn't learn the

value of money, didn't know where to go to find the type jobs they

had been trained for in the prison, they didn't even know the type of

transportation. There had been so many changes.

I remember one of the things that impressed me. There were quite

a number of men who had lost their jobs because they didn't get there

on time. In prison they were regimented, someone woke them up at

a certain time. They didn't have an alarm clock. As a result, they

had no one to tell them to be up and going at a certain time to get to a

place.

Mr. BENNETT. That is right. You can well imagine what it is if

you take them out of the economic stream for any length of time, low

difficult it is to readjust and get used to those situations. Prices

change so rapidly. I can't get used to it myself.

Senator LONG. Senator Burdick, any questions?

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I think that Dr. Bennett has

made such a strong case I can't think of anything to question him on.

This is good legislation. I am pleased that he referred to the older

prisoners as ones who could benefit a great deal from this program.

Perhaps he will have some opportunity to get somewhere with this

method.

Thank you.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you.
24 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

Senator LONG. Senator Hruska?

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Bennett, maybe I should have asked this

question of Mr. Alexander, but I know you had a good deal to do with

the formulation of this legislation and its language and its concepts.

You certainly have had a lot to do with the halfway houses for the

juvenile offenders.

My specific question is this. How would the earnings of the released inmate be paid and handled for disbursement? Would he get

the wages or would they be paid to the institution?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, they would be deposited to his account in

the institution, if that is what you refer to.

Senator HRUSKA. Where would the paycheck go physically?

Would it go to the institution and be deposited to his credit?

Mr. BENNETT. I presume if it were in the form of a check, it would

go to the institution, yes.

Senator HRUSKA. Pursuant to whatever arrangement was made by

the Attorney General through his duly delegated employees or officials,

some deduction could be made for his keep, and arrangements could

also be made for the disbursement to his family pursuant to arrangement. Is that part of the contemplated procedure?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. I am not so sure, Senator, that it is necessary

to set aside some payment or some penalty for his keep, but it certainly would inure to his benefit and go to his family. As it is now,

you will recall that we don't permit a man to spend out of any earnings

or funds he has more than $15 a month. The rest of it he must accumulate against the day of his release.

Senator HRUSKA. Yes.

Mr. BENNETT. And I would assume that same policy would follow

in this case.

Senator HRUSKA. In the amendment that the other body appended

to the bill as introduced, one provision is that the Attorney General is

authorized to collect such costs incident to the prisoner's confinement

as he deems appropriate and reasonable. From the proceeds of the

paid employment he could effect that type of collection, and it would

follow the procedure that we heard described by Mr. Randall which is

used in North Carolina.

How extensively that would be used I presume would be dependent

somewhat on how much was earned by the prisoner. It might be

nominal pay. It might be a brick mason's pay which is considerable,

or a plumber's pay, because it would have to be on the union scale,

and those are well-paid occupations.

Mr. BENNETT. Well, it would depend, too, of course, Senator, upon

the man's needs and the needs of his family, and so forth. I should

think each case would have to be handled upon its individual merits

just as we do now. Whatever his needs were, whatever were the

needs of his family, those things would be taken into consideration.

Senator HRUSKA. Thank you very much.

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I have a question now that

you have raised 

Senator LONG. Senator Burdick.

Senator BURDICK. I wonder if you wouldn't explore a little further

this method of payment. It seems to me if the check should go directly to the institution instead of the man that your are defeating a

little bit of your purpose. You are trying to give him confidence, and
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 25

so forth. Couldn't you, after a certain period of time, have this

prisoner pay his own bills as one of the conditions of arrangement?

Mr. BENNETT. Perhaps so. Yes. Perhaps it might be a helpful

means of encouraging thrift and responsibility in him, Senator.

Senator BURDICK. Suppose you think that over.

Mr. BENNETT. This will all be subject to experiment and trial and

I should think that would be a good suggestion you have, to make him

a thoughtful person who can understand the value of money.

Senator BURDICK. It gives him some stature, gives him some reresponsibility. It means that he is on his own.

Mr. BENNETT. Some dignity, yes; that is right.

Senator HRUSKA. Of course, in the prison industries, Mr. Bennett,

he doesn't get the money does he? His books are credited. He

doesn't handle his bills and develop a sense of responsibility. All he

can do is stare at the balance he has there which he will take when he

goes away from the institution.

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, but, Senator, he earned that inside the institution.

Senator BURDICK. This is outside.

Mr. BENNETT. This money comes from outside.

Senator HRUSKA. The purposes are different. To that extent I

agree with the Senator that it might be helpful. I am sure that is a

matter of administration that can be worked out.

Senator LONG. Any questions, Mr. Rosenberger?

Mr. ROSENBERGER. No.

Senator LONG. We wish to thank you very much for your presence

here.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you.

Senator LONG. As usual it has been very helpful.

I would like to at this time refer to two documents: "Work Release:

Statutory Patterns, Implementation, and Problems" by Stanley E.

Grupp, assistant professor of sociology, Illinois State University,

published in the Prison Journal for spring 1964, and "A Survey of

Statutory and Regulatory Provisions for Emergency Furloughs and

Related Matters" prepared by Pat Parish, legal aid trainee, Bureau

of Prisons, summer 1964.

I am not going to ask that they be printed in the record at this

time but that they perhaps can be made a part of the file.

I believe that concludes the hearings, the testimony on this bill.

At this time the committee will stand 

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that there be inserted

in the record an editorial from the South Omaha Sun commenting

on this bill.

Senator LONG. Yes.

(The material referred to follows:)

[From the South Omaha Sun, May 27, 1965]

THE HRUSKA-LONG BILL

The adage says that the punishment must fit the crime. It can be said with

equal truth that the punishment should fit the criminal and that the criminal

should be made fit to rejoin society after he has repaid his debt to society. Building more prisons is not an answer to the rising rate of crime; it is a confession of

defeat. What we must build are honest and productive men and women.

But how? Some possibly valuable approaches Are embodied in a bipartisan

bill introduced in the Senate by Nebraska's Republican Senator Roman Hruska

and Missouri's Democratic Senator Edward Long.
26 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

One provision would give the Attorney General the authority to commit or

transfer prisoners from Federal correctional institutions to residential community

treatment centers. The latter are called halfway houses and they have shown

successful results in the four large cities—New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and

Detroit—in which they have been tried for juvenile offenders.

Look at the matter from the offender's point of view. What happens to him

when he gets out of jail? Well, the Ent thing is a kind of shock of release. He's

glad of his freedom, but he doesn't know what to do with it. Readjustment is

difficult enough for a returning veteran of the Armed Forces; how much more

difficult is it for the man who's been cooped behind bars for a matter of years?

As Senator Hruska points out, the released inmate is confronted with a bewildering array of problems. He needs a job. He needs a place to live. He

needs food and clothing. And as an ex-con he must carry a stigma that is not

always—not even usually—easy to surmount. The halfway house is a kind of

decompression chamber wherein carefully selected offenders can receive expert

guidance to help them make the transition from prison life to the world outside.

Another provision would permit selected Federal prisoners to work in private

jobs or participate in community training programs while they're still serving

their sentences. The work release concept was first tried in Wisconsin in 1913.

Since then 17 States have passed similar laws. The prisoner is not out on probation. He returns to prison at night and over weekends. That, as a recent

study noted, provides "ample opportunity for penitence and self-castigation"

while at the same time providing for the support both of the prisoner and of his

family.

The third feature of the Hruska-Long bill has to do with emergency or rehabilitation leave from prison. This, too, has been tried for juvenile offenders under

Federal law and in at least 10 States, and it may well prove useful if extended

to older persons.

None of these is the simple answer to crime. There are no simple answers, as

President Johnson pointed out in his message on crime earlier in the year. But

we must somehow find a way to end what the President calls "the self-defeating

cycle of imprisonment, release and re-imprisonment," and the Hruska-Long bill

would help Federal officials focus on individual need and merit in a long-term

but absolutely vital task.

Senator HRUSKA. There is an article here, too, Mr. Chairman, that

I would like to submit, the article, "Halfway Houses for Delinquent

Youth," by Kenneth S. Carpenter. If it is not in the files, perhaps it

might be included in the hearings for source material for students of

this problem.

Senator LONG. So ordered.

(The material referred to follows:)

HALFWAY HOUSES FOR DELINQUENT YOUTH

(By Kenneth S. Carpenter, Chief, Technical Aid Branch, Division of Juvenile

Delinquency Service, Children's Bureau)

The possibilities offered by "halfway houses" in programs for delinquent youth

are receiving an increasing amount of attention throughout the country. In spite

of this interest, however, there has been more hesitancy to proceed in their

development in this country than in many countries abroad. Noting this,

Roul Tunley who has studied measures to combat adolescent delinquency in

various parts of the world has pointed out that: "the youth hostel, the aftercare

home, and the halfway house have all been developed abroad recently in an attempt

to devise a homelike atmosphere in which a child can work, live, and study

in partial but not complete freedom." 1 He reports that in some cases children

are sent to such facilities instead of to a reformatory or training school. In others,

the facilities "are used as a bridge to help a child back from an institution into

the mainstream of life."

The halfway house has been described by many persons in various ways. But

each definition agrees on the basic principle that this is a residential program, the

purpose of which is to bridge the gap between a completely institutional life and a

completely free life in the community. For example, participants in a recent

1 Tunley, Roul: "Kids, Crime and Chaos," Harper & Bros., New York; 1962.
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 27

conference on halfway houses for delinquents settled on the definition: "decentralized group living situation involving a limited number of adolescents." 2 The

Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice, refers to its halfway houses as

"prerelease guidance centers." They are seen as a "means for the orderly reintroduction of the offender into the community through the use of all available

community resources, together with a structured guidance and counseling

program.' 3

The youth for whom programs of this nature appear most helpful are those who

have no home to return to, those whose own parents are sufficiently inadequate

or rejecting to give them the necessary guidance and support for a successful

adjustment, those whose parents may be fostering their delinquent behavior, or

those whose parents live in. neighborhoods in which the youths are unable to cope

with the many pressures they would face upon return.

Halfway houses as supportive services between institution and independent

community life appeared first in this country not for delinquents, but for mental

patients and for young people who were ready to leave child-caring institutions

and who could not be placed with foster families or returned to their own homes.

While small group homes for adolescents are apparently increasing, especially

under the auspices of voluntary agencies,' the development of halfway homes for

the mentally ill has apparently not been rapid. According to a survey conducted

by the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health in 1961, only nine such

residences existed at that time—and of these, seven had been developed in the

preceding decade.5

The appearance in this country of halfway houses for delinquent youth is

even more recent and scattered, the few that exist under State auspices having

been opened hardly more than a year or two ago. One or two, under the auspices

of large county agencies, were set up earlier. But there are increasing indications

that the appropriateness of this type of facility in a treatment program for

delinquents is beginning to be recognized. For example, in April 1961 the

Maryland State Department of Public Welfare and the Health and Welfare

Council of the Baltimore Area, Inc., held a conference on halfway houses which

was attended by 31 persons from local and State child-care programs. At this

meeting it was pointed out that many delinquents remain in institutions longer

than necessary because there is no other place for them to go.2

Because of this interest it is pertinent to take a look at the experience of some

of the few halfway houses for delinquents which have been established in the

past few years in an effort to pull out some guiding principles on how such

programs might best be used.

A GIRL'S RESIDENCE

The New York State Training School for Girls in August 1961 opened a group

residence for girls who are ready to return to the community but unable to go

home or to adjust in a foster home. A four-story apartment building, formerly

operated as a girls' residence by the Community Service Society of New York

City was purchased by the training school. It accommodates 16 girls. In

addition to the full-time director, staff consists of a full-time social worker,

a housefather, three housemothers, and two part-time activity leaders.

When the program was established it was decided that two groups of girls

would be accepted, those who would be attending school and those who would

be employed full time. Girls were to be over the age of 16 and on parole status

from the institution. After a short period of time the staff decided to limit

intake to girls who would be employed full time.

The decision not to accept any more schoolgirls arose from difficulties encountered in combining the two groups of girls with such different program needs

and from the lack of experience in operating such a program. One problem arose

from the fact that the schoolgirls needed time in the evenings to do their homework, and, because they were, on the whole, younger than the working girls needed

to be home earlier on school nights. The schoolgirls found these limits difficult to

accept when they saw that the girls who were working were freer to go out in the

evenings and were allowed to stay out later. Moreover, the fact that the emMaryland State Department of Public Welfare, and Health and Welfare Council of the Baltimore Area,

Inc.: "Report and Proceedings, Conference on Halfway Houses," Baltimore, Md.; 1961.

3 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons: Prerelease guidance center demonstration project;

Progress Report, July-September 1962.

4 Gula, Martin: "Agency-Operated Group Homes," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

Social Security Administration, Children's Bureau, July 1960 (mimeographed, 44 pp.).

Wechsler, Henry: "Transitional Residences for Former Mental Patients: A Survey of Halfway Houses

and Related Rehabilitation Facilities," Mental Hygiene, January 1961.
28 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

ployed girls had spending money and dates tended to influence schoolgirls to

leave school. However, after the staff gained confidence and skill in running the

program, the agency again accepted girls who would be attending school, with

no more serious difficulties.

Further complexities arose in the program, however, as girls encountered

difficulty in obtaining employment. The problem apparently stemmed not only

from the limited availability of employment but also from the girls' lack of job

training. Moreover, some of them also had emotional problems severe enough

to prevent an adequate employment experience. Thus the staff faced many

difficult problems in the attempt to provide rich experiences for the girls, particularly in relation to those who were not working, for the girls became increasingly

disturbed when unable to obtain or hold employment. It was concluded that

additional trained counseling staff is necessary to help the girls during these periods

of stress.

The experience with 18-year-old Mary illustrates some of the problems faced

by the staff in this program:

Mary came into the residence after having been in the State training school

for girls approximately 10 months. Her mother had died when she was a little

girl and she had gone to live with her maternal grandmother, an extremely rigid

person. Her father, who had remarried, was critical and rejecting of her, but

he did continue to see her after she had been sent to the training school.

When Mary first came to the halfway house she would resist any attempt on

the part of the staff to work with her. Outbursts of temper seemed indicative of

her inability to trust authority. After several contacts with the accepting,

supportive social worker, Mary became less explosive and more accepting of

authority. Gradually she began to tell the worker of her feelings of rejection.

In spite of her improvement in the residence, when the father visited he would

say to her social worker, "She may be doing well but you still haven't seen her

true colors."

Mary did not find a job for several months after she came into the program,

and the one she finally secured proved to be only a temporary "Christmas rush"

position as a clerk. When this ended unexpectedly for her she became extremely

depressed by an arousal of her earlier feelings of rejection. However, Mary's

relationship with her social worker had by this time become extremely important

to her and provided her with considerable help in weathering this depression, so

that in time she was able to secure a full-time office job. After several months

on this job, she began talking of an independent living arrangement and eventually

moved into a rooming house. She has since attended night school, and has

apparently made a satisfactory community adjustment.

The girls are encouraged to participate in social and recreational activities

in the community, although many of them need considerable support from the

staff to do this. They are also encouraged to bring their friends into the residence.

A number of parties and other recreational activities are held there for the girls

and their friends of both sexes.

Several girls whose behavior while on parole warranted removal from their

parole placement have also been taken into the residence for temporary care.

Their placement there has permitted individual evaluation of the basis for their

behavior and consideration of whether they should be returned to the training

school, or, if not, what other plans should be made for them. Before the residence

was established it was necessary to return girls who got into difficulties while on

parole to the training school for such an evaluation. Several such girls after a

temporary study period in the residence have been placed in new foster homes;

others have received sufficient help through the program to be able to return to

their own homes; and a few have been returned to the training school.

Since many of the girls in the training school are from New York City, some

distance away from the training school, the use of the residence for this purpose

has been very helpful. In addition, keeping the girls in the community has

provided easier access to them for the girls' parents, foster parents, or after-care

social worker.

PRERELEASE GUIDANCE CENTERS

Prerelease guidance centers were opened by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in

New York City and Chicago in September 1961, in Los Angeles in October of

that year, and most recently in Detroit in January 1963. Each center accommodates a maximum of 25 juvenile and youthful offenders who remain for a

period of 90 to 120 days prior to actual release into the community. By law,

the only charges of the Federal Bureau of Prisons who can be placed in these

centers are those who have been committed under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act or under the indeterminate provisions of the Youth Corrections Act.
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 29

The policy is to place in them only those who have homes or release plans approved

by the U.S. probation officers in the metropolitan areas where the centers are

located.

The Chicago and New York centers are located in YMCA buildings, where

wings of individual rooms with adjacent office space have been leased by the

Bureau. The youth are encouraged to make use of the varied recreational

opportunities afforded by the YMCA's.

The Los Angeles center is located in a building formerly part of a small college.

Across the street from a large municipal park, the location is easily accessible by

public transportation to all points in the Los Angeles area.

The Detroit center is located in a building formerly used by a voluntary agency

as a home for dependent and neglected children. Because the Bureau of Prisons

did not have a large number of youth from the Detroit area needing such placement, this center is jointly sponsored by the Bureau and the Michigan Department

of Corrections, a cooperatove sponsorship which also places young men in the

center. Both groups are of the same age range—from 17 to 25.

Each of the Bureau's prerelease guidance centers has a trained, full-time staff

consisting of a director, social caseworker-researcher, employment placement

specialist, three counselors (except for the Detroit center, which has two), and

secretarial staff. In the Detroit center the employment placement specialist

is a staff member of the Michigan Department of Corrections.

The centers contain both high school students and employed workers, but the

majority of the residents have full-time employment. Many of the latter, however, are enrolled in academic or vocational courses in evening schools.

All the centers encourage their residents to enroll in community programs,

including those of religious organizations, recreational agencies, and the like.

They also encourage visits of the young people with their families, on a progressive

basis, in an effort to prevent the development of too strong a dependency on the

center and its staff. Counseling, with individuals and with groups, has been

made an important part of each center's program.

In the group counseling sessions, the group discusses adjustment problems—

interpersonal relations, economic, disciplinary, or employment problems arising

out of personal experiences of the young people at the cente-, in school, at work,

or in the community at large. Both formal and informai meetings are held.

One center uses films from a local public library to present social situations the

young people may sometimes face—involving problems of drinking, dating,

leisure time, and family life. In another center the caseworker introduces

similar topics for discussion, being flexible enough, however, to allow individuals

to bring up subjects bothering them.

Various community leaders have been brought in as guest speakers at these

meetings—businessmen, employment counselors, teachers, Armed Forces recruitment personnel, union representatives, and law enforcement personnel. Following their formal remarks there is a discussion period during which the residents

can bring up their special concerns about the subject. These have often dealt with

the need for union membership in various types of jobs, requirements of job

performance, appropriate appearance and manners when seeking employment,

how to enlist in a branch of the Armed Forces, and vocational needs for employment advancement.

By August 1962, a total of 174 youths and juveniles had been placed in the 3

prerelease guidance centers. Of these, 20 youths have had to be returned to

Federal institutions for further treatment and training or to State custody pending

return to a Federal institution. After reviewing the histories of these 20, the

Bureau's research staff came to the conclusion that they seem to be little different

than the 154 who made good adjustments in this center.° Among the 20, the

largest group failed during the first 2 months, but 3 were returned to the institution within a month. The chief difficulties among these 20 youth were in relating

to persons of authority, in accepting the rules of the program, and in participating

in the group sessions. Eight committed further delinquencies.

A GROUP ROME FOR BOYS

The Riverside Group Home for Boys, in Tacoma, Wash., was established in

early 1962 by the Bureau of Juvenile Rehabilitation, Washington State Department of Institutions, for the purpose of caring for boys ready to leave the State's

institutions and camps for delinquents for whom there were no placement plans.

6 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons: Preliminary study of guidance center casualties.

"Progress Report," July-September 1962.

53-542-65-5
30 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

It is located in what was once the superintendent's residence of a Federal hospital

for Indians which is now in the process of conversion to a State juvenile receptiondiagnostic center for all delinquent youth committed to the State department

of instituti9ns.

The home accommodates a maximum of 15 boys. Its staff includes a supervisor,

four counselors, a cook, and a part-time secretary. The boys remain in the home

from a week to several months, depending on the length of time necessary to find

them suitable independent community placements. Some boys attend regular

public school classes, others take vocational training, and still others are employed

full time during the day.

In operation, the Riverside Group Home is similar to the halfway houses

already described. Plans are to continue to operate it as an independent program

even after the new reception-diagnostic center opens, and the staff does not

anticipate any difficulty in this direction. However, the question might be

raised as to whether a residence situated in the grounds of an institution is "half -

way" or "quarterway" between the institution and the community since the

proximity to the institution may keep the residents from feeling really separated

from it. This may not be a serious problem with the Riverside Group Home

since the majority of the young people at the home will come there from the

State's training schools and camps rather than from the reception-diagnostic

•center. However, when a halfway house is situated near an institution, it is

especially important for it to have a noninstitutional appearance and for every

effort to be made to involve its residents in community activities.

SOME OBSERVATIONS

The experiences of the few agencies which have established halfway houses

for delinquent youth will undoubtedly prove valuable to others interested in

strengthening their after care services for delinquents. From these have been

•derived the following observations:

The term "halfway house" is never part of the residence's name

Administrators and program planners, though commonly using the term

"halfway house" in discussing their facilities, regard the term as unsuitable for

public use for a number of reasons. For one, there is difficulty in getting the

community to understand that young people are sufficiently healthy and safe to

be at large in the community if they are living in something called a halfway

house, since the term seems to imply that the resident is only "halfway" ready for

community life. Another reason, related to the first, is the fear that such a

home will aggrevate neighborhood resistance to being the location of a facility

regarded as a possible threat to a favorable neighborhood image. For example,

a residential center for emotionally disturbed children on the west coast had to

sell a building bought for a halfway house because the neighborhood became

aroused at the prospects of having such children in its midst. Thus, the trend

has been to name these facilities group homes, prerelease guidance centers,

transitional homes, and the like.

Community relationships are important

A successful halfway house program depends in part upon sympathetic community understanding. Efforts to gain such understanding begin long before the

residence opens. For example, when the first halfway houses for discharged

mental patients were being established, a period of at least 2 years was regarded

as necessary for planning and community preparation. As such facilities become

more widely accepted as essential to a total treatment program, the period of

preparation can be shortened.

As soon as the decision as to location is made community interpretation should

begin. This should focus on: the need for the program, the kind of young people

who will be living in the facility, and the importance of community contacts to

their successful adjustment to community life. It is especially important to

obtain the cooperation of religious, recreational, and educational groups in extending a welcome to the young people, and including them in their programs.

But it is also important for the people who live or work in the neighborhood to be

knowledgeable and accepting of the program and its clientele. Otherwise the

program may have to be terminated or moved to another neighborhood. This

has happened more than once.

Some agencies have found it helpful to establish a citizens' committee which can

work with the director to facilitate the community's acceptance of the halfway
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 31

house. Such committees often also help the staff find employment for the residents and community activities in which they can engage. The committees can

best facilitate acceptance of the programs if they are representative of the business,

racial, religious, and professional groups of the community.

The Bureau of Prisons has found committees of this nature very effective in

.connection with its prerelease guidance centers in Chicago, Los Angeles, and

New York. They consist of 8 to 10 persons in key positions to be helpful to the

,centers' staffs both in advising on program and in gaining community acceptance.

For example, the Chicago committee consists of a member of the U.S. district

court; the chief probation officer of Cook County; the program chairman of the

Chicago YMCA Council; a staff member of the School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago; the executive director of the John Howard

Association; the president of the coordinating council of the AFL—CIO; the former

executive secretary of the Chicago Church Federation; and the captain of youth

services of the Chicago Police Department.

The halfway house is but one type of facility needed in a diversified program for

delinquent youth

The current interest in establishing halfway houses for delinquent youth is

due in part to the growing interest in the development of diversified services and

facilities for the care and treatment of delinquent children and youth. A diversified program meets the problem of overcrowding in institutions, permits the

establishment of more homogenous treatment groupings of young delinquents,

and assures them individualized care and help.7 Besides the halfway house,

other facilities in a truly diversified program for delinquents besides basic child

welfare services, are detention facilities, diagnostic study centers, small residential

treatment centers for seriously disturbed children, coeducational facilities for

various age groups, foster homes, small group homes, and forestry camps.8

Various kinds of physical plants lend themselves to becoming halfway houses

Large private dwellings, series of urban row houses, and sections Of apartments

or agency buildings such as YMCA's are being used for this purpose.

The kind of plant needed depends on the number of young people to be served

and the kinds of program activities to be included. Although no standard has

been established regarding the advisable capacity for halfway houses, they generally are planned to accommodate groups of from 10 to 25 young people. Since

the focus is on the improvement of social rather than vocational skills, areas for

workshops and vocational programs are generally not necessary.

The clientele of halfway houses generally consists of young people who are ready to

return to the community but who cannot return home, who are unable to accept

foster home care, and who are not yet ready to live independently

Experience has shown the importance of careful consideration of the composition

of the resident group by setting up criteria for selection. Such criteria will vary

according to the program and focus of each house. A pertinent observation,

however, is that "the closer the needs of the individual children * * * the easier

it is to program for them individually and collectively. The wider the range of

needs, the more difficult it is to use the group home constructively." 9

An important criterion for all halfway house placements, however, is that the•

young people sufficient inner controls to manage independently away from the

house and its staff. Thus the young people placed in a halfway house set up for

employed youth must have sufficient ability to function in an occupational role;

and the young people who will be attending school while living in a halfway house

must have the capacity to get along in a regular community school.

When an institution and a halfway house are operated by the same agency, the

selection of the young people to be placed in the halfway house is generally made

by an appropriate training school staff committee. On the other hand, when an

institution and a halfway house are operated under different auspices, the halfway

house generally has its own intake committee to decide upon the admission of

individual youth referred to it from institutions, either directly or through their

parent agency.

7 Sheridan, William H.: Gaps in State programs for juvenile offenders. Children, November-December

1962.

U.S. Department of Health Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration, Children's

Bureau: Institutions serving delinquent children—guides and goals. CB Publication No. 360. Revised

1962.

9 Gula, Martin: "Agency-Operated Group Homes," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration, Children's Bureau, July 1960 (mimeographed, 44 pp.).
32 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

A CRITICAL NEED

One of the most serious gaps in programs for the rehabilitation of delinquent

youth is in the aftercare of the delinquent in the critical period following his

release from the institution. This gap was documented in 1962 in a report prepared for the Governors' Conference Committee on Juvenile Delinquency, based

on information received from across the country from State agencies responsible

for the care of delinquents.w According to this document, 35 States, Puerto Rico,

and the Virgin Islands have reported a serious need for more aftercare services

including halfway houses, group foster homes, short-term residential facilities,

enlarged and more specialized parole services, and increased treatment rehabilitation and placement facilities.

The dearth of aftercare programs for delinquent youth has also been spotlighted

recently by the National Conference of Superintendents of Training Schools and

Reformatories, which has described such services as the weakest link in the entire

chain of treatment of juvenile delinquents."

Those agencies which are established halfway houses—unfortunately still only

few and far between—are making an important contribution to the strengthening

of that link.

Senator HRUSKA. And there is also an article about the Boston.

Halfway House, by Dr. Bennett.

Senator LONG. It Will be included.

Senator HRUSKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The material referred to follows:)

A BOSTON HALFWAY HOUSE

(By James V. Bennett, Director, U.S. Bureau of Prisons, before the Friends of

Framingham, Inc., Boston, Mass., March 27, 1963)

It's good to be in Boston again where so many new and progressive ideas in

dealing with problems of human welfare have been cradled. Whether you think

of probation, mental hygiene, the juvenile court, parole or a dozen other progressive movements of a similar character, you will find that if they did not

get their start here it was in this area that their practicality and usefulness was

demonstrated. Indeed my friends, there is something about the New England

conscience that breeds these social outcroppings. And we do not have to go

back to the days of John Augustus, or Samuel Gridley Howe, or Laura Bridgeman,

or Dorothea Dix or Julia Ward Howe to prove it. That same sort of altruism

and social consciousness is evident here tonight. You, Friends of Framingham,

are seeking some substitute for the cavalier way in which men and particularly

women in your case are released from prison with nothing more than a bus ticket,

enough money perhaps to tide them over the weekend and the prayerful words,

"And try not to come back."

The significance of this sort of casual "Godspeed" I can perhaps best demonstrate by sharing with you some of the correspondence I have with inmates of

our institutions. In each Federal prison and correctional institution there is

prominently placed a mailbox in which any inmate can deposit a letter addressed

to the Attorney General, my office, to the sentencing judge, or the Congressman

or Senator representing the residence of the inmate. These letters are forwarded

without censorship by the institutional officials. In addition to being a helpful

outlet and safety valve for the prisoners they let me learn and appreciate the

inmates' point of view.

Some are funny but mostly they are pathetic pleas for help. Not the least are

requests for assistance after release. For example, a boy who had been recently

discharged from our halfway house in Brooklyn in writing me of his experiences

said:

"The day I left Chillicothe I thought people could see right through me. I sat

there at the bus station, and I didn't want to let the guard go. He said to me,

'if you're not ashamed of my uniform, I'll sit with you until the bus comes.'

He said all the guys felt the way I did. When it came, I just hung on him. I felt

10 Council of State Governments; President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime;

National Council on Crime and Delinquency: Juvenile delinquency: a report on State action and responsibilities. Prepared for the Governors' Conference Committee on Juvenile Delinquency. Council of State

Governments, Chicago, Ill. 1962.

11 National Conference of Superintendents of Training Schools and Reformatories: Institutional rehabilitation of delinquent youth. Delmar Publishers, Albany, N.Y. 1962.
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 33

like somebody leaving his mother. All the way to Columbus I sat in the back with

my hand over my eyes."

Just before I came up here Miss Bowman, our superintendent at Alderson, sent

me a letter she had received from an 18-year-old girl who had been discharged to a

remotely related aunt. She had no family worthy of the name, no friends, just

nothing. She was begging Miss Bowman and her cottage officer to write her.

She said she was going to need advice and guidance so much and she didn't know

where to turn.

Another girl said:

"Had no idea people were so stuffy about prison records. Appearance and intelligence have gotten me in to personnel managers but I am still unable to find a way

to get beyond them. If there are not some changes made a return trip (meaning

Alderson) might be necessary and I am not smiling."

This fear of rejection, of guilt, of loneliness seems to overwhelm some of our

releasees to the point they won't even try. That has been amply demonstrated

by a study of our so-called failures and successes made by a team of researchers at

the University of Illinois under a Ford Foundation grant. We have been able to

document the belief that it is the period immediately after release which is the

most dangerous, frustrating, and hazardous for the prisoner. Of those who fail,

upwards of 70 percent do so in the first 6 months after discharge and almost onehalf of those who commit another offense do so in the first 6 weeks after release.

One other interesting fact is that the study shows about 90 percent of all releasees

made at least one legitimate effort to find an honest livelihood. If these figures

mean anything they mean that the crucial days and weeks for the discharged

prisoner are those immediately after he is handed his release papers.

The problem, therefore, is to help the man or woman over the first few days

and weeks, to build on good intentions and honest efforts. There is just one

sensible way to do that—provide community help and support during the transition period. That points to the need for a new kind of institution—one that is

intermediate between the close and secure regime of the prison and ultimate

release on parole or otherwise. We in the Federal prison service are trying to do

this through some "halfway houses," or guidance centers, as we call them, for our

juvenile and youth offender group.

Soon after his appointment, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, whose

greeting I bring you, sent a special request to Congress that funds be allocated to

establish a series of halfway houses designed to evaluate new methods in assisting

released offenders. The basic purpose of these centers is to bridge the gap between

the institutions and the community by establishing the released offender in a

stable employment and social situation. During September 1961, the first two

guidance centers were opened, one in New York and one in Chicago. The following month, a third center was opened in Los Angeles. In January of this year, we

opened our fourth guidance center in Detroit, Mich.

Our center in New York City is operated under a contract with Springfield

College, Springfield, Mass. As you know, Springfield College has long been

associated with the training of staff to work in community welfare agencies.

Under the provisions of our contract, the college provides the staff for the guidance

center from its faculty and alumni and have leased space for the project in a

Brooklyn YMCA.

The Los Angeles center is operated by our Bureau and staffed by our personnel.

It is situated in a private building we have leased for the project. The building

was formerly occupied by a small college and is ideally located near the downtown

Los Angeles area. We have provided office, recreational and bedroom space

within the building and have built a kitchen and dining room area.

Another guidance center was opened during January of this year in Detroit.

This center is unique in that it is a joint operation involving the Federal Bureau

of Prisons and the Michigan Department of Corrections. We have leased a

building similar to the one we use in Los Angeles. One of the staff members in

Detroit is an employee of the Michigan Department of Corrections while the

remainder of the staff come from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. One half of the

residents in Detroit come from our institutions while the remainder are state

offenders who have been confined in institutions operated by the Michigan Department of Corrections. Maybe someday a similar arrangement could be made

for this area if sufficient funds become available to us.

Each of the four centers we operate can accommodate a maximum of 25 residents. Young men are transferred to the centers approximately 4 months prior

to their release dates which have been established by the U.S. Board of Parole.

This means that youngsters transferred to the centers this month will be released

to parole supervision in July. The actual date of release is flexible, however,

and can be advanced or retarded according to the individual needs of the residents.
34 PRISONER WORK RELEASE,

We accept only men who are legal residents of the metropolitan areas in which

the guidance centers are located. This policy has been adopted because of our

belief that it would be inadvisable to relocate offenders in an urban area simply

because there was a guidance center available. In addition, we have found that

community leaders are willing to accept the guidance center for young men from

their own area but are reluctant to accept offenders whose homes are in other

cities.

While the program provided at the four centers varies to some degree there is

a basic uniformity in the program design. In general, the project can be divided

into three basic areas:

1. Employment placement.

2. Individual and group counseling.

3. Introduction to community agencies and resources.

Shortly after a young man arrives at the center, the employment placement

officer on the staff begins assisting him in locating employment and, in most

instances, is able to place him on a job within 2 weeks. As soon as a youngster

is placed on a job, he begins working on a full-time basis, returning to the center

in the evening following work. He is permitted to spend part of his earnings

for personal needs and is required to place the remainder in a savings account.

The guidance centers have a caseworker on the staff who is responsible for both

the individual and group counseling program. The primary focus of the counseling program is on assisting the youths in solving the problems they encounter on

the job and in the community. On several evenings each week, the center staff

assists the residents in planning leisure-time activities which will introduce them

to a wide variety of programs and interests. Activities included are dances

sponsored by community agencies, athletic events, and a variety of recreational

programs.

In order to gradually move the guidance center residents back into their homes,

and neighborhoods, a progressive system of weekend privileges has been established.

One of the best illustrations of such problems center around the tremendous

anxieties and fears released offenders have when they leave the institutions.

Many of the men who come to the guidance centers are very hesitant to venture

out into the community initially and actually attempt to escape from their

fears by remaining in the center as much as possible. Others may put on a facade

of bravado in an attempt to corer up their basic feelings of inadequacy and

anxiety.

Jack was about as seriously handicapped a boy as we ever had to take over

from other agencies. Coming as he did from a home broken by alcoholism and

poverty no one much cared what happened to him when he lost the use of his

arms and shoulders due to infantile paralysis. Among the almost innumerable

operations he had had was a facial transplant. He became rebellious and hostile

and of course used his handicaps as a crutch and excuse for stealing and forgery.

Finally, of course, he was committed and we tried to help him at our medical

center without too much success. We decided, however, to try him at our Los

Angeles guidance center. At first he gave us a pretty hard time. But later he

changed and one day he said to his counselor, "I like this center. I have lived in

orphans homes, in foster homes, with relatives and there was no feeling for me at

all. Now, I finally am home and found that there are people who really care."

This change came when we finally got him a job in a photographic studio. This

turned out to be Jack's dish. He really liked the work, developed some real talent,

and now we think he's on the high road to success, and incidentally, having

married and become a father, and continuing to earn something over $400 a month.

He goes back to the center occasionally and tells the other boys the joys of being

a square.

It is a little too early to make a conclusive evaluation of our experience but

everything seems to indicate the guidance centers have been most helpful. The

Brooklyn guidance center has had 88 residents of whom 45 have been discharged

and up to now have not relapsed. Eighteen we found were not yet ready for

release and have been returned for further training at an institution. Please do

not conclude this group committed another offense. They did not. We felt that

they needed a little more training, or psychotherapy or to complete some vacational course. We know of only two who have actually committed another

offense. However you figure it, this has been a pretty good record if you remem-

• ber that almost half of those who are discharged without guidance get into trouble

again before their parole period expires.

1.•
PRISONER WORK RELEASE 35

Now what we can do with young men can also be done I am sure with women.

As a matter of fact, I think the need is even greater for women. To be sure there

are relatively much fewer women in prison than men but their problems of community adjustment are more serious. Many of them have been rejected by their

families and friends, if they ever had any. There are fewer job opportunities

available to them. Many are not acceptable as marriage partners by any selfrespecting man because of the kind of sex lives they have lived. I have noticed,

too. that proportionately they have more mental and physical handicaps.

All of this clearly means that women are in greater need of help if they are to

overcome their handicaps, their fears, and the urge for "the one big night" they

have been dreaming about as one dreary day followed another. I do not need in

this presence, I am sure, to illustrate these understandable temptations or cite

particular cases. You know them. You also know that in the case of many

female offenders their basic problem is some social inadequacy. They are the

female alcoholics, sex deviates, mental defectives, and the physically unfit.

These are the grist of our women's institutions. They need help and help not of

the prayerful 'go thou and sin no more" type but practical, down-to-earth aid,

support and guidance. A decent meal, a clean bed and new hair-do or brassiere

could make a world of difference. And they need all these at the peril point

which is when they are ready for release.

It's all very well to seek that support through volunteers. Many of these whom

I personally know have done magnificent bits of personal charity that way but

after a while they get tired or something else attracts their energies.

Sincere volunteers can always be useful but after all reintegrating hard cases

of the kind I have in mind into the community is a public responsibility. Discharging it fully pays large dividends in crime prevention and human values

as well. No better way to fulfill this responsibility can be found, I believe, than

through establishing a "halfway house" for women here in Boston where so

many pioneering and rewarding experiments in human betterment were undertaken. I wish you well and pledge my assistance.

Senator LONG. Anything else?

(Statement of James V. Bennett follows:)

STATEMENT OF JAMES V. BENNETT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN BAR

ASSOCIATION

It is a great privilege for me to appear today before the distinguished members

of this committee. They have helped me, and they have helped the Bureau of

Prisons tremendously over the years. The abiding interest of the members of

this committee in the work of our Federal prisons has been a source of reassurance

and strength to me, as I am sure it must be to my able successor, Myrl E. Alexander.

I am particularly pleased to be able to testify on S. 1808. One of my last official

acts as Director of the Bureau of Prisons last August was to send & preliminary

draft of the bill to the Attorney General, with a recommendation that it be added

to the legislative calendar of the Department of Justice. The bill has been somewhat refined since that time, and as introduced by the members of this committee,

it is ready for congressional approval. I urge that approval.

But I appear as a witness today not as the former director of the Bureau of

Prisons, nor as an individual with a personal interest in this bill (although I

cannot deny that both of these circumstances make it a most gratifying occasion.)

I am really here as a representative of the American Bar Association to report to

you that the board of governors of the ABA, meeting this week in Puerto Rico,

have endorsed S. 1808 and recommended its enactment. This action was taken

at the request of the section on criminal law, which is of the opinion that the bill

would have a beneficial effect on the administration of justice in this country.

We suggested that the bar association approve this bill as being entirely in line

with their renewed interest in improving the administration of the criminal law.

Our president, Mr. Lewis F. Powell, Jr., has made the prevention of crime and

the modernization of the criminal law the primary objective of his incumbency.

There is no need for me to outline the provisions of the bill. That has already

been done quite effectively. Nor need I assure you of the competence of the

Federal prison system to carry out the purposes of the bill intelligently and effectively. The members of the committee are highly qualified to make this judgment' themselves. They have already seen the camps and open institutions at

which a substantial number of Federal prisoners already serve sentences under

conditions of trust. They have already observed the techniques and methods by
36 PRISONER WORK RELEASE

which Federal prison personnel study and analyze inmates in connection with decisions assigning them to various types of institutions and various types of programs. The skill of the Federal prison system in this respect has been demonstrated over a period of many years with scores of thousands of prisoners.

The need for the procedures provided by the bill—work release, community

treatment centers, and emergency leave—became quite apparent to me over the

35 years that I served with the Federal prison system. We eventually obtained

authority of this kind in dealing with juveniles and youths, as provided in the

broad language of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and the Federal Youth

Corrections Act. The programs have worked successfully, particularly the

guidance centers, and it is time to extend the authority to adult prisoners, subject to the discretion of prison administrators.

At least two procedures of the bill—the work release program and the community centers—meet a long-existing need for some treatment device intermediate between the institutions and the community. Statistics and case

histories show that the exprisoners who get back into trouble usually do so within

the first few weeks after they get out of prison.

As Director of the Bureau of Prisons, I received a great many personal letters

from inmates telling me of the difficulties that they encountered upon their

release. I am very well aware that some of these inmates generated their own

difficulties. But I know too that some of them ran into highly unfortunate

situations. Sometimes their families wanted nothing more to do with them.

All too often no one would hire them because of their prison records. Their

money ran out within a few days. They became down and out and looked it,

and the police kept picking them up on suspicion. Before long they were back

in trouble. And back in prison.

I have listened to many a sad story from those who made the hasty decision to

try to solve their problems by stealing again. I have known exprisoners who

became so desperate and demoralized that they came back to the institution and

begged to be readmitted before they were forced back to crime. I have had

exprisoners come to my office on many occasions over the years, to ask for help

in getting a job, a meal, another chance.

The basic purpose of S. 1808 is really to insure another chance for those prisoners

who have proved themselves worthy of another chance.

The bill is in no sense a "mollycoddling" proposal. The prisoners given these

privileges will have to live up to a high standard of responsibility. They will still

remain under many restrictions. They will still live in an institution. They will

still bear the stigma of a conviction. They will still have to earn their way back

as a fully acceptable member of society.

The bill asks only that the Bureau of Prisons be given the authority to exercise

the same flexibility in developing correctional programs for qualified adult offenders

that is already exercised for juvenile and youthful offenders. The latter compose

the most unstable element of the Federal prison population, yet the new procedures have worked out very successfully for them and with little risk to the

community. There would be even less risk with the application of these procedures to adult prisoners chosen under the refined classification procedures that

you have observed in practice at the Federal institutions.

I very much appreciate the opportunity of appearing today as a representative

of the American Bar Association. I know that the bill will receive prompt and

sympathetic consideration. I compliment the committee for its foresight in

helping to develop this legislation and I wish also to express my thanks for all that

the committee has done to encourage progress and innovation in the field of corrections. The enactment of S. 1808 will be another high achievement in the interests of law enforcement and the welfare of our society.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION BOARD OF GOVERNORS,

MAY 25, 1965

Resolved, That the American Bar Association urges the Congress of the United

States to enact S. 1808, or H.R. 6964, 89th Congress (identical bills), or similar

legislation which would facilitate the rehabilitation of persons convicted of offenses

against the United States; be it further

Resolved, That the section of criminal law be authorized to present the views

of the American Bar Association to the appropriate committees of Congress on

such proposed legislation.

Senator LONG. The committee will be adjourned. offirilY7

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitle *atter 4

was adjourned.)

0

1,11-

1965