n

. J 8 ? /l 

9 3 - 2 4 - C O R R E C T I O N S

W 0$ US 

1

M

'K

GOVERNMEM

? *\ # r"" ^ ? '■’*“

Storage

I 1 6 1Q74

K A N S A S S T A . - U .\ iV u r iS I T Y HEARING 

BEFO RE T H E

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COUBTS, CIV IL LIBERTIES, 

AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

OF T H E

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY -THIRD CON GRESS 

SECOND SESSION

ON

COR RECTIONS

JANU AR Y 24, 1974

Serial No. 24

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

28-391

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF ICE 

WASHINGTON : 1974
•

CO MMIT TE E ON TH E JU D IC IA R Y

P E T E R W. RODIN O, J r., New Jersey, Ch airm an

H ARO LD D. DONOH UE, Massachusetts 

JA CK BRO O K S, Texas 

R O B E R T W. K A ST E N M E IE R , Wisconsin 

DO N ED W AR DS, California 

WI LL IAM L. HUN GA TE , Missouri 

JOHN C O N Y E R S , Jr., Michigan 

JO SH UA E IL B E R G , Penn sylvania 

JE RO ME R. W AL DI E, California 

W ALTER FL OW ER S, Alabama 

JAME S R. MAN N, South Carolina 

P A U L S. SA R B A N E S, Maryland 

JOH N F. SE IB E R LIN G , Ohio 

G E O R G E E. DANIE LS O N , California 

R O B E R T F. D R IN A N , Massachusetts 

C H A R LE S B. R A N G E L, New York 

B A R B A R A JO RD AN , Texas 

R A Y TH O R N TO N , Arkansas 

E LIZ A B E T H HOL TZ MAN , New York 

W AYN E OW ENS, Utah 

EDW AR D M EZVIN SKY, Iowa

EDW ARD H U TCH IN SO N , Michigan 

R O B E R T M cC LO R Y, Illinois 

H E N R Y P. SM ITH III , New Yo rk 

CH A R LE S W. SA NDM AN , Jr„ New Jersey 

TO M R A IL SB A C K , Illinois 

C H A R LE S E. W IG GI NS , California 

D A VID W. DEN N IS , Indiana 

HAM IL TO N FI SH , Jr„ New Yo rk 

W IL EY M A YN E, Iowa 

LA W R EN CE J. HOGAN , Maryland 

M. CA LD W E LL B U T L E R , V irginia 

WILLIAM S. CO II EN , Maine 

T R E N T LO T T, Mississippi 

H AR O LD V. FR O EH LIC H , Wisconsin 

CA R LO S J. M OO RH EA D, Califo rnia 

JO SE PH J. M AR AZ 1T I, Ne w Jersey

Jerome M. Z eif ma n, Ge nera l Cou nse l

G arner J. Cli ne, Ass oc iate Ge ner al Cou nse l

Her be rt F uchs, Cou ns el

Her be rt E. Hoff man, C ou nse l

William P. Shattu ck, Cou nse l

H. C hris toph er Nolde, Cou ns el

Alan A . P ar ke r, Cou ns el

Jam es F. F alco, Cou ns el

Maurice A. Bar bo za, Cou nse l

F ranklin G. Pol k, Cou ns el

Roge r A. Pau le y, Cou ns el

T homas E. Moo ne y, Cou ns el

Pet er T . Str au b, Cou nse l

Michael W. Bi.om me r, Cou nse l

A le xa nd er B. C oo k, Cou nse l

S u b c o m m it te e on C o u r t s, C iv il L ib e r t ie s , an d t h e Ad m in is tr a tio n of

J u st ic e

R O B E R T W. K A ST E N M E IE R , Wisconsin, Ch airm an

G E O R G E E. DA NIE LS O N , California 

R O B E R T F. D R IN A N , Massachusetts 

W AYN E OW ENS, Utah

EDW AR D M EZ VIN SK Y, Iowa

TO M R A IL SB A C K , Illinois 

H E N R Y P. SM ITH III , New Yo rk 

CH A R LE S W. SA NDM AN , Jr., New Jersey 

WILLIAM S. CO H EN , Maine

Her be rt F uchs, Cou nse l

William P. D ixo n, C ou nse l

B ruce A. L eh ma n, Cou nse l

T homas E. Moo ne y, Ass oc ia te Cou ns el

i II)
C O N T E N T S

Testimony of—

Pepper, Hon. Claude, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Florida______________________________________________ 1

Additional information—

Prepared statem ent of Hon. Claude Pepper_____________________ 27

(m)

CORRECTIONS

T H U R SD A Y , JA N U A R Y 24 , 19 74

H o u se of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

S ubco m m it tee on C o u rts, C iv il L ib e r t ie s ,

an d t h e A d m in is tra tio n of J u st ic e

of t h e C om m it tee on t h e J u d ic ia ry,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 

2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert M. Kastenmeier 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, Danielson, Owens, Mezvinskv, Railsback, Smi th, and Cohen.

Also present: William P. Dixon, counsel; Bruce A. Lehman, counsel; 

and Thomas E. Mooney, associate counsel.

Mr. K a st e n m e ie r. The Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, 

and the Administration of Justice is meeting this morning for the 

purpose of hearing testimony on the subject of corrections. Our 

witness is the distinguished Representative from Florida, the Honorable Claude Pepper, a friend of every member of this committee.

As chairman of the Select Committee on Crime which was created 

by the 91st Congress, and which functioned until June of last year, 

Mr. Pepper was responsible for conducting a most important and farreaching investigation of crime and our criminal justice system. 

During tha t period, apa rt from their extensive duties related to all 

areas of crime, the select committee visited seven correctional institutions and heard testimony from leading correctional authorities, 

corrections officials, inmates, and others concerned with the issues 

involving corrections today.

The select committee issued two major reports on corrections constituting a valuable contribution to the legislative literature on the 

subject. So it is with a great deal of personal pleasure that 1 welcome 

the distinguished chairman of that committee, Mr. Pepper, appearing 

before our committee today.

TESTIMONY OF HON. CLAUDE PE PP ER , A RE PR ES EN TA TIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM TH E STA TE OF FLO RID A

Mr. P e p p e r . Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members 

of the committee.

First, let me express my appreciation for the opportunity to be here 

today on behalf of myself and the former members of the House 

Select Committee on Crime to lay before this distinguished legislative 

subcommittee the experience and the recommendations of our select 

committee in respect to this very critical matter of correctional 

(1)
2

institutions and the problem of crime and its curbing and prevention 

in our country.

Your distinguished subcommittee has already done a very creditable 

job. And I know tha t in the period ahead you are going to make a 

significant contribution to trying to reduce the number of people who 

get into careers in crime, to try to make the correctional system of the 

country as much of a deterrent as it possibly and properly can be, 

and at the same time make it as effectively as possible an instrumentality to prevent recidivism, the repeating of the commission of crime by 

the people who have been incarcerated in these institutions.

From a task force report of the President’s Commission on Law 

Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, there is a little 

summary as to the magnitude of the correctional system tha t we have 

in this country. It says:

The American correctional system is an extreme ly diverse amalgam of facilities, 

theories, techniques and programs. It handles nearly 1.3 million offenders on an 

average day; it has 2.5 million admissions in the course of a year, and its annual 

operating budget is over a billion dollars.

Now, th at is Federal, State, and local.

So we see something of the magnitude of this correctional system 

with which your distinguished subcommittee is dealing.

In addition to that, it might be well to note, in general, who these 

people are; a little bit of a description of who these people are tha t 

make up the inmates of these correctional institutions. 1 have some 

figures here that are taken from the Bureau of Census report of 1970 

saying tha t in prisons and reformatories there are 130,619 persons 25 

years and older of both sexes confined. I notice that about 40 percent 

of those people have had an elementary school education, tha t is, from 

1 to 4 years, 5 to 7 years, and as much as 8 years. About 40 percent 

have not had any elementary school education at all. And about 

50 percent have had from 1 to 3 and 4 years or more of high school 

education—roughly 50 percent.

The study, to which 1 averred, of the President’s commission 

indicates something of the skill level of these people who are in our 

correctional institutions. There is a comparison between the economic 

attributes or the vocational activities of the general population as 

compared with the people who are inmates of our correctional institu ­

tions.

For example, professional and technical workers make up 10 percent 

of our general population, but only 2 percent of the prison population, 

tha t is, only 2 percent have come from the group of professional and 

technical workers.

Managers and owners of enterprises, including farms, in the general 

population are 16 percent. In the prison population, they are only 4 

percent.

Clerical and sales activities, in the general population 14 percent of 

the people are involved, while in the prison population only 7 percent 

have had that kind of a background.

Craftsmen, including foremen in the general population, are 10 

percent; in the prison population, 17 percent.

Operatives, there is a little excess—I do not know just what the 

term “operative” means, I suppose people generally employed in
factories—21 percent in the general population, 25 percent in the 

prison population.

Now, service workers, including household workers, make up 6 

percent of the general population, and 11% percent of the prison 

people come from tha t category. In other words, practically twice as 

many were from this lower skill area of employment. And I think this 

is a significant figure.

In the general population, 11 percent are laborers, and we know 

tha t tha t is generally the lowest skill, the lowest paid segment of our 

employed population. In the prison population, 32 percent ol the 

people come from tha t group.

So we see, what we are dealing with primarily is a group of people 

with a relatively poor education and relatively few skills to enable 

them to make an adequate livelihood in a competitive, economic 

society such as we have in this country.

Now, in addition to that, we have the general figure—and I will 

refer to this a little bit later here—that roughly half of the people 

who are arrested for crime in this country are under 25 years of age.

So tha t the crime population, the people who commit crime in the 

country, relatively come from two major categories: the young people 

moving into the crime category, anti the people who have already 

been convicted of crime moving back into a free society and becoming 

recidivists, repeaters in the commission of crime.

Chief Justice Burger, speaking in New York a year or two ago, 

used the figure 75—that 75 percent of the people who are convicted 

of crime and incarcerated in penal institutions are later, and usually 

within a relatively short time, rearrested and serve again, again, and 

again, in many instances, in penal institutions because they commit 

crime again and again and again. We know from our figures and 

experience that usually a person commits several crimes before he is 

arrested and convicted.

We had evidence of young men who testified before our committee 

tha t they had committed as many as 100 burglaries before they were 

ever caught and convicted of one.

I went to the Ditchsley Conference last year in England, and the 

British and Americans were discussing our correctional system in our 

two countries, and had some little debate about what should constitute a long term inmate. We generally sort of agreed—we Americans, 

rather, suggested 10 years— that anybody who had a sentence of 10 

years would generally be regarded as a long term inmate.

We both agreed tha t in general the people who were long term 

inmates, both in Britain and in the United States, were serving their 

fourth conviction. They had already been convicted three times before, and successively had been sentenced again and confined again in 

penal institutions. And here they were the fourth time, or rather for 

the fourth conviction, incarcerated again.

So tha t what we are trying to do is to examine the purpose of our 

correctional institutions to determine how we can make them more 

effective in deterring crime, or in preventing people who have committed crime from committing it again.

As a matter of fact, if we could just prevent people who are convicted of crime and incarcerated in penal institutions from committing
4

the second and the third and often the fourth crime, we would make 

an immeasurable impact upon the problem of crime in the United 

States.

Now, the problem of, what do you do to prevent the commission 

of the first crime?

Well, I suppose ever since Cain killed Abel, those in authority have 

been trying to figure what do you do. Ever since that time, public 

authorities and private people who have been the victims of crime have 

been trying to figure out what to do.

We know of course tha t in times past, up until what we call the Age 

of Enlightenment in the 18th Century, those who committed crime 

were dealt with very severely. A t one time in Great Britain I think 

the number of capital offenses was over 100. You could be executed for 

stealing a few shillings, sometimes I believe only a loaf of bread. And 

they tried, sometimes, all sorts of tortures.

My wife and I were traveling in England some time ago, and we 

passed through a little village, and my host pointed out the stocks that 

there were at the intersection of roads, which were a carry-over from 

the old days when they used to confine in the stocks people who had 

committed offenses and subject them to public ridicule and being the 

target of things that the public might throw at them.

So I do not know. I think, of course, tha t the best thing to do in 

trying to prevent the commission of the first crime is to try to have a 

wholesome society. I will speak in a minute about the dropout programs, which I consider most important, and what little our Congress 

has provided in that area.

Mr. Kastenmeier. If I may interrupt, I would like to comment.

It is true, in visiting correctional institutions and talking to prison 

authorities and wardens and institutions, tha t they will say to you that 

the men that they may have imprisoned are those with a proven record 

of failure, tha t they have been given many chances and failed in the 

past, and literally they say, do not expect us in this prison setting to 

provide a miracle in terms of these people who may indeed become 

recidivists.

So going back somewhat earlier in the genesis of how they got there 

is obviously a valuable thing to do, if one wants to analyze this correctly.

Mr. Peppe r. Mr. Chairman, let me first run through these remarks 

tha t I have here, if I may.

For the past 4 years, the Select Committee on Crime has conducted 

an extensive study of crime in the United States. A very important 

phase of our study focused on the working of our correctional systems. 

I know your distinguished subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, has visited 

many institutions and has already done a magnificent job of inquiry 

in this area. The members of the Select Committee on Crime also 

visited correctional institutions in New York, Minnesota, Michigan, 

New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. The committee staff 

interviewed hundreds of potential witnesses and other persons knowledgeable in the field.

Following the riots at Attica State Prison in New York in September 1971, the committe launched a thorough investigation of this 

disturbance and the underlying problems of our correctional system 

which precipitated it.
0

We also investigated the prison disturbance at the Raiford correctional institution in my own State of Florida, the Sta te’s principal 

correctional institution.

During these investigations, we took testimony from more than a 

score of witnesses—including elected officials, prison authorities, 

personnel, members of the academic community, and the inmates 

themselves.

Tn addition to examining some of the failures of our correctional 

systems as indicated by the riots, we looked at examples of successful 

programs of all types. It was our intention to determine the major 

problems of our correctional system as a whole and to make recommendations to the Congress on possible courses of action the Federal 

Government might pursue to remedy them. For it was our firm belief, 

and still is, that the N atio n’s best hope in fighting crime lies in reducing recidivism. And the only way we can accomplish this is by improving the correctional process.

Now, th at includes youth, because ordinarily youth gets repeatedly 

into the commission of crime. Once they become a school dropout, 

then they get into the juvenile justice system, and they tell us tha t 

about half of those who get incarcerated under the juvenile justice 

system later on wind up in the penal institutions of the country.

We can go back, as the distinguished chairman said, and sta rt 

examining these young people as they come through the school sytem 

and try to detect those tha t show a tendency toward aberration tha t 

we call crime and see if we cannot diminish—like a twig that is about 

to grow twisted or crooked—see if we cannot maybe prevent those 

from growing into the character of a criminal.

The Select Committee on Crime also focused on the juvenile correctional system. Juveniles under the age of 25 are responsible for over 

one-half of this country’s criminal arrests. And young offenders under 

20 have the highest recidivism rates of any other age category. Approximately four out of every five young people committed to a correctional institution will one day return. Such a deplorable rate of 

failure convinced the members of our committee tha t any solution to 

the street crime problem depends on our ability to create and utilize 

more effective rehabilitation programs.

Today, I would like to submit for your consideration some of the 

major recommendations of the Select Committee on Crime based 

on our 4 years of intensive investigation and study. I will support 

each recommendation with facts and findings based on our hearings.

First and foremost, we recommend paying the State and localities 

one-half the cost of establishing small community-based facilities and 

programs to replace their large, antiquated correctional institutions. 

The facilities would be urban-centered and have a capacity of no 

more than 300 to 400.

Let me state, Mr. Chairman, that we do not contemplate continuing 

Federal payment for the operation of these institutions, but in order 

to encourage the States and the local communities to get away from 

the Atticas and the Raifords, to start these small community-based 

300 to 400 population institutions, tha t the Federal Government, in 

order to encourage their doing that, would put up half of the cost of 

construction.

28-391—74------2
6

Mr. K astenmeier. This would be similar to the plan in California— 

the California subsidies plan?

Mr. Pepper. Yes.

Mr. Kastenmeier. Whereby, getting away from centralizing 

prisons, they turn prisons back to communities and turn subsidies 

back to communities to handle offenders?

Mr. Pepper. Exactly right.

Once established, the States and the communities can pay the cost 

of operating these facilities, we assume—I think they can. But every 

one of them has a problem in its own budget.

For example, on our way up to Attica, we stopped and had an 

interview with Governor Rockefeller of New York. Very soon in the 

inteview, Governor Rockefeller said, “Gentlemen, you do not need 

to tell me of the need for rehabilitating and modernizing the correctional institutions system of New York, I am as well aware of tha t as 

anybody.” But he turned to the chairman of the State Crime Committee in the State Senate, I believe, who was there, and he said, 

“Senator, how much do you think it would cost for us to modernize 

the correctional institutional system of New York?” And they agreed 

tha t it would probably cost $200 million.

He said, “We do not have $200 million. We already have a deficit 

budget here. Where is the money coming from?”

And so, in spite of all the trouble he had in Attica and in spite of 

all the trouble we had in Raiford, we are just making a very stumbling 

progress toward providing some adequate alternative for those 

institutions.

At the time violence erupted, Attica prison housed over 2,200 inmates, and Raiford over 3,000. You know we had violence break out 

down there—not as bad as Attica—but we had at tha t time over 

3,000 in an institution which was supposed to contain only about 

1,500 people.

By the way, a witness before our committee one day was a State 

judge in Florida who went into the institution as an observer and 

stayed overnight there. He told about one instance of seeing a young 

man—I judged a teenager around 19 or 20 years old—standing at a 

certain place there in that prison. He had white coveralls on, and there 

was blood all on the front of his clothes and on his hands. He had 

mutilated an organ of his own body there.

That kind of a man was running loose, and just confined there in 

that institution.

Both Attica and Raiford are located in small rural towns quite 

removed from the homes of the majority of inmates. Repeatedly, 

witnesses pointed to the size and overcrowded conditions at these 

institutions as principal reasons for their insuing trouble. With such 

large inmate populations, the emphasis in the correctional institutions 

necessarily shifted from rehabilitation and treatment to security and 

regimentation.

By the way, the head of the prison testified before your committee 

and said, gentlemen, I know how to run a prison as well as anybody, I 

am knowledgeable in tha t subject, but I did not have any money, the 

legislature did not give me any money.

And they did not have a single man in charge of a recreational program for the institution. They had very few people involved in training
or educational programs and the like. As I will point out, they spent 

62 percent of their time, the inmates, sitting in their cells. Moreover, 

communication between inmate and staff, and even among the staff 

members themselves, appeared to break down.

The remote location of the prisons was also cited as an important 

reason for their difficulties. According to the superintendent of Attica 

at the time, the isolation of the institution made it extremely difficult 

to att ract a racially-balanced corrections staff. While the inmate 

population was 55 percent black and 7 percent Puerto Rican, there 

was only one black and one Puerto Rican on the entire 540-man 

prison staff.

At Raiford, 60 percent of the population was black, while there were 

only three black guards. In addition, the typical guard in both these 

institutions was in his mid-fifties and from the surrounding rural 

area, while the typical inmate was under 25 and from the city. Thus, 

few staff members had the ability or the background to understand 

and communicate with the majority of the inmate population.

Mr. Danielson. May I ask a question on tha t point?

Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. Danielson.

Mr. Danielson. You said the staff were in their mid-fifties and 

from rural areas, whereas the inmates were—what?

Mr. Peppe r. Under 25 and ordinarily from urban areas.

Mr. Danielson. Since the prison was located in a rural area, I 

think it is safe to assume tha t the personnel would be residing in the 

same rural area.

Mr. Peppe r. That is right.

Mr. Danielson. Are we justified in inferring from tha t tha t they 

also came from the rural area

Mr. Peppe r. That is right.

Mr. Danielson. Or could they have been recruited from the urban 

area?

Mr. Pepper. In Attica and Raiford, the guards lived around there, 

and not many blacks who were qualified to be guards lived there.

Mr. Danielson. Did they come from urban areas?

Mr. Peppe r. By and large they came from rural areas. Attica is a 

small town. You do not find many Puerto Ricans or black people 

living there. A few guards come there from other parts of the State, 

but in general they recruit them there.

The remote location of the prisons also made it difficult to find onthe-job training or employment opportunities for qualified inmates.

At Attica, for example, only six inmates out of the total population 

were on the work-release program at the time of the riot. According 

to prison officials, there were too few job opportunities in the small 

town of Attica, and Buffalo was too far away to commute.

In addition, the remoteness of these institutions made it difficult 

for families and friends to visit the inmates, thus depriving them of 

necessary support and encouragement during their time of incarceration. fc1

Unfortunately, in our investigation we found that Attica and 

Raiford were typical of too many of our so-called correctional facilities, 

Even in our Federal system, a quarter of the prisoner population is 

confined in institutions built over a century ago, and most of the 

major State institutions were built in the last century. And the rest 

are confined in institutions now operating at or above capacity.
8

I’ive years ago, the President’s Crime Commission recommended 

the phasing-out of these large ineffective facilities and replacing them 

with small community-based facilities and programs. We make the 

same recommendation today and ask for the added incentive of 

financial assistance to the States and localities to make this transition.

Community-based facilities and programs have been tried in a 

number of States and communities, and have proven successful. We 

have heard testimony from a number of heads of State departments 

of corrections who claim tha t these small community-centered 

facilities and programs are better suited to the individual'offender’s 

needs, are more humane, and are less expensive to operate.

Dr. Jerome Miller gave very important testimony on the subject. 

As head of the Department of Youth Services in Massachusetts, Dr. 

Miller in 1971 closed down all of that S tate’s traditional correctional 

institutions for juveniles.

1 oday, Massachusetts operates a range of community-based 

facilities and programs, such as group homes, halfway houses, and 

innovative probation programs in lieu of the traditional reformatory 

or training school.

As Dr. Miller explained to the committee, the juvenile correctional 

system as it was constructed in Massachusetts was nothing but a 

school for crime. And the President I think was right a year or two 

ago when he described the correctional institutions of this country 

in general as colleges for crime rather than correctional institutions.

I saw a t Attica a 19-year-old boy back there in a cell. What can you 

expect from tha t boy, associated with some of the worst criminals in 

the country there in tha t institution, having to be there in tha t kind 

of an environment?

Juvenile corrections in Massachusetts was based on large institutions 

tha t were impervious to change and incapable of responding to the 

needs of the young people they were supposed to help. As a result 

recidivism rates for juveniles were close to 80 percent, despite the 

fact Massachusetts taxpayers were paying up to $36,000 a year just 

to incarcerate one juvenile. Moreover, according to Miller, very few 

of the youngsters placed in these institutions were a threat to public 

safety. Many were there on juvenile status offenses, such as running 

away and truancy, not considered crimes if committed by adults.

As Dr. Miller told us, for what it costs to keep a youngster in a 

training school under that program, you could send him to the Phillips 

Exeter Academy, provide him with individual analytic therapy, 

give him a $50 allowance and send him to Europe in the summer, anti 

still have money left over. So we are talking about economy not only 

in lives and in careers, but in money, when we talk about modernizing 

these institutions. In his words, tha t is what Massachusetts was 

spending on a “system which generally is a failure and generally 

makes things worse rathe r than better.”

Under the new system, a young offender is first committed to a 

regional office where his problems are diagnosed and a determination 

is made regarding appropriate rehabilitation resources. He then may 

be sent to a range of community-based alternatives, such as a halfway 

house, group home, State-run conservation camp, or a drug treatm ent 

center. If he has severe psychiatric problems and his behavior is a
clear threa t to public safety, he would be sent to a private locked 

psychiatric hospital or other closed, secure setting.

An important feature of the Massachusetts program is tha t it 

gives a judge a wide spectrum of sentencing alternatives. All too 

often our judges have been hampered by the lack of available tre atment options—to the detriment of the offender and society both. 

Most commonly, he has had two choices—sentencing the youth to a 

training school, frequently an overkill approach, or placing him on 

probation, which is often too lenient.

The committee also received testimony on the operation of community-based facilities for juveniles from correctional officials in 

Florida, Minnesota, and Kansas, all of which offered innovative 

approaches to dealing with juvenile offenders. All of these concurred 

with Dr. Miller tha t operating community-based facilities was much 

less expensive than maintaining large institutions. However, they 

stressed tha t the period of transition was particularly expensive and 

tha t Federal assistance a t this time would be very helpful.

One of the most stimulating experiences tha t I had was to visit 

Red Wing, an institution tha t some of you and your staff have been 

out to-----

Mr. Kastenmeier. No, we have not been there.

Mr. Pepper. Well, tha t institution was so bad, prior to the in stitution of this modern system, tha t the community gathered together 

and demanded tha t the Government and the head of the correctional institution of the State come down there, because the boys 

were breaking out, leaving, stealing cars, breaking in homes ami 

robbing, and doing all sorts of things.

Mr. Kastenmeier. Was this, Mr. Pepper, a State facility?

Mr. Pepper. It is a State facility.

Mr. Kastenmeier. As opposed to the Federal facility at Sandstone, Minn.

Mr. Pepper. I am talking about the State one at Red Wing.

Well, a professor from the University of Minnesota, who had been 

head of the correctional system of Kentucky, installed this new 

system. They live in groups of 10 in small buildings. I t is no t locked 

up. The place does not have a fence around it. There are a few in an 

institution nearby where there is a fence around it, and they are locked. 

But the great majority are free to leave when they want to. They have 

about 20 to a house, never more than two to a room. They live together 

and work together and go to school together and all that. In tha t 

institution they have applied a principle of group therapy. The group 

of 10 is an entity. They work together.

Somehow they have appealed to one of the noblest instincts there 

is in the human heart, and that is the desire to help somebody. They 

somehow or other arouse in each one of those boys a desire to try to 

help the other person, his primary motivation is to try to help Jim 

ami Tom and Bill and these other fellows.

One of my committee members and I sat in one evening at one of 

these 7 p.m. meetings th at the group of 10 had. One of the investigators 

sat up at the desk and in a low key manner, just in the most vague 

way, sort of supervised their consultation. But they somehow or 

another get so much involved, and so deeply do they feel the desire
10

to help one another, and they get seemingly so much streng th from 

that association, th at they had one boy who was released—and by the 

way, the permission of the group generally determines when a boy 

gets away, the management generally recognizes the recommendation 

of the group—one boy had been away about 3 weeks, ami he called 

back up to a friend of his who was still in his group and he said, listen, 

I am getting scared of myself, I am slipping. Will you see if it would be 

all right for me to come back and stay a little while more? I need some 

more help.

And they arranged for that boy to go back and he went back and 

rejoined his group and stayed for about 10 days, lie said, all right, 

now, I think I can make it.

But tha t is the kind of thing, instead of beating them over the 

head, or brutalizing them, or subjecting them to some sort of a 

barbarity, they were able to get better results, and the rate of recidivism is immeasurably lower there than in the ordinary institutions.

In recommending tha t we provide such assistance to the States, 

I would like to emphasize tha t the Federal Government would only 

be responsible for paying 50 percent of the cost of getting the programs 

initiated. The State and local authorities would be responsible for the 

other 50 percent and the cost of continued operation.

In addition, I would like to make quite clear tha t we recommend 

tha t the States make use of existing facilities in their communities as 

much as possible and not embark on any new construction campaign. 

It is not brick and mortar tha t we need, it is people, personnel, and 

the right kind of system in the country. Old hospitals, Government 

buildings, and residences are often available and would be just as 

suitable as new buildings. For success will depend on the quality of 

correctional programs and staff, not on the physical design of the 

building.

Now, Florida is beginning this experiment. We are getting a few 

of these built. And I think if your distinguished committee could 

recommend a Federal program to s tart—let the State s tart, and then 

keep statistics on what residts you get from this kind of an institution 

located in an urban area where they will have an opportunity to go 

out and get a job, and where there will be a small number of people 

confined, where more protection can be given to the individual incarcerated there, and perhaps less sexual abuse of the inmates by 

other inmates, and I think tha t it can be a pioneer program in the 

modernization of the whole prison system of this country.

Our second recommendation is that the Federal Government 

financially assist the States in training and educating inmates and 

finding them proper jobs upon release.

In this context, the committee also supports the removal of restrictive legislation that prevents prison industries from manufacturing 

and selling convict-made goods on the open market.

In my prepared script it was an error not to include the additional 

recommendation tha t tha t is conditioned upon the prevailing wage 

being paid to the workers. There are about 50 percent of the State 

inmates are working in the institutions. But even under a lot of the 

State laws, you cannot sell the products in ordinary commerce.

I prefer the location of these institutions of small size in urban 

areas where there is a job available right in the community for those
11

th at are found to be worthy to be released du rin g the d ay and to come 

back to the in stitu tio n at nig ht for co nfinem ent. I t seem s to me th at 

with the public interest in the pre venti on of recidivism , th at is, in the 

prevention of crime, and pro vid ed the sa fegu ards th at I speak of are 

throw n around such a course of allowing priso ne rs to work, 1 wou ld 

prefer th at the y work in the comm unity wh ich is alr ead y there.

If y ou ca nn ot do th at , my n ext prefere nce would be for the pub lic, 

the St ate or the Fe de ral Go vernme nt to en courage ind ustries to move 

into the are a which would emp loy prison inmates at the prevailing 

wage. Th e Go vernme nt would no t be op er at in g tho se ind ustries, they 

would be priva tel y op era ted . And there is no reason wh ats oever why 

goods made by those people could no t mov e in in tra- and in tersta te 

com merce as well as goods ma de by an y othe r private enterprise.

Mr. Kasten aieier. Th e gentlem an from Califo rnia.

Mr. Daniel son. Se na tor Pepper, I am in full sy mpa thy with y ou r 

comm ents about work in the comm un ity for tho se prisone rs who are 

qualified to leave the plac e of confi neme nt. Do you know wh eth er 

this has been tried to an y ex tent anywhere?

Mr. P ep pe r. Yes.

Mr. Dan iel son. Wh ere?

Mr. P epp er . As I will me ntion a li tt le bi t later, in South Carolina . 

We h ad the hea d of the S ta te co rre cti on al institu tio n in So uth Caro lina, 

Lee ke. And he came an d told us ab ou t th e So uth Ca rolina experience. 

Th ey have qu ite a n um be r of t he ir inm at es th at are engaged in emp loy ­

men t, wrork release pro gra ms aro un d in the co mm unity . And they let 

them c on tribu te to th eir c ost of keep , an d they pay the priso n for th eir 

cos t of keep , and they p ay th e prison for their b oard and lodging. Th ey 

send some m oney hom e to their fam ilie s. And he had qu ite an impre ssive arra y of figures as to how well th a t pro gra m ha d wor ked out.

Mr. D aniel son. I th in k it is a ve ry wor th y goal to achieve. I am 

ask ing y ou th at questio n in this co ntex t. We are toda y, for example, 

exp erie ncing ag grav ate d un em ploy me nt in man y are as res ultin g from a 

nu mbe r of t hin gs in our e conomy. Hav e you an y inf orma tio n as to the 

response of the co mmun ity or lab or union s and the like to the com ­

pe tition th at t he y would of course h ave for jobs w ith the p ersons from 

the prisons?

Mr. P ep pe r. In none of our hearings where we ha d a nu mbe r of 

people who testified ab ou t these wrnrk relief pro gra ms did an y witne ss— 

we did no t call lab or union s—b ut did an y witness, an y public official, 

ha ving charge of these pro gra ms ever remark ab ou t an y comm unity 

opposition . As a m at te r of fac t, th ey gaine d, ap pa rently, ra th er 

rem arka ble comm un ity acc ept anc e.

You see, if the y w ork ed in private i nd us try in the comm unity , which 

is wha t they w ere doing, they were being pa id the pre vailin g wage in 

the comm unity . And th ey a re people after all, an d th ey ought to have 

a rig ht to work, it seem s to me.

Mr. Dan iel son. I do no t quarr el wTith y ou r philosop hy at all.

Mr. P ep pe r. I know wha t you mean . T he qu est ion mi gh t arise an d— 

and I would n ot see an y opposition to it —wh ere, supp ose a ma n gets a 

job in a place of bus iness where there is a union. I w ould no t see an y 

objec tion to th at indiv idual joining t he unio n ju st like every body else.

Mr. D an iel son. M y quest ion is in a lit tle different conte xt.

Sup pose y ou have 8 percen t unem plo yed , and in this are a y ou h ave 

now person s wdio are tech nic ally at l east prison ers, and they are en ter -
12

ing the job market to compete with those who are unemployed. I think 

this will pose a problem. 1 do not know. But 1 think it is something th at 

we should keep in mind.

On prison-made goods, 1 have had a little experience. I was in the 

State Legislature in California for a long time, and we do have restrictions on what they can make which will compete with nonprison-made 

goods. I think we have prisons making license plates for automobiles. 

And there is a printing plant that makes certain forms used by the 

State government and the like. But beyond tha t you run into tremendous resistance from the regular industrial community because of competition, even for such seemingly specialized things—we had a program 

thinking we could help people if we could make them feel that they 

were helping others less fortunate to make prosthetic devices for the 

crippled, wheelchairs, canes, wooden legs, and glass eyes, any of th at 

sort of thing, which the community has to pay for anyway generally 

through some type of welfare. And even so, the opposition was almost 

unbelievable.

So I think we ought to think of those things.

Mr. Pepper. Mr. Danielson, would you not think the basis of 

that opposition was tha t it was sort of State-m ade goods? You 

see, so long as these goods are made in the prison, the overhead 

is paid by the State or Federal Government, it is not in any sense 

of a word a private enterprise. And so laborers would resent it. Whatever it is, somebody has to make everything, the luxury goods as well 

as the essential goods of the country. And whatever they make would 

compete wdth somebody who is making tha t kind of thing in private 

enterprise.

But I think the secret of how we can overcome that or avoid tha t 

resistance is, rather than paying them the minimum wage in a prison 

where again the overhead would be paid by the government, I would 

prefer tha t you use a work release program in an area round about 

where they could get what jobs were available.

After all, one man is as much entitled to a job as the other who is 

a citizen.

The second thing is to try to encourage private enterprise to move 

into an area where there might be a sizable labor supply available 

in these institutions, but with the definite understanding that it 

would be run as a private enterprise, the prevailing wages will be paid, 

and if they want a union they could have a union as well as anybody 

else.

If we normalize the employment, I think we would avoid a lot of 

the opposition.

Mr. Danielson. The opposition on these prosthetic devices does not 

come from the workers or from the labor unions, it comes from the 

entrepreneurs.

For instance, on wooden legs, artificial legs, it was not from the 

labor unions, it was from the entrepreneurs who had a shop that 

made them for sale, and they did not want competition.

Mr. Pepper. That is wlrot I was just pointing out. But if the fellow 

who makes wooden legs wants to move into a community where there 

are a good many people who could be employees available, and if he 

wants to pay the prevailing wage, let him have a union in that private 

enterprise.
13

If we continue to do the same things we have been doing in this 

area, we are going to get essentially the results we have been getting. 

We have to carry through some innovations, if we are going to make 

our coriectional programs effective.

While we are talking about this subject, I have awhole lot of 

other data which indicates that one of the reasons that these people 

commit additional crime upon release from these institutions is the 

fact th at they do not get a job. I asked one of these inmates at Raiford, 

for example, who was behind these heavy iron doors. 1 said, let me ask 

you something. This terrible place here with all those walls out there 

and those towers at the gates and these heavy doors and all these 

prison rooms tha t you are incarcerated in, goodness knows when a 

man gets out of here, why in the world does he ever come back?

You are cut off from your family, from your normal friends, your 

freedom of choice as to how you live your life. Why do you ever come 

back again as so many do?

Well, he paused a minute and he said, well, it is not so easy to avoid 

coming back. lie said, you know most of us here haven’t had very 

much education, and we don’t have very many skills. And many of us 

who have been here a good long while have lost contact with our 

friends, and in some instances with our families. And sometimes our 

families have become estranged from us while we are here. And he 

said, when we finally get out they give us $40, or whatever it is, and a 

cheap suit of clothes, and we get out to go home. Well, we don’t have a 

job. And incidentally, I believe New York State does restore a man’s 

civil rights as soon as he gets out of prison. In my S tate of Florida I 

think you still have to wait and get it restored by the Governor or the 

pardon board. Anybody who has served his time and gets out ought to 

get his citizenship back and have a chance to start over again.

Anyway, he said, we go back home, and we don’t know many people, and maybe our families are broken up. And we look around, and 

the first thing they ask us is, have you ever been in prison. We tell 

them yes, and we don’t get a job.

Most of us would feel reluctance in taking into our office somebody 

who has been a former inmate of a correctional institution for the commission of a crime.

And so he said, in a little bit we get lonesome and the few dollars 

tha t we brought home with us are gone. And we don’t have fixed associations, and we run up on some old pal th at we used to run with, and 

the first thing we know we are back again running with a crowd of 

people who commit crimes, and in a little while we are arrested, and 

here w’e are back again.

It is not an unlikely story.

Our study and investigation convinced the Crime Committee tha t 

productive in-prison job training, education, and employment arc 

absolute prerequisites to effective rehabilitation, and the best way to 

assure th at they can get a job when they get out is for them to have a 

job before they get out. If they do not want to stay in tha t city, they 

can go to another place and say, yes, I had a job doing so and so a t 

such a time, I know how to do that.

Perhaps the greatest single travesty in our correctional system is the 

enforced idleness of a substantia l number of our inmate population. 

1 was shocked to learn tha t 62 percent of the Attica inmates sat idle in

28-39 1— 74 3
14

the ir cells all day long, with no constru cti ve tra ining, no t even rec rea ­

tion. An d I have no d ou bt t hat this idleness was one of the m ajo r con ­

tribu tin g factors to the violence th at e rupted th at week.

Alm ost thr ee-qu art ers of the inm ate s at Atti ca lac ked marke table 

job skills whe n the y entered. Th ey left no be tter off. Th e prison job 

training pro grams which did exist were sim ply too few to go aro un d, 

and often irrele vant to the de ma nds of the ou tside l abor m arke t.

We tal ked to one of the gu ard s at Atti ca ab ou t th at in stitut io n’s 

tra ini ng pro gram. He info rme d us th at althou gh there was a me tal 

shop at A tti ca in which inma tes could receive job tra ining experience, 

it only employed 450 men ou t of the total prison populat ion . More ­

over, wi thin the shop itself, there was no t enough wor k to go around . 

Two or 3 h ours of w ork were sprea d over an 8-to 10-hour day, so th at 

ma ny inm ates spe nt their tim e as m ere onlookers.

Ra ifo rd also lack ed tra ining and job o pportun ities as do m ost of our 

correctional insti tut ion s today. Over a third of our N at io n’s prison 

po pu lat ion of 200,000 sit idle or are assig ned to overm anned ma inten ance details, which req uir e lit tle or no skill. Train ing eq uip ment is 

obsolete, and m ost c orrectional indu str ies sim ply are no t g ear ed to the 

dema nds of the outsid e la bor m ark et.

We he ard th at the y were tra ining the m on some kin d of a print ing 

press th at nobody had used for 50 years in the com mercial est ablishments of the country. It is no wonder the un em plo ym ent ra te for exoffenders is 4 to 5 times the nati on al a vera ge. And i t is no surprise t hat 

recidiv ism ra tes rea ch as hig h a s 80 perc ent.

Studies have shown conclus ivel y th at the postre lease success of an 

offender is dir ectly tied to his ab ility to ge t a nd m ain tai n em plo ym ent 

upo n relea se.

We need to increase the nu mbe r and upgrade the qu ality of institu tio na l work pro grams if we trul y wa nt to see a red uc tio n in our 

recidiv ism rates . The se job s sho uld be suited to inmate population s 

and ref lect the dem and s of the ou tside labor m ark et.

In addit ion , we need to expand on-the-job tra ining op po rtu nitie s, 

involving the priva te sector, suc h as wor k release. According to testimo ny received from William D. Leeke, the director of the South 

Carolina Dep artm en t of Corrections, exper iment al work-relea se 

programs have pro,veil to be ve ry successfu l in lowe ring recidiv ism 

rates. He testifi ed th at since 1968 w hen So uth Carolina b ega n a series 

of com mu nity-b ase d prerele ase cen ters , less th an 10 pe rcen t of the 

people who have successfu lly com ple ted work-re lease pro gra ms have 

return ed to the South Carolina Dep ar tm en t of Corrections for parole 

vio lations or new offenses. So we a re talkin g a bo ut protectin g t he pub lic 

as well as helpin g these people.

Direc tor Leeke also pointed ou t some of the othe r ben efits of work 

release. I t save s the tax payer money . Since the priso ner on work 

release is paid the prevailing w age, he is able to help pa y for h is keep 

in prison, and contr ibu te to the su pp or t of his dependent s, which helps 

keep them off the welfare rolls. Hi s earnings also enable him to put 

asid e a conside rable su m of m oney ag ain st the tim e of his discharge.

In a dditio n, work release gives the offender an op po rtun ity to obta in 

a job whi ch he might be able to kee p upon release, thus helpin g him 

overcom e the difficulties of find ing postprison em plo ym ent . Despite
15

these advantages, however, work-release programs have been implemented in only 24 of our States, and even there on a limited basis.

In order to prepare offenders for the competitive job market of 

today, we must equip them not only -with adequate job skills, but with 

the necessary academic tools as well.

Testimony by Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons Carlson 

revealed tha t 95 percent of the Federal prisoner population lack high 

school diplomas. State prisoners also have a low level of proficiency. 

Eighty percent of the inmates at both Attica and Raiford were high 

school dropouts. Many were functionally illiterate. Despite their 

academic deficiencies, however, there were few opportunities for them 

to improve. The lack of this educational opportunity caused frustration, resentment, and bitterness among the prisoner population. It 

was too clear tha t without a high school diploma and the necessary 

vocational training, postrelease employment opportunities would be 

scarce.

Financial assistance should be made available to any State tha t will 

provide its inmates with an opportunity to at least complete high 

school, if they have not yet done so.

Mr. Chairman, providing meaningful educational and vocational 

training and employment opportunities for offenders is perhaps the 

single most effective step we could take to reduce this Nation’s recidivism rates. Yet budgetary limitations have thwarted even the 

most well-intentioned correctional official. The Federal Government 

should assist the States. It might be expensive, but the cost to us would 

be more than offset by the cost to society of the crimes committed by 

ex-offenders deprived of these opportunities.

I would like to recommend also tha t the Federal Government 

establish a National Corrections Academy for the training of correctional personnel; in other words, to help the State and the Federal 

Government to qualify the kind of people that are able to do an effective job. You know what happens generally. The relatively untrained 

people who are the guards make relatively low incomes, and they are 

not in a position to help very much. The average guard is paid between 

$3,000 and $4,000 a year. You realize, you cannot get much direction 

in rehabilitating people from those people.

We need correctional officers who arc trained and paid in a manner 

consistent with the difficulties and responsibilities of their duties. They 

must be able to communicate and understand the typical young inmate 

of today, should be sensitized to racial discrimination, and should be 

ready and able to participate in rehabilitative as opposed to merely 

custodial programs.

A Federal Corrections Academy would allow us to bring together 

correctional experts from all over the country. The training program 

could be patterned after the highly successful FBI Academy and it 

could serve as a model for our States.

There were a number of other recommendations, Mr. Chairman, 

which I will just summarize.

One, prison riot prevention.

First, we recommend the Federal Government fund the establishment of an Office of S tate Correctional Ombudsman in each State or 

jurisdiction. This office would be funded under part E of the LEAA 

legislation, and its establishment and operation would be required 

before any State could receive its annual LEAA block grant funds.
16

We also recommend the establishment of a National Correctional 

Ombudsman who would perform the same duties on the Federal 

level as the State ombudsman. In addition, the national ombudsman 

would coordinate the activities of the State ombudsman and provide 

them with technical assistance.

In addition, we recommend tha t every State require each of its 

prisons and correctional facilities to have an up-to-date riot and 

disorder control plan tha t has been formulated in concert with State 

and local law enforcement authorities.

Let me just say this in addition. At Attica you remember a helicopter came in over this institution. Here was a vast yard with high 

walls, and these inmates were all down in there, they could no t get 

out. They did have some of the hostages with knives a t their throats. 

And the authorities were fearful tha t those hostages were going to be 

killed. They brought in a group of sharpshooters stationed around 

on the top of the walls or the perimeters of the buildings at elevated 

positions. The theory was that, while the masses of the law enforcement officers rushed into this courtyard, with guns of course, that, to 

prevent these hostages from being killed, the sharpshooters would 

try to shoot each one of the fellows tha t had a knife at a hostage’s neck.

With tha t plan on the part of the law enforcement officers, then the 

helicopter came over and dropped tear gas down upon the inmates 

below. Well, a lot of people told us that immediately the gas came 

up in a cloud and blinded a lot of the sharpshooters, so they could 

not be sure who they were hitting, and a lot of people got killed. And 

of course the officers came in with their guns blazing. And so some 

hostages were killed, and there is some controversy as to whether the 

prisoners killed them or not. Maybe they did kill one or two, b ut a 

number of the hostages seemed to have been shot in the general melee 

tha t ensued.

Though I was in the rear rank of World War I in the Army for a 

while, 1 am not smart in military operations. But it occurred to me—I 

tried it out on a few’ high officials in the Marine Corps where they 

have these good armed helicopter slops and gun ships—tha t if instead 

of th at gas helicopter coming over and dropping gas, if a gunship with 

a few good officers up there with machineguns—the men down below 

didn’t have a single weapon tha t could go higher than they could 

throw a little rock—if they had come right in over there and all of a 

sudden hovered down over them and said, we have got yoti covered, 

if any hostages throat is cut we will shoot everybody in the area where 

the act occurred, immediately I think they would have become 

aware of their helplessness tha t they would have—if they had said, 

everybody lie down, we will shoot everybody standing up they would 

have done it.

What 1 am saying is, Federal training in dealing with those situations, if we had been prepared properly beforehand, maybe we could 

have diminished the tragedy of these things.

This would be a requirement for receipt of funds under parts C and 

E of the LEAA legislation.

The role of the ombudsman would be to serve as an impartial arbiter 

in all correctional disputes, and to investigate and report on all 

complaints from inmates, probationers, and parolees. His purpose,
17

quite simply, would be to help resolve prisoner grievances on a dayby-day basis before they reached crisis proportions.

A breakdown in communications almost always precedes a riot. 

Hopefully, if we can improve communications within the prison 

between inmates and staff and between staff and correctional officials 

themselves, we can prevent future Atticas. If a riot should occur, 

however, we should make sure our States are prepared to handle it 

in a coordinated, efficient way without bloodshed.

Then prison rules and regulations.

You may recall the moment when one of the leaders of the Attica 

revolt cried, “' We don’t want to rule, we want to live, bu t if we cannot 

live like people, let us at least try to die like men.” A correctional 

system tha t robs a man of his dignity cannot possibly rehabilitate 

him. It merely alienates and embitters him and creates a climate ripe 

for violence.

Accordingly, the Select Committee on Crime recommends tha t 

correctional policies be formulated—on the Federal, State, or local 

level—which attempt to enhance the dignity, worth, and self-confidence of inmates, ra ther than debasing and dehumanizing them.

We urge our prison system to adopt simple written rules regarding 

prison discipline and the penalties for infraction, and to provide that 

no inmate be disciplined except in accordance with these rules.

We urge the prison systems to review existing policies regarding 

mail censorship and eliminate or relax those not bearing directly upon 

prison security. There is no reason why a man cannot get ordinary 

mail in a prison.

And, most importantly, we urge the elimination of unfair parole 

procedures. All grants or denials of parole must be made on the basis 

of clear and comprehensive standards which are made known by the 

inmates. They must be notified promply as to the decision and given 

reasons for any denial.

And then I have mentioned already tha t 1 thought every prisoner 

who is released lawfully from his institution should immediately be 

restored to his full civil rights. So he is a man again, and he is given 

an opportunity again as a citizen. And it should be emphasized to him 

that he is a citizen again; he has the responsibilities and the opportunities of a citizen.

In respect to juvenile correction, our principal recommendation 

is tha t the States follow the lead of Massachusetts and abolish their 

traditional juvenile prisons and institutions and replace them with 

smaller, community-based facilities which empasize the rehabilitation 

of the offender. We are doing tha t in Florida and getting very effective 

results from tha t new program. We used to have a big old State prison 

and they came out of that embittered.

We recommend the Federal Government assist the States, as well 

as other private and public agencies, to establish such facilities in the 

community, including group homes, residential centers, and foster 

homes.

We also recommend tha t LEAA give priority to State and local 

plans emphasizing community-based juveniles rehabilitation centers.

We concluded from testimony given to us by experts in the field 

tha t the various States which rely on institutionalization to solve 

delinquency are spending large sums of the taxpayers’ money with
18

little regard to the amount actually being spent on rehabilitation. 

Rehabilitation would be better served if the tax dollar could be spent 

on a range of community-based alternatives with formal incarceration reserved for those few juveniles presenting a real threat to society.

Secondly, we recommend tha t special efforts be made to stimulate, 

with Federal funds, the study and development of new juvenile 

correctional and rehabilitation programs.

Several new approaches to juvenile corrections impressed the 

committee in our investigation of promising rehabilitation concepts. 

One I would like to emphasize is the guided group interaction concept, 

which involves the application of group therapy and peer influence 

techniques to groups of young offenders in either residential or nonresidential correctional facilities. This approach, which gives the 

youngster a greater sense of usefulness and personal worth, is being 

employed a t the Minnesota School for boys at Red Wing with much 

success.

Another concept worth noting is the differential treatment approach 

where youths with a common personality pattern work and live 

together, participate in programs particularly designed to fit the 

needs of their personality pattern , and are managed by personnel 

specifically experienced with tha t pattern.

Incentives and rewards are used to modify their antisocial behavior, 

with interesting results. The best example of this approach is the Robert 

F. Kennedy Youth Center in Morgantown, W. Va.

A third appraoc.h I will mention is the “Outward Bound” concept, 

which has been incorporated in the juvenile rehabilitation programs 

in both Massachusetts and Florida.

In Massachusetts, the Outward Bound progiam is a wilderness 

camp experience for adjudicated delinquents. It’s a 6-week program 

of physical challenge, excitement, and even a moducum of danger. 

Its thiust is to accept the young offender, emphasize his worthiness, 

build up his self-esteem and confidence and, through personal 

achievement, grant him an iden tity tha t hopeful'y will not be prone 

to extinction onco he leaves the program.

In Florida, this concept has been adapted to create a special mariner 

program for its delinquents, which emphasizes the same values of 

self-worth and confidence.

All of these programs which I have described have one thing in 

common. Their success depends in large part on the commitment, 

character, and motivation of adult staff members.

We heard of one instance of a man who had made a lot of money as 

a singer making records and selling his records commercially who 

wanted to do something. And at his own expense, he took off the time 

from his own work, took 3 months, and took five boys who had been 

adjudicated as serious offenders in juvenile courts, and he and the 

five boys took a canoe trip from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean 

across the northern part of the country. Well, you can imagine what a 

thrilling experience tha t was to those boys.

When I was speaking to the Florida Bar Association a little while 

ago I said, listen, gentlemen, how about this: the next time your son 

or your sons and you are going fishing or going on some interesting 

adventure or occasion, how about asking one of your sons or your son 

if he has any boyfriend tha t is having trouble in school, t ha t lias been
19

getting in trouble with the authorities, tha t does not have the kind 

of an opportunity that you are going to have with me today or tomorrow, ask him if he would like to go along with us. Just think how many 

young boys—the Florida bar made up of a thousand members—how 

many boys you might help or stimulate if more concern was shown.

We found program after program all over the country where many 

volunteer citizens are doing something similar to that. And tha t is of 

course the best thing we could possibly do.

Accordingly, the committee recommends th at LEAA give preference 

and priority to programs designed to train correctional personnel in 

the application of these new techniques, and tha t it support programs 

of personnel exchange between these more innovative programs and 

the more traditional correctional institutions.

Third, we recommend that Federal, State, and local governments 

provide appropriate training for correctional volunteers and the 

administrative framework for seeing to it tha t volunteers and probationers in need of volunteer services are matched.

The committee feels strongly there is a pressing need for more communities in this Nation to follow the lead of cities such as Royal Oak, 

Denver, Minneapolis, Seattle, and others in tapping the vast resources of citizen volunteers for work in probation. Repeatedly our 

witnesses described the desirability of volunteer workers. Using volunteers was not only a more economic approach but, in many cases, 

volunteers had bette r r apport with the youth. Of course, this kind of 

service and commitment is personal and beyond the scope of Government to provide but, nevertheless, we feel tha t Government can 

certainly encourage its development.

These are only a few examples of the many innovative approaches 

to juvenile corrections that are being tried across the country. We 

feel that they are approaches worthy of emulation and feel tha t the 

Federal Government should encourage the States to try these and 

other more innovative programs. The time to nip a criminal career is 

in its bud, and this is where the bulk of our assistance should be.

Let me add, Mr. Chairman, I called up the Education and Labor 

Committee of the House this morning to ask them what is being done 

under Federal programs now to prevent school dropouts or to give 

special assistance to those who are dropouts, because the school dropout is the best candidate for a criminal careei tha t you can find, almost. They begin to drop out along about the seventh or eighth or 

ninth grade.

And in many of the States, by the way, and except, I believe, in 

one county in my State, in the State of Florida, you cannot get vocational training in the schools until you are in the 10th grade. By tha t 

time, most of the dropouts have already dropped out. So they never 

had a chance.

There are a lot of boys and girls tha t have a lot of ability with their 

hands. I am not a hand worker. I could only make a very crude box. 

But there are a lot of people whose primary inclination is to make 

things. I know a banker at home who has an extensive workshop 

right next to his home, and he goes out there, and he has all sorts of 

tools, and he works with wood and metal and everything. He likes 

that. But most bankers and most people do not have that inclination. 

But we get an idea in the schools tha t the boy who does not keep up
20

with his class, who somehow begins to drop behind, to be ridiculed by 

his colleagues or by the teacher, maybe, and in a little while he drops 

out, and then he cannot make any money, and he wants shoes and 

clothes and this sort of thing, and recreational opportunities, so he 

gets out and holds up a service station or the like, and here he is on 

a career of crime.

I found out that last year, fiscal 1973, Congress appropriated $10 

million under title VIII under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In our last appropriation we reduced tha t to $4 million. 

Instead of doing more here, we are—I was not aware that tha t reduction took place in the appropriation—so the Government of the 

United States is doing less in providing funds to try to do something 

about school dropouts, which is the greatest area of source material 

for the crime population.

All we are doing is $4 million a year to try to help.

Now, in the area of training these school dropouts once they have 

dropped out, there are $400 million tha t Congress has made available 

under the Vocational and Educational Act for aid to the States generally. But the chief counsel over there in the Education and Labor 

Committee told me tha t very little was earmarked to train school 

dropouts. So here these people are just certain to be criminals in a 

little while. Yet we are doing so little to keep them from coming into 

tha t criminal class.

So, Mr. Chairman, the recommendations which I have just put 

forth on adult and juvenile corrections are based on 4 years of intensive research and investigation into the correctional systems of the 

United States. We believe their implementation will significantly improve the correctional process, reduce recidivism, and diminish the 

overall level of crime in this country.

In 1967 President Johnson’s Crime Commission concluded that 

“controlling crime in America is an endeavor tha t will be slow and 

hard and costly. But America can control crime if it will.” The time 

for rhetoric and indecision is past, and the time for commitment has 

come. We need effective prison reform legislation now if we want to 

avoid future Atticas and enjoy safe streets once more.

1 want to thank you for this opportunity to express the views of the 

Select Committee on Crime, and earnestly hope you will give full 

consideration to our recommendations for legislative action, and I 

appologize for my lengthy presentation.

Mr. Kastenmeier. I want on behalf of the committee to commend 

you for your statement, and commend you and your committee on 

its work and your recommendations to us.

[ take it tha t you have before you various reports relating to 

corrections.

Mr. P epper. We have our committee report I think we have already 

given you some, but we would like to give you some more for distribution to your committee. We will leave them with you.

Mr Kastenme.er. We will be pleased to receive the additional 

copies of those reports.

Your statement will be reprinted in the record in full without 

objection.

•The prepared statement appears on p 27-1

Mr Kastenmeier. I might say, speaking for myself and 1 think the 

subcommittee, we agree with you almost entirely tha t many of the
21

thi ngs you sugg est be un de rta ke n are in the process of being un de rtake n

La st mo nth the President signed a bill into law ext endin g the Fed ­

eral prison furlough sys tem whe reby inmate s can be released both for 

the p urposes of finding job s where n ece ssa ry to their reha bilitation, a nd 

also to reacqu ain t them with the comm unity which they will be 

re-entering.

Ne xt week we will h av e a he aring on ex-offenders voting, a necessary 

com ponen t, we belie ve, in a Federa l system to re ha bi lit ate ex-offenders.

Following th at we will hav e, in the week subsequent, hearing s on 

pretr ial diversion sponso red by M r. Railsback and oth ers, which we 

look forward to en actm en t at some point.

At the prese nt tim e we also have bee n con ducting inquiries into the 

Federal sys tem of be ha vio r modificati on of pris oners, and into the 

Federal building pro gra m, a pa rt of which ha s been dev oted, in the 

case of Nor th Carolina , to a new con cept. We are very intere sted in 

this.

At the p resent time, this com mittee is engaged in extensive deliberatio ns with the Senate and with the Board of Parol e on our bill to 

reform the Federal parole system . And it is a ra th er extensive reform 

th at we passed ou t of this comm itte e in a bill a ye ar ago, ma ny pa rts 

of which have subsequently been adopted by ad minist rativ e action of 

the Federal paro le system.

These and other m at te rs in the direction of the recom me ndations 

and obser vations you have so eloquently ma de this mo rning in ter ms 

of the recom me ndations of yo ur comm itte e are bein g un derta ken 

by us. While not all of thes e matters will be, I suppose, universally 

acc epted, we will look forw ard to wor king with you and to soliciting 

yo ur help on the floor whe n we mus t conv ince our colleagues th at 

thi s is a wo rth y cause for the corr ections in our co un try if we are 

ever to m eet the prob lem.

I would like to yield to my colleague fiom Califo rnia.

Mr. D anielson. T ha nk you, Mr. Ch airma n.

And than k you, Mr. Pepper.

I tak e issue with you on only one thing. Yo ur stat em en t was no t 

un du ly len gth y. I think you have ma de a ve ry great con trib ution. 

Yo ur knowledge of thi s su bjec t is encyclopedic. In fact, I do no t thi nk 

there is anybody in the co un try who kno ws mo re ab ou t it. And the 

motivati on s are excellent. So I am very app rec iative .

I have a couple of quest ion s only, and do no t answ er an y of them 

un til I ask all of the m, because they sort of relate to one ano the r.

One is, where are the be st prisons in the Un ited State s, and wh at 

makes the m the bes t.

And the second is, to yo ur know ledge, where are the best priso ns 

in the world, and wh at ma kes them the best? We probably oug ht to 

tak e a look at some of these and see if the re are an y good ones.

And thi rd, yo ur closing com ment was th at Am erica can solve the 

problem of crime. And I hope th at is rig ht. Do you know of any 

co un try o r an y state any where which has solved the problem ? Ma ybe 

we have to lead the way.

On the other hand, if we can pick up some inf orm ation elsewhere,

I am eager to do it. Ju st t ak e a swing at anything yo u wa nt to on th at 

set of questions.
22

Mr. Pepper. First, let me thank my distinguished friend Mr. 

Danielson for his kind remarks.

Second, the best prisons in the country, I think, are some of the 

newest of the Federal prisons. They are smaller, and some of them are 

around 400, 400 or 500 population. Of course, the Federal Government has more money to devote to this than most of the States have. 

I think you will find that some of our new Federal prisons are probably 

the best run—although 1 regret tha t some of them have been located 

in relatively rural areas, which I think was a tragic mistake.

I think I mentioned tha t the Minnesota system is on the whole a 

good one. And its head is a very good man, who testified before our 

committee. In fact, Dr. Miller is there now, I believe.

Illinois is doing some creative work in their State institutions, 

and the like.

I think Red Wing is the best—I went personally to five of the youth 

correctional institutions. And the staff examined a great many in the 

country. We tried to find the best and the worst. We found the best 

at Red Wing, the most effective results. And I regret to say that one of 

the worst we found was over in Connecticut, where it was an old 

building, the old techniques, the old principle. And they spent $300,000 

to build a facility from which the inmates could not escape, and the 

young people, and they found out that there was an easy way for them 

to pick the lock, and they did not have anything in there after having 

wasted $300,000 in what they thought was a maximum security 

facility. And they had the building hid away in isolation, and tha t 

sort of thing.

In England—I do not recall the name of it, but Mr. Railsback was 

in Ditchley with me last year; maybe he might remember it—the 

British have selected a given institution as a model. They have 

selected inmates from the prisons of the country and put them in 

there. They have capable people, who were at this conference, in 

charge of it. And it would be, 1 think, very interesting for some of 

your committee maybe to go looking at some of the things they are 

doing in this institution.

By the way, on the whole, for one reason or another, the rate of 

crime is less in Britain than it is in this country. Part of it no doubt is 

due to their justice system, their court system.

You know there you are tried pretty soon after you are charged with 

an offense, and once you are convicted, you go right to prison if you 

are sentenced, you do not wait around a year or two for an appeal to 

be disposed of. The appeal is handled while you are incarcerated. But 

they are trying to modernize it and trying to develop all these new 

techniques.

I think it would be interesting for your committee, if you have not 

done so, to examine th at particular institution. I will get the name of 

the institution and the man in charge of it and supplement the information tha t might be given by Mr. Railback.

You asked about the best and the worst of the institutions.

Mr. Danielson. I am mainly interested in the best one, because we 

have some real bad ones.

Mr. Pepper. California has a very progressive approach. They are 

trying to help the prison population all the way down to the bottom. 

The State pays the counties, as you know, to keep offenders in the
23

local community. On the whole, our observation was tha t California 

was one of the most advanced systems of the country. And they are 

trying to get away from these big old State institutions. They are using 

the county unit; they pay the counties to keep them in the local area.

Well, th at has the advantage of primarily keeping the men a t home 

where their families and friends generally are, and decentralizing the 

system. T hat is a way to keep the State from putting so much money 

in brick and mortar. They pay the community and they let the community try to find adequate facilities.

One of the advantages of having this community-based program 

and using whatever facilities are available—and they do not have to 

be great big beautiful buildings of brick and stone and tha t sort of 

thing—is tha t such facilities are most appropriate for most of those 

correctional programs. Prison authorities who are most knowledgeable 

say that relatively few of the people confined require maximum security confinement.

Bv the way, let me say one other thing. There are a certain number 

of people who cannot in my opinion be rehabilitated, regrettably. 

They just seem to be born with deficiencies in whatever the qualities 

are tha t normalize the conduct of an individual. You do not need to 

electrocute them or hang them, but there are certain people who 

definitely have forfeited their right to live as free men in a free society, 

and there comes a time when tha t ought to be determined. But tha t 

does not mean tha t you have to have them sit 20 hours a day in steel 

cell with heavy bars. I would provide some sort of a village away 

somewhere they could live and work and sort of make their keep, bu t 

they would know that at a certain period they have forfeited their 

right to live as a free man in a free society. They should know we are 

not going to brutalize them, we are no t going to torture them, we are 

not going to treat them in a barbaric manner, but they are just going 

to be segregated from society, and there are a certain number of 

people who ought to be segregated from society.

We have to be very careful in condemning these people. There will 

be a considerable number of them, I suspect, but you do not need to 

pervert the whole system because there are some people like that. If 

we had more of these small institutions, we could p ut different types 

of people in there. Maybe if there are maximum security problems 

we could have a maximum security place for those people.

Mr. Danielson. I appreciate this. But I feel tha t I am taking all 

the time here.

Mr. Pepper. I am sorry, I was too lengthy.

Mr. Danielson. Thank you very much. We can talk privately 

some more.

Mr. Kastenmeier. The gentleman from Maine, Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would join the chairman in commendation of your presentation 

here today. I am not in the h abit of apologizing for the actions of my 

colleagues, but Congressman Railsback wanted me to pass on to you 

his appreciation to you for your outstanding efforts in the field of 

corrections, and his regrets tha t he had to go to another meeting with 

Henry Smith on the Rules Committee.

I think in my own experience in dealing with criminal offenders on 

the prosecution as well as on the defense side tha t we do tend to spend
24

a g reat deal of money , h un dreds and perha ps eve n thousands of dollars, 

in securing the con viction of a crime such as bre aking and entering 

and larceny, only then to pas s the offender i nto a pen al sys tem which 

is cal culated alm ost to pro duce recidiv ism . And it seem s to me th at 

wha t you are saying is th at only whe n we are as con cern ed ab ou t the 

rig hts of the individuals after they have been con victed as well as 

pri or to their conviction th at we can hop e to reduce the problem.

I wa nte d to pick up on a couple of po ints made in yo ur s tatemen t, 

one dea ling with, wha t sort of i ncentive would you give to indu str y to 

emplo y offenders?

W ha t did you have in m ind in th at r egard ?

I wan t to pick u p a po int th at Mr. Danielson me nti oned, because i t 

seem s to me th at the re is a lot of misco nce ption on the par t of the 

Am erican people tow ard this quest ion of la w and o rde r, and the feeling 

th at Am eric a is soft on criminals, w hen all the sta tis tic s seem to reveal 

th at in thi s country , on the average, the len gth of sentenc es are much 

ha rsh er a nd longer th an pe rhaps any othe r civilized coun try .

B ut there is real sen tim ent th at is ru nning throu gh thi s country, t hat 

pe rhaps while it is nice to talk ab ou t the problem, it seems to me th at 

we will never hav e a comm un ity app roach in this un til we come to 

grip s with comm unity relatio ns. Par t of the problem I see in terms of 

talkin g ab ou t the f ailu re of i nd us try to hire offenders is th at , if you go 

into a St ate, perha ps even my own where you hav e a high une mploy ­

men t rate to begin with, it is very difficult to convince and persuade 

the memb ers of th at comm unity th at the ir tax dollars must in some 

way go to provide em plo ym ent /o r those who are in pris on or have been 

con victed of crime when they h ave as high a rate as n ine o r ten or even 

a hig her perce nt of u nemp loy me nt.

Th is seems to me one of t he m ost severe p roblem s th at we hav e, and 

I would like to know wha t yo u recommend on this.

Mr. P ep pe r. I th an k you ve ry mu ch for as king t hose que stio ns.

Fi rs t, with res pect to the first one, I have given a gr ea t deal of 

th ou gh t— as I walked over here this mo rni ng I tal ked to my a dm inistrat iv e assis tant ab ou t the first question you asked, wh at do you do 

with anyb od y who comm its a crim e? W ha t do you do? Th ere are a 

lot of the people who have stud ied this w ho suddenly feel t hat p robably 

you ge t as much ben efit fro m confining a person 5 ye ars as you get 

from confining him 25 years, or 15 ye ars , and th at the c han ces are th at 

the tim e whe n he is s ub ject to r eh ab ilitatio n dim inis hes after you, say 

you have k ep t him for 5 ye ars .

So y ou have to decide, w’ha t are y ou pu ttin g the perso n behin d the 

bars /or ? De ter ren ce ha s been tried from tim e imme mo rial, with the 

mo st sav age pro ced ure s im agina ble kno wn to sadis tic min ds, as it 

were, in the effort to disc ourag e people from comm itting crimes. And 

they wen t righ t on co mmitting them.

So I realize we have to ha ve c om mu nity acc eptan ce. But if th e lea ders will say , listen, y ou good citizen s of Miam i, le t’s sa y, where I live, 

I ca nn ot h elp th at crim e th at has been comm itted, heinous as it may 

have bee n, by the man who comm itted it, bu t are you no t also in te reste d in th at man no t co mmitting a second and a th ird and ma ybe a 

fo ur th crim e upon the people of this area? Experience has show n th at 

we do no t sto p them from co mmitting crimes, two, three and four 

tim es b y the procedures th at we h av e employed in t he pas t.
25

Besides, they have been expensive, more expensive than th ey 

nec essarily should be.

So I wou ld say this: Fi rst, I do think an yb od y who has comm itted 

a serio us crime, and has been con victed, ought to no t go and st ay 

6 m onths and come h ome. Tha t is w ha t affron ts the public.

Senator Ste nnis told me th at the man who sho t him rig ht in fro nt 

of his home here in Wash ing ton looked him righ t in the eye as cooly 

as if he shot a m an every da y and pulled the trigger and nearly k illed 

him. I do not know wha t has happened. One of the m was given the 

st at us of a ju ven ile b y the tria l cou rt, and I do no t know w ha t p en alty 

he will be subje cte d to. It was one of the confe der ates in th at crime. 

I do no t k now w ha tev er h appened to the one th at w as trie d. I do ub t if 

he is going to get a gr ea t deal.

Well, th at is wha t aff ron ts people, th at you can ju st sho ot a man 

down, unoffend ing, in fro nt of his home, and no thing happens to the 

fellow’. So regardless of reha bilitation , I do think an ybody oug ht to 

know th at if he comm its a crime— I do no t say subje ct him to bar ­

ba rit y, or bruta liz e him, or tortu re him in the prisons, th at is no t 

going to do any good, it will make him worse for the future—b ut at 

the same time he should be sub jected to some privation th at is helpful 

to him, if we just keep him away from his home and his comm unity 

and th at sort of thi ng for a short length of time. He oug ht no t to be 

subje cte d to p arole in my opinion u ntil he ha s suffered a certain am ou nt 

of depri vatio n in a huma niz ed insti tutio n. And the judges or the 

Parole Board then should determine, after a ma n has s erved— even 

for a previous crim e—af te r he h as serv ed 5 yea rs, bu t assu redly serv ed 

it, then I think they ought to begin to give con sidera tion to his 

ind ivi dual pred elict ion.

Mr. C ohen. J ust one othe r que stio n.

On page 20 of yo ur sta temen t, one of yo ur rec om me ndations 

is th at you would have a pro gram “designed to fit the need s of the 

pers onal pa tter n and ma naged by pers onnel specifically experienced 

with th at pa tte rn . Incentive s and awa rd are used to mod ify their 

ant isocial beh avior, with inter estin g resu lts .”

We hav e incurred an othe r problem in this are a called beh avior 

modification , the S TA RT program, and it prese nts v ery serious moral 

and ethical problems for the pen alogist when you st art altering or 

at te m pt in g to alt er person al beh avior pa tte rn s. And 1 know’ this is 

some thing the chairma n is very concern ed wit h, and we are also.

I think th at is one rec om me ndation th at we have to look at very 

carefully.

Mr. P ep pe r. L et me say this, M r. Ch airm an : Y ou have to uch ed on a 

ve ry critical po int the re. I live down in Mia mi, where we are very 

pro ud of th e Dolphins. Im agine having a fellowr like one of t he Dolph ins 

th at could tak e off a little tim e and go off a while and go into an 

in stitu tio n where boy s are and work with the m, as com pared to an 

ordina ry g uard making $3,500 a year.

Th ere are man y in my own life—aside from wha t I owe my fath er 

and moth er— if 1 have ever achieve d anyth ing, I owe mo st of it to 

my high school principa l and my college president, who were very 

good to me. But both of them, especially my high school principal, 

ha d the geniu s of making boys wa nt to do som eth ing, to w an t to be 

somebody. And those are the kin ds of people th at we need in thes e 

insti tutio ns th at can lead them, and have ra pp or t with them, or the
26

like, and not just some guard around there to keen them from g ettin s 

out. Thank you.

Mr. Kastenmeier. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky.

Mr. Mezvinsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say, Senator, that I am deeply impressed by the statement. I know the work th at your committee has done.

I really have two points tha t I want to raise. One is an observation 

on your part. There has been a lot of focus laid on human experimentation, and the role tha t prisoners may be asked to play in so-called 

voluntary acts for medical research.

Did your committee take a look at tha t at all as to human experimentation and voluntary acts by prisoners?

We have seen the Tuskogee study and other areas that have raised 

serious questions.

Mr. Pepper. We did not look into medical research or experimentation. We more or less assumed the psychological change involved in the group therapy principle, and in the putting of boys and 

girls into homes, halfway houses, and tha t sort of thing. We did not 

go into the psychological incidence of changing behavior, except to 

put them in a new environment.

Mr. Mezvinsky. Basically, in tha t area you did not take a close 

look at that problem?

Air. P epper. No, we did not have psychiatrists to come and testify. 

Me dealt with the change in behavior by environmental associations 

and by leadership, the kind of people tha t could stimulate a desire 

within the individual to lead a b ette r life.

Mr. Mezvinsky. The other question is, would you have any comment concerning the system we have now?

1 our first recommendation was a small community-based facility. 

What about the recommendations—when you have a judge, and a 

person is brought before the judge for sentencing, the judge can have 

several options. One is, of course, to incarcerate, and another is 

probation. Did you look at the third option of—prior to incarceration—considering a work release program, or a third step, which 

would not necessarily mean th at this person should be totally put 

back into society, but yet the incarceration was questionable, so we 

would move into a third option of a community-based operation or a 

work release program tha t would possibly result in that person never 

having to be incarcerated at all?

Mr. P epper. I appreciate your asking that, Mr. Mezvinsky. Tha t 

is one area tha t we went into tha t had some valuable evidence that 

I did n ot cover. I can mention two of those programs.

One is in Chicago, the State ’s attorney or the prosecuting attorney— 

in the case of young offenders who are up for the first time, they are 

brought before him, and then he has volunteers and people in the 

community who are knowledgeable in the general area. These particularly may be boys and girls who got into some drug abuse, and they 

got arrested for some serious thing. Before presenting a formal charge 

against those offenders, he puts them in these community institutions, 

or rather, puts them in contact. They are not incarcerated. They 

report regularly to him, or to an assigned individual. They arc supervised. If they are deficient in education, they are put in schools. And if 

they need health care, they are sent to a community institution which
27

gives them health care, and the like. If they have anything like speech 

or hearing defects or some other physical defect, they send them to 

somebody who can help with them.

They try to put them in the hands of counselors, and they do not 

put the charges in formal form against them unless they just refuse to 

cooperate with this program.

Now, there are several of those programs going on in the country. 

In other areas, the police themselves do that same thing, according to 

the authority they have. They just do not make a case against a 

young person particularly. They go through the same process. But you 

will find some stimulating experiences if you read our report and read 

our hearings.

They call them diversion programs. In other words, before they 

ever put a boy or girl in the incarceration system, in the correctional 

system, they try to keep them out. They are able to do it in most 

cases. But then you see, you have a club over tha t boy’s head, for 

example. If you don’t behave, if you don’t cooperate, we will just send 

you to prison, or we will put the thing in court for you. So that is a 

very important aspect of the program.

Mr. Mezvinsky. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kastenmeier. Th at concludes our hearing this morning. On 

behalf of the committee, I would like to extend to you our gratitude 

for your contribution to our understanding of the problems and the 

recommendations concerning corrections, and we look forward to 

working with you.

Mr. P epper. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and your committee members very warmly on behalf of myself and the other members of the select committee. All of them would have come here this 

morning, but they understood that I was going to make the presentation as chairman of our committee. But every member of our committee on both sides of the aisle will help your committee in every way 

we can to implement any recommendation for legislation that you 

may have in any aspect of this matter of crime.

Thank you. You are doing a great job.

Mr. Kastenmeier. Thank you.

That concludes the morning hearings. The subcommittee stands 

adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject 

to call.]

[The document referred to on p. 20 follows:]

St a t e m e n t by C ong res sm a n C la u de P e p p e r B e f o r e t h e S u b c o m m it tee on

C o u r t s, C iv il L ib e r t ie s a nd th e A d m in is tr a tio n o f J u st ic e, H o u se

J u d ic ia r y C o m m it t ee, T h u r sd a y , J a n u a r y 24, 1974

r efo r m o f o ur c o r r ec tio n a l syst em s

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to appear before this comm ittee as former 

Chairman of the Select Com mittee on Crime to repo rt on m y committee’s finding 

and recommendations regarding the corrections component of our criminal justic e 

system . For the pa st 4 years the Select Com mittee on Crime has c ondu cted an extensive 

study of crime in the United States. A very important phase of our study focused 

on the workings of our correctional system s. The members of the Select Committee on Crime visited correctional institu tions in New York, Minnesota,
28

Michiga n, Ne w Je rsey , C on nec ticu t, and Pen ns yl va ni a. The co m m itte e staf f 

in te rv ie wed hu nd re ds of pote nti al witn esses an d oth er pe rson s kn ow ledg ea ble in 

th e field.

Fo llo wing th e riot s a t A tti ca S ta te Priso n in Ne w Yor k in Sep te m be r 1971, th e 

co m m itte e laun ch ed a th or ou gh in ves tigat io n of th is dis tu rb an ce an d th e under ­

lyin g pr ob le m s of ou r co rr ec tion al sy st em wh ich pre ci pitat ed it. We als o in ve st iga te d priso n di st ur ba nc e a t th e R ai fo rd Cor re ct io na l In sti tu ti o n in Fl or ida.

I hir in g th es e in ve stig atio ns w e t ook te st im on y fro m m ore th an a score of wi tne sse s, 

in clud ing elec ted officials, prison au th ori ties , lin e pe rson ne l, mem be rs of th e 

ac ad em ic co m m un ity , an d th e in m at es them selves.

In ad ditio n to ex am ining some of th e failu res of our co rrec tion al sy stem s as 

in di ca te d by th e rio ts, we loo ke d a t ex am ples of suc cessful pr og ra m s of all type s. 

It wa s ou r in te nt io n to det er m in e th e m aj or prob lems of ou r co rrec tion al sy stem 

as a wh ole an d to mak e re co m m en da tion s to th e Co ng res s on po ssible courses of 

ac tio n th e Fe de ral Gov er nm en t m ig ht pu rs ue to r em ed y th em . For it was ou r firm 

belief—-a nd still is— th a t th e N ati o n ’s bes t ho pe in fig hti ng crim e lies in redu cing 

rec idivism yo ut h. An d th e on ly w ay we can ac co mplish th is is by im pr ov in g th e 

co rrec tion al pro cess.

The Se lec t Com m ittee on Crim e als o focu sed on th e juve ni le co rr ec tion al sy stem . Ju ven iles und er th e age o f 25 are re sp on sibl e fo r o ve r o ne -h al f of t hi s c o u n tr y ’s 

cr im in al ar re st s. And yo un g offend ers under 20 hav e th e hig he st recidivi sm ra te s 

of any oth er age ca tego ry . A ppr ox im at el y fo ur o u t of ev er y fiv e yo un g peop le 

co m m itte d to a co rrec tion al in st it uti on will on e day re tu rn . Su ch a de plor ab le 

ra te of fa ilur e co nv ince d th e m em be rs of our co m m itte e th a t an y so lu tion to th e 

st re et crim e pr ob lem de pe nd s on our ability to cr ea te and ut ili ze mor e eff ectiv e 

re hab ilitat io n prog rams.

Toda y, I wo uld like to s ubm it fo r your c on si de ra tion some of th e m aj or reco mm en da tion s of th e Se lec t C om m itte e on Crim e ba se d on our 4 yea rs of inte ns iv e 

in ve st ig at io n an d st udy. I will s upport ea ch re co m m en da tion w ith fa ct s an d fin ding s ba se d on ou r he ar in gs .

Phase o ut large prison s

Fi rs t an d foremos t, we re co m m en d pa yi ng th e S ta te an d lo ca lit ies on e-ha lf the 

co st of es ta bl ishi ng sm all co m m un ity- ba se d facilit ies an d pro gr am s to replac e 

th eir larg e, anti quate d co rr ec tion al in st itutions. The facilit ies wou ld be urb an - 

ce nt er ed a nd h av e a c ap ac ity of no m ore th an 3 00 to 400.

The co m m itte e sh ar es th e op inion of lead in g au th ori ti es on pen al refo rm th a t 

we ca nn ot successfu lly re in te gra te th e offend er in to th e com m unity by “ warehousi ng'’ him in ba sti lle -li ke fo rtre ss es , su ch as A ttic a an d R ai fo rd priso ns. Such 

in st it uti ons, wh ich are lo ca te d in re m ot e ru ra l ar ea s and are al m ost alway s ov er ­

crow de d, ha ve fail ed as eit her d ete rr en ts t o crim e or as in sti tu ti ons ab le to c or re ct 

an d r eh ab il it ate crimin al b eh av io r.

At th e t im e vio len ce er upte d, A ttic a priso n ho us ed o ve r 2 ,20 0 i nm at es , and R aifo rd ov er 3,000. Bot h we re lo ca te d in sm all ru ra l towns quite re m ov ed fro m th e 

ho me s of th e m aj or ity of in m at es . Rep ea te dl y witn esses poin te d to th e siz e an d 

ov ercr ow de d co nd iti on s a t th es e in st it uti ons as princ ip al r ea so ns f or th eir en su in g 

trou bl e. W ith such larg e in m at e po pu la tion s, th e em ph as is in th e co rrec tion al 

in st itutions ne ce ssarily sh ifte d fro m re ha bilitat io n an d tr eatm en t to se cu ri ty an d 

re gim en ta tion . Moreo ve r, co m m un ic at io n be tw ee n in m at e and st af f, an d ev en 

am on g th e staf f mem be rs th em se lv es , ap pe ar ed to br ea k do wn.

The re m ot e loca tio n of th e pr ison s wa s als o cited as an im p o rt an t reason fo r 

th ei r dif fic ultie s. Ac cordi ng to th e su per in te ndent of A tti ca a t th e tim e, th e isolatio n of th e in st itution mad e it ex trem el y dif ficult to a tt ra c t a ra ci al ly ba lanc ed 

co rrec tio ns s taff. While th e i nm at e pop ul at io n was 55 pe rc en t bl ac k and 7 p er ce nt 

Pue rto Ric an , th er e was on ly 1 bl ac k an d 1 P uer to Ric an on th e en ti re 540- 

man priso n staff. At Raifo rd , 6!) pe rc en t of th e pop ul at io n wa s blac k, wh ile th er e 

were on ly 3 blac k gu ar ds . In addit io n, th e ty pic al g uar d in bot h th es e in st it uti ons 

was in his midfif tie s a nd fro m t he s urr oun di ng ru ra l ar ea s, w hile t h e ty pic al i nm at e 

was unde r 25 an d from th e ci ty . T hu s, few staf f mem be rs had th e abil it y or th e 

ba ck gr ou nd to unde rs ta nd and co m m un ic at e with th e m ajo ri ty of th e in m at e 

po pu la tion .

The rem ot e loca tio n of th e p riso ns als o mad e it dif fic ult to fin d on-t he -job tr a in ­

ing or em pl oy m en t oppo rt un itie s fo r qu ali fie d in m at es . At A ttic a, fo r ex am pl e, 

on ly six in m at es out of th e to ta l popula tion we re on th e work re leas e pro gr am a t 

th e tim e of th e riot . Ac co rding to pr ison officials, th er e were to o few jo b opportu ni ties in t he sm all to wn of A ttic a, a nd B uff alo w as too fa r a w ay t o com m ut e.
29

In ad ditio n, th e re m ot en es s of th es e in st itutions m ad e it dif fic ult for fa m ili es 

an d friend s to vi sit th e in m ates , th u s de pr iv in g th em of ne ce ss ar y su pport an d 

en co ur ag em en t du ring th eir tim e of inca rc er at io n.

U nf or tu na te ly , in our in ve st ig at io n we fo un d th a t A ttic a and R ai fo rd were 

ty pi ca l of too m an y of our so- called co rrec tio na l facilities. Even in our Fed er al 

sy stem , a quart er of th e pr ison er p op ul at io n ar e co nfined in in st itutions built over 

a ce ntu ry ago ! And th e re st are co nfined in in st uti ti ons no w o per at in g a t or ab ove 

ca pa ci ty .

Fi ve ye ars ago , th e P re si den t’s Cr im e Co mm iss ion re co m men de d th e ph as in gout of thes e larg e ineffective facilities an d re pl ac ing th em w ith sm all co m m unityba se d facilities and pr og ra m s. We m ak e th e same re co m m en da tion to day an d as k 

fo r th e a dd ed in ce nt iv e of fin an cia l as sistan ce to th e S ta te s and loc alities to m ak e 

th is tr an si tion .

C om m un ity- ba se d facilit ies an d pr og ra m s ha ve b ee n tr ie d in a num be r of S ta te s 

and co mmun iti es , and ha ve pr ov en successfu l. We ha ve he ar d te st im ony fro m a 

num ber of he ad s of S ta te dep ar tm en ts of co rrec tio ns wh o cla im th a t th es e sm all 

co m m un ity- ce nt er ed fa cilit ies an d pr og ra m s ar e b e tt e r su ited to th e in di vid ual 

of fend er’s needs, ar e m or e hu m an e, and ar e less ex pe ns iv e to op er ate.

Dr. Je ro m e M iller g av e ve ry im port ant te st im ony o n th e s ub je ct . As he ad of th e 

depart m ent of youth se rv ic e in M as sa ch us et ts , D r. Mill er, in 1971 clo sed do wn 

all of th e S ta te ’s tr adit io nal co rrec tio na l in st it uti ons fo r juve niles .

Tod ay , M as sa ch us et ts op er at es a ra ng e of co m m un ity- ba se d facilities and pr ogram s, su ch as grou p ho me s, ha lfway houses, an d in novat iv e pr obat io n pr og ra m s 

in lieu of th e tr adit io nal re fo rm at ory or tr ai nin g sch ool.

As Dr. M iller e xp lain ed to th e co m m ittee, th e j uv en ile co rrec tion al sy stem as it 

wa s co ns truct ed in M as sa ch use tts was not hin g b ut a sc ho ol fo r c rim e. It was ba sed 

on larg e in st itutions th a t we re im pe rv io us to ch an ge an d in ca pa bl e of resp on di ng 

to th e ne ed s of th e yo ung peop le th ey we re su pp os ed to he lp. As a re su lt, re ci divism ra te s for ju ve ni les we re close to 80 pe rc en t, des pi te th e fa ct M as sa ch us et ts 

ta xpayers we re pay in g up to $36,0 00 per year ju s t to in ca rc er at e on e ju ve ni le . 

M ov eo ve r, ac co rd in g to Mill er, ve ry few of th e youngst er s pl ac ed in t he se in sti tu ­

ti ons we re a th re a t to pub lic sa fe ty . M an y we re th ere on ju ve ni le s ta tu s o ffe nse s, 

su ch as ru nnin g a w ay and tr uancy, not co ns id er ed crim es if co m m itte d by adult s. 

As D r. M iller to ld us , fo r w h at it co sts to ke ep a youngst er in a tr ain in g scho ol, 

yo u co uld se nd him to th e Ph ill ip s E xet er Aca de my, pro vi de him w ith in di vi du al 

analy ti c th era py, give h im a $50 al lowan ce a n d se nd h im t o E ur op e in th e su m m er , 

an d still h av e m on ey left ov er . In h is words, th a t is w hat M as sa chuse tt s w as sp endin g on a “sy st em whi ch gen er al ly is a fa ilure and ge ne ra lly m ak es th in gs worse 

ra th e r th an b e tt e r. ”

U nd er th e new sy st em , a yo un g offend er is fir st co m m itte d to a region al office 

whe re his pr ob lems are diag no se d and a det er m in at io n is m ad e re ga rd in g appro pri ate re ha bilitat io n reso urce s. He th en m ay be se nt to a ra ng e of co m m un ityba se d al te rn at iv es , su ch as a ha lfw ay ho use, gr ou p ho me, Sta te -r un co ns er va tio n 

ca m p, or a dru g tr eatm en t ce nter . If he ha s seve re psy ch ia tric prob lems and his 

beh av io r is a cle ar th re a t to pu blic sa fe ty , he wo uld be se nt to a pri vat e lock ed 

psy ch ia tric ho sp ital or o th er closed, se cu re se ttin g.

An im port ant fe at ure of th e M as sa ch use tts pr og ra m is th a t it giv es a ju dge a 

wi de sp ec trum of se nt en ci ng al te rn at iv es . All to o of te n our ju dg es ha ve been 

ham pe re d by th e lack of av ai la bl e tr eatm en t opt io ns — to th e detr im ent of th e 

offend er an d so ciety bo th . M ost co mmon ly, he ha s had tw o ch oices—se nt en ci ng 

th e youth to a tr ai nin g s choo l, fr eq ue nt ly an ov erki ll appro ac h; or plac ing hi m on 

pr ob at io n, which is of te n to o leni en t.

The co m m ittee also rece iv ed te st im ony on th e oper at io n of co m m un ity- ba se d 

facilit ies for ju ve ni les from co rrec tio na l officia ls in Fl or id a, M in ne so ta, an d K an ­

sas , all of wh ich off ere d in novat iv e ap pr oa ch es to de al in g w ith ju ve ni le off enders. 

All of th es e co nc ur re d w ith Dr. Miller th a t op er at in g co m m un ity- ba se d facilities 

was m uc h less ex pe nsive th an m ai nta in in g larg e in st it uti ons. How ev er, th ey 

stre ss ed th a t th e pe riod of tr an si tion wa s par ticu la rly ex pe ns iv e and th a t Fe de ral 

as sistan ce a t th is tim e wou ld be ve ry he lpfu l.

In reco mmen ding th a t we pr ov id e su ch as sistan ce to th e S ta te s, I wo uld lik e to 

em ph as ize th a t th e Fed er al G ov er nm en t wou ld on ly be resp on sib le fo r pa yi ng 

50 pe rc en t of th e co st of get ting th e pr og ra m s in it ia te d. The S ta te an d local 

auth ori ties wo uld be r es po ns ible for th e o th er 50 per ce nt and th e co st of co nt in ue d 

op er at io n. In ad di tion , I wou ld like to m ak e quite clea r th a t we reco m men d th e 

S ta te s mak e use of ex istin g facilit ies in th eir co m m un itie s as m uc h as po ssible an d
30

not embark on any new construction campaign. Old hospitals, government buildings, and residences are often available and would be just as suitable as new 

buildings. For success will depend on the quality of correctional programs and 

staff, not on the physical design of the building.

Education, training, and employment

Our second recommendation is that the Federal Government financially assist 

the States in training and educating inmates and finding them proper jobs upon 

release.

In this context, the committee also supports the removal of restrictive legislation 

that prevents prison industries from manufacturing and selling convict-made 

goods on the open market.

Our study and investigation has convinced this committee that productive inprison job training, education, and employment are absolute prerequisites to 

effective rehabilitation.

Perhaps the greatest single travesty in our correctional system is the enforced 

idleness of a substantial number of our inmate population. I was shocked to learn 

that 62 percent of the Attica inmates sat idle in their cells all day long, with no 

constructive training, not even recreation. And I have no doubt that his idleness 

was one of the major contributing factors to the violence that erupted that week.

Almost three-quarters of the inmates at Attica lacked marketable job skills 

when they entered. T hey left no better off. Th e prison job training programs which 

did exist were simply too few to go around, and often irrelevant to the demands of 

the outside labor market. We talked to one ot the guards at Attica about that 

institution’s training program. He informed us that although there was a metal 

shop at Attica in which inmates could receive job training experience, it only 

employed 450 men out of the total prison population. Moreover, within the shop 

itself, there was not enough work to go around. Two or 3 hours of work were 

spread over an 8- to 10-hour day, so that many inmates spent their time as mere 

onlookers.

Raiford also lacked training and job opportunities as do most of our correctional 

institutions today. Over a third of our Nation’s prison population of 200,000 sit 

idle or are assigned to overmanned maintenance details, which require little or 

no skill. Training equipment is obsolete, and most correctional industries simply 

are not geared to the demands of the outside labor market. It is no wonder the 

unemployment rate for ex-offenders is four to five times the national average. 

And it is no surprise that recidivism rates reach as high as 80 percent.

Studies have shown conclusively that the postrelease success of an offender is 

directly tied to his ability to get and maintain employment upon release.

We need to increase the number and upgrade the quality of institutional work 

programs if we truly want to see a reduction in our recidivism rates. These jobs 

should be suited to inmate populations and reflect the demands of the outside 

labor market. In addition, we need to expand on-the-job training opportunities, 

involving the private sector, such as work release. According to testimony received 

from William D. Leeke, the director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, experimental work-release programs have proven to be very successful 

in lowering recidivism rates. He testified that since 196S when South Carolina 

began a series of community-based prerelease centers, less than 10 percent of the 

people who have successfully completed work-release programs have returned to 

the South Carolina Department of Corrections for parole violations or new offenses.

Director Leeke also pointed out some of the other benefits of work release. It 

saves the taxpay er money. Since the prisoner on work release is paid the prevailing 

wage, he is able to help pay for his keep in prison, and contribute to the support 

of his dependents which helps keep them off the welfare rolls. His earnings also 

enable him to put aside a considerable sum of money against the time of his 

discharge. In addition, work release gives the offender an opportunity to obtain a 

job which he might be able to keep upon release, thus helping him overcome the 

difficulties of finding postprison employment. Despite these advantages, however, 

work-release programs have been implemented in only 24 of our States, and even 

there on a limited basis.

In order to prepare offenders for the competitive job market of today, we must 

equip them not only with adequate job skills, but with the necessary academic 

tools as well. Testimony by Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons Carlson 

revealed that 95 percent of the Federal prisoner population lack high school 

diplomas. State prisoners also have a low level of proficiency. Eigh ty percent of the 

inmates at both Attica and Raiford were high school dropouts. Many were func-
31

ti onal ly illite ra te . D es pi te th eir ac ad em ic deficien cie s, ho wev er, th ere we re few 

opport unitie s fo r t hem t o im pr ov e. The lack of t his e duca tional o p p o rt u n it y cau se d 

fr ust ra tion, re se nt m en t, and bitte rn ess am on g th e pr is on er po pula tion . I t on ly 

was to o clea r th a t w ithout a hig h sch oo l di pl om a and th e ne ce ss ar y vo ca tiona l 

tr ai ni ng , po stre leas e em pl oym en t opport unitie s wou ld be scarce .

Fin an ci al a ss ista nc e sh ou ld be m ad e av ai la bl e to any S ta te th a t will pro vi de its 

in m at es w ith an opport unit y to a t le as t co m pl ete hi gh school, if th ey hav e not 

y et do ne so. Mr. Cha irm an , pr ov id in g m ea ni ng fu l ed uc at io na l and voca tional tr ain in g and 

em pl oy m en t op po rt unitie s for offend ers is pe rh ap s th e sin gle m os t effectiv e st ep 

we co uld ta ke to redu ce th is N ati o n ’s r ec idivism ra te s. Yet th e budgeta ry lim it atio ns ha ve th w art ed ev en th e m ost w el l-.n te nt io ne d co rr ec tion al official. The 

Fe de ra l G ov er nm en t sh ou ld as si st th e St at es . I t m ig ht be ex pe ns ive, b u t th e co st 

to us wou ld more th an off set th e co st to so ciety of th e crim es com m itte d by 

ex -offe nd ers de pr iv ed of th es e oppo rt un itie s.

Natio na l Corrections Ac ad em y

T hi rd , I wou ld like to re co m m en d th a t th e Fed er al G over nm en t es ta bl is h a 

N ational Cor re ct io ns Aca de my fo r th e tr ai nin g o f co rrec tion al pe rson ne l.

The cr itic al sh or ta ge of well -q ua lif ied and w ell-trai ne d co rrec tion al staf f is on e 

of th e m os t serio us prob lems co rrec tion s fac es to day. This be ca m e ver y appare nt 

to th e m em be rs of th e co m m itte e whe n we we re in ves tigat in g th e A ttic a an d R ai ­

ford riot s. For ex am ple, a t A ttic a th er e wa s a staf f of 540 ch ar ge d w ith ta kin g 

ca re of and su pp os ed ly re hab li ta ti n g ov er 2,2 00 in m at es . Ove r 70 per ce nt of th e 

staf f, ho wev er, we re solely co nc er ne d w ith cu st ody, and had no re hab ilitat iv e 

du ties . T he co rrec tion al line office r is po ss ibly one o f t he m os t im p o rt an t inf lue nces 

on an in m ate ’s life while he is in ca rc er at ed . Ye t a t both A ttic a and R ai fo rd , wh ich had pre dom in antl y yo un g, bl ac k an d 

urb an-b re d p op ul at io ns , th e g uar ds we re m id dle-ag ed , w hi te a nd fro m th e c ou ntr y. 

M an y co uld n o t ev en sp ea k th e s am e la ng ua ge as th e in m at es m uc h les s co m m uni ca te to th em about th eir pr ob lems. M oreo ve r, inse rvice tr ai nin g p ro gr am s which 

m ig ht ha ve im pr ov ed th eir abil it y to de al w ith th e off enders we re als o miss ing. 

No won de r co m m un icat io ns br ok e do wn . As on e witn es s phr as ed it “ th er e wa s a 

wa ll of in se ns itiv ity be tw ee n th e in m at es an d th eir ke ep er s.” W hat was ne ed ed 

wa s tr ain in g not on ly in offensive and de fens e ta cti cs b u t also in se nsi ti vit y in ­

vol ve m en t s > th a t th e co rrec tion al p er so nn el co uld re la te t o th e in m at es , ir re gar dless of th eir co lor or fa m ily ba ck gr ou nd .

Pr ofessio na ls su ch as do ct or s and te ac he rs we re als o in sh ort su pp ly . At 

A ttic a th ere we re on ly 11 staf f m em be rs re sp on sib le fo r im pr ov in g th e entire inm at e 

popula ti on’s a ca de m ic profici en cy . And a t Raifo rd , de sp ite th e siza ble num ber of 

pr ison ers who ne ed ed psy ch olog ica l he lp, th er e wa s on ly o ne p art -t im e psy chia tr is t 

av aila bl e. The co rrec tion al officer st art in g o u t a t R ai fo rd a t th e tim e of th e outb re ak 

m ad e $4 65 /m on th — less th an th e av er ag e zoo ke ep er wa s m ak in g in th e ci ty of 

Miam i!

The staf f pr ob lems we saw a t A ttic a an d Rai fo rd refle ct th os e of too m an y of 

ou r co rrec tion al in st itut io ns . Only 20 per ce nt of our N ati on’s co rr ec tion al p e rso nn el ar e as sig ne d to re ha bi lita tion . Th e re st ar e mer e cu st od ia ns . Whil e an 

est im at ed 15 pe rc en t of th e pr is on er s ar e in ne ed of ps ych ia tric he lp, and an e sti ­

m at ed 5 pe rc en t ar e serio us ly m en ta lly ill, th er e ar e on ly 50 fu ll-tim e p sy chia tr is ts 

and ps yc ho lo gi sts em pl oy ed in pr ison work. T he av er ag e gua rd is pai d be tw ee n 

$3,00 0 and $4,000 an d is undert ra in ed both before and aft er ac ce pt an ce fo r 

em pl oy m en t, an d is us ua lly po or ly ed uc at ed . Les s th an ha lf of th e co rr ec tion al 

sy stem s ha ve any type of i ns ervice tr ai nin g a t all . In sh or t, pr ison staffs a re u n d e rtrai ne d, o ve rw or ke d, a nd underp aid — an d th ey a re n ot larg e e no ug h to b e effective.

Mr. C ha irm an , th e da ys of billy club s ar e gone. We ne ed co rr ec tion al officers 

wh o are tr ain ed an d pa id in a m anner co ns is te nt w ith t he diff icu lties a nd re sp on sibi lit ies of th eir du ties . T hey m ust be ab le to co m m un ic at e and unders ta nd th e 

ty pic al yo un g in m at e of to day, sh ou ld be se ns iti ze d to ra cial di sc rim in at io n, an d 

sh ou ld be re ad y an d ab le to p art ic ip ate in re habil it ati ve as op po se d to merely 

cu stod ia l pr og ra m s.

A Fed er al co rrec tio ns ac ad em y wou ld all ow us to bring to geth er co rrec tion al 

ex pe rts from all ov er th e countr y. T he tr ain in g pro gr am co uld be p att ern ed af te r 

th e high ly succ essfu l F B I A ca de m y and it co uld se rv e as a mod el fo r our Sta te s.

I ha ve sp en t co ns id erab le ti m e on th es e first th re e re co m m en da tion s be ca us e I 

feel th a t th es e ar e th e ar ea s whe re Fed er al G ov er nm en t c an m ak e th e m os t im pa ct . 

If we co uld ab an do n o ur old A ttic a-t ype c or re ct io na l in st it uti ons and r ep la ce them
32

w ith sm all co m m un ity- ba se d pr og ra m s an d facilities— st af f th em w ith well qu al ified an d en lig hten ed co rrec tio na l pe rson ne l— an d pr ov id e all in m at es w ith th e 

w he re w itha l to ob ta in mea ni ng fu l em pl oy m en t up on rel ease, I hav e no do ub t we 

wo uld see a sign ifica nt re du ct io n in recidivi sm an d th e ra te of ov er al l cri me in 

th is co un tr y.

The c rim e co m m itt ee h as a lso m ad e a num ber of oth er re co m m en da tion s, wh ich 

I feel wo uld im prov e th e co rrec tio na l pro cess. The se we ha ve out lined in ou r Ju ne 

1973 re port s on co rrec tio na l sy st em s an d st re et crim e. Alth ou gh tim e does not 

pe rm it me to de scrib e th em all, I wou ld lik e to m en tion a few t h a t I feel wo uld be 

par ti cula rl y eff ectiv e in fo re stal ling fu tu re prison rio ts.

Priso n riot prevention

Fir st , we reco mmen d th e Fed er al G ov er nm en t fu nd th e est ab lish m en t of an 

Office of S ta te Cor rectiona l O m bu ds m an in ea ch S ta te or ju risi di ct io n. This 

office w ou ld b e fu nd ed u nde r p a rt E of t he L EA A le gislation, and i ts e st ab lish m en t 

an d op er at io n wo uld be re qu ired be fore an y S ta te co uld receive its an nual LE AA 

bloc k gra nt fund s.

We als o reco mmen d th e es ta blish m en t of a N at io nal Cor re ct io na l Om bu ds m an 

who wou ld p erfo rm th e same du ties o n th e Fe de ra l lev el as t he S ta te O mbu ds m en . 

In ad di tion , th e Natio na l O m bu ds m an wo uld co or di na te t he a ct iv itie s of th e S ta te 

Ombu ds m en an d prov id e th em w ith te ch ni ca l as sistan ce .

In ad di tion , we reco mmen d th a t ev er y S ta te re qu ire ea ch of its prison s an d 

co rrec tio na l facilities to ha ve an up -t o -d ate r io t an d di so rd er c ontr ol plan th a t ha s 

bee n fo rm ul at ed in co nc er t w ith S ta te an d loc al law en fo rc em en t au th ori ties .

Th is wo uld be a re qui re m en t fo r re ce ip t of fu nd s under p art s C an d E of th e 

LE AA legisla tio n.

The rol e of th e Om bu ds m an w ou ld be to se rv e as an im part ia l arb it er in all 

co rrec tio na l di sp ut es , an d to i nves tigat e an d re port on all co m pl ai nt s fro m inm ates , 

pro ba tion er s, an d pa rolees, His pur po se quit e simpl y wo uld be to he lp resolve 

pr ison er grieva nc es on a day-b y-d ay ba sis be fore th ey re ac he d cri sis pro po rtio ns .

A br ea kd ow n in co m m un ic at io ns al m ost alway s prec ed es a riot. H op ef ully , if 

we ca n im pr ov e co m m un ic at io ns w ithin th e priso n be tw ee n in m at es and s taff an d 

be tw ee n st af f an d co rr ec tion al off icia ls them se lv es , we can pre vent fu tu re Atti ca s. 

If a ri ot sh ou ld oc cu r, ho wev er , we sh ou ld mak e su re our Sta te s ar e pr ep ar ed to 

ha nd le it in a co or din at ed , effic ient way w ithout bloo ds he d.

Pr iso n rul es an d regula tions

You m ay reca ll th e mom en t wh en on e of th e lead er s of th e A ttic a re vo lt cried , 

“ We do n ’t w an t to ru le, we w an t to liv e, bu t if we cannot liv e lik e pe op le, let us 

a t le as t tr y to die like m en .” A co rr ec tion al sy st em th a t ro bs a m an of his dig nity 

cannot po ss ibly re hab il it ate hi m . I t mer ely al ie na te s and em bit te rs hi m an d creat es a cl im at e rip e fo r vio len ce.

Acc ording ly, th e Se lec t C om m itte e on Crim e re co m m en ds th a t co rrec tion al 

po lic ies lx* fo rm ul at ed —on th e Fed er al , Sta te , or loc al lev el— wh ich att em p t to 

en ha nc e th e di gn ity, w or th , and self- co nfiden ce of in m at es ra th e r th an de ba sing 

an d de hu m an iz in g th em .

We ur ge ou r pri son sy st em to a d o p t simple w ri tt en ru les re gar din g priso n dis ­

cipline and th e pe na lties fo r in fr ac tion, and to pro vi de th a t no in m ate be dis ­

ciplined ex ce pt in ac co rd an ce w ith th es e rules.

We ur ge t he priso n sy stem s to r ev ie w exi stin g po lic ies r eg ar di ng m ail ce ns or sh ip 

an d el im in at e or relax thos e not bea ri ng dir ec tly up on pr ison se curi ty .

An d, m os t im port antl y, we ur ge th e el im in at io n of unfa ir par ol e pr oc ed ur es . 

All gra nts or de nials of pa ro le m ust be m ad e on th e ba sis of clea r and co m pr ehe ns iv e st andard s wh ich ar e mad e kn ow n by th e in m at es . T hey m ust be no tif ied 

pro m ptl y as to th e decis ion and give n reas on s fo r an y de nial.

C IT IZ E N S H IP R E S T O R E D W H EN R EL EA SE D

All of th es e re co m m en da tion s ar e de sign ed to el im in at e th e a rb it ra ry /u n fa ir , 

and un ne ce ss ar y tr eatm en t of priso ner s which ta kes aw ay th eir dig nit y and em ­

bit te rs th em f u rt h er ag ai nst so ci et y an d so ci et y’s s ta ndard s.

Ju ve ni le corrections

Mr. C ha irm an , th e Se lec t C om m itte e on Cr im e als o m ad e a num ber oC rec om - 

m en dat io ns re ga rd in g ju ve ni le co rr ec tion s.

Our pr in ci pa l re co m m en da tion is th a t th e S ta te s follow th e le ad o f' M a ssa ­

ch use tt s and a bo lis h th eir t ra d it io n al ju ve ni le p ris on s an d in st it uti ons an d replac e 

th em w ith sm alle r, co m m uni ty -b as ed f ac ilitie s wh ich em ph as ize th e re hab ilitat io n 

of t he offend er.
33

We recommend the Federal Governm ent assist the Sta tes, as well as other 

private and public agencies, to estab lish such facilities in the co mmunity, including 

group homes, residential centers, and foster homes.

We also recommend that LEAA give priority to Sta te and local plans emphasizing comm unity-based juvenile rehabilitation centers.

We concluded from test imony given to us by experts in the field that the 

various States which rely on institution ization to solve delin quen cy are spending 

large sums of the taxpay ers’ money with litt le rega rd to the amoun t actually 

being spent on rehabilitation. Rehab ilita tion would be be tte r served if the tax 

dollar could be spent on a range of community-based altern atives with formal 

incarcera tion reserved for those few juveniles presenting a real thr ea t to society.

Secondly, we recommend tha t special efforts be made to stimulate, with Federal 

funds, the stud y and development of new juvenile correctional and rehabilitation 

programs.

Several new approaches to juvenile corrections impressed the Committe e in 

our in vestigation of promising rehabilitation concepts. One I would like to mention 

is the guided group interactio n concept, which involves the application of group 

the rap y and peer influence techniques to groups of young offenders in eith er 

resid ential or nonresid entia l correctional facilities. This approac h, which gives 

the youngster a g reater sense of usefulness and personal worth, is being employed 

at the Minnesota School for Boys at Red Wing with much success.

Another concept worth noting is the differential tre atmen t approach where 

you ths with a common personality pattern work and live togethe r, par ticipate 

in programs particu larly designed to fit the needs of the ir personality pattern, 

and are managed by personnel specially experienced with th at p att ern . Incen tives 

and reward s are used to modify the ir antisocial b ehavior, with in tere sting results. 

The best example of this approac h is the Robert F. Kennedy Youth Center in 

Morgantown, West Virginia.

A thir d approach I ’ll mention is the "Outw ard B ound’’ concept, which has been 

incorporated in the juvenile rehabilitation programs in both Massachusetts 

and Florida. In Massachusetts, the Outw ard Bound program is a wilderness 

camp experience for adjud icated delinquents. It’s a 6-week program of physical 

challenge, exciteme nt, and even a modicum of danger. Its thrust is to acce pt the 

youn g offender, emphasize his worthiness, build up his self esteem an d confidence, 

and thro ugh personal achievement grant him an ide ntity th at hopefully will not 

be prone to extinctio n once he leaves the program. In Florida this concept has 

been adapted to create a special mariner program for its delinque nts, which 

emphasizes the same values of self-worth and confidence.

All of these programs which I have described have one thing in common. Their 

success depends in large pa rt on the comm itmen t, character, and motivation of 

adult staff members.

Accordingly, the committe e recommends th at LEAA give preference and 

priority to programs designed to trai n correctional personnel in the application 

of these new techniques, and th at it support programs of personnel exchange 

between these more inno vative programs and the more tradition al correctional 

institutions.

Third, we recommend th at Federal, State, and local governments provide 

app rop riate training for correctional volunteers and the adm inistra tive framework for seeing to it th at volunteers an d probationers in need of volunteer services 

are matched.

The Committee feels strongly there is a pressing need for more communities 

in this Nation to follow th e lead of cities such as Royal Oak, Denver, Minneapolis, 

Seattle, and others in tapping the vast resources of citizen volunteers for work in 

probatio n. Repeate dly our witnesses described the desirability of volunteer 

workers. Using volunteers was not only a more economical approach, bu t in 

many cases, volunteers had be tte r rapport with the youth. Of course, this kind 

of service and commitm ent is personal and beyond the scope of Government to 

provide, but, nevertheless, we feel th at Governm ent can certainly encourage its 

development.

These are only a few examples of the many inno vative approaches to juvenile 

corrections that are being tried across the coun try. We feel tha t they are approaches 

worthy of emulation and feel the Federal Governm ent should encourage th e States 

to try these and other more innovative program s. The time to nip a criminal is 

in its bud, and this is where the bulk of our assistance should be.

Mr. Chairman, the recommendations which I have just pu t forth on a dult and 

juvenile corrections are based on 4 vears of intensive research and investigation 

into the correctional systems of th e United States. We believe thei r implementation
34

will significantly improve the correctional process, reduce recidivism, and diminish 

the overall level of crime in this country.

In 1967, President Johnson’s Crime Commission concluded that “ controlling 

crime in America is an endeavor that will be slow and hard and costly. But 

America can control crime if it will.” The time for rhetoric and indecision is passed, 

and the time for commitment has come. We need effective prison reform legislation now if we want to avoid future Atticas and enjoy safe streets once more.

I want to thank you for this opportunity to express the views of the Select 

Committee on Crime, and earnestly hope you will give full consideration to our 

recommendations for legislative action.

o