페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

possibility of locating a Federal facility in Otisville, N.Y., which is the present site of a State facility. From its inception, this project has received overwhelming support from the residents of the prospective prison site at Otisville, N.Y., and the surrounding localities. Each successive public meeting on this project has met with the same support.

The only opposition has come from outside the region, from a group called the National Moratorium on Prison Construction, which wants all prison construction to cease. They allege that unless we stop prison construction, the Bureau will not seek alternatives to the iron cells of the past.

That contention has no basis in fact. The Bureau plans to utilize new correctional programs. One such program is the functional unit concept. If the Bureau has set forth their proposal, I urge that this concept be explored at these hearings. I hope that you will explore that concept with some of the Bureau of Prisons' personnel who will be appearing before you today.

Mr. Chairman, permit me to read a statement into the record that was presented at a recent public meeting in my congressional district. The signatures to this statement are representatives of county, city, town, and village governments, local labor leaders, and community leaders. It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned community representatives, are the authors of the following statement concerning the proposed adult Federal Correctional Facility adjacent to Otisville, N.Y.

“1. First and foremost, we reject the notion of a national moratorium on prison construction in the face of rising crime and the overcrowding of existing facilities. The initial point bearing on the priority of protecting society against its offenders and the second on the need to overcome the inadequate, outdated and insufferable conditions that presently exist.

2. The Otisville proposal has had widespread dissemination, has been discussed thoroughly and has been endorsed overwhelmingly, particularly by those who would be most directly impacted: the residents of the Otisville area.

"3. The history of such medium Federal security facilities does not pose a threat to the well-being of the community.

“4. As inconsequential as it may appear, we cannot ignore or fail to recognize the overall economic benefits to be derived therefrom, specifically the permanent jobs that will be opened to our citizens and the much more immediate availability of construction jobs to bolster the depressed Orange County economy.

“In summary, it is our collective view that we should take advantage of the opportunity being afforded us and encourage the immediate construction of the facility in proximity to Otisville, N.Y."

Dated: May 6, 1976 Hughes, Ronald, Lafayette Street, Newburgh, N.Y. 12550, president, Orange County Building Trades; Sager, David L., 32 Floral Drive, Newburgh, N.Y. 12550, business representative, Local No. 631, I.B.E.W.; Gallietta, Anthony, 46 Ridgewood Avenue, Middletown, N.Y. 10940, field representative, Local No. 17; O'Grady, James. F., Jr., 52 Highland Avenue, Middletown, N.Y. 10940, president, Castle Communications Corporation; Patterson, Glenn, 31 Field Road, Otisville, N.Y. 10962, Village of Otisville Planning Board; Gar

rison, Peter, County Government Center, Goshen, N.Y. 10924, commissioner, Orange County Planning; Heimbach, Louis, 600 Route 211 E, Town Hall, Middletown, N.Y. 10940, supervisor, Town of Wallkill; Nagenfast, George, Rural Delivery No. 5, VanBurenville Road, Middletown, N.Y. 10940, assistant business manager, I.B.E.W. Local No. 363; Korotky, Michael, Rural Delivery No. 2, Port Jervis, N.Y. 12771, business agent, Bricklayers No. 68; Kisor, Raymond M., State Police, Middletown, N.Y. 10940, major, New York State Police; Terpening, Clarence, Rock Cut Road, Rural Delivery No. 1, Box 156, Walden, N.Y. 12586, special representative, Hudson Valley District Council Carpenter; Barger, Harold, Jr., Rural Delivery No. 2, Box 115, Wallkill, N.Y. 12589, business agent, Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters, Local 255; Stoll, Fred, Jr., Cuddebackville, N.Y. 12719, town justice, Town of Deerpark; Eccleston, H. Robert, Six Glass Street, Port Jervis, N.Y. 12771, mayor, City of Port Jervis; Coppola, Vincent M., Sr., Box 480, Otisville, N.Y. 10963; Diorio, Lorenzo, Box 356, Vails Gate, N.Y., business manager, Laborers Local No. 17; Hosking, J. R., 106 Franklin Street, Port Jervis, N.Y. 12771, Councilman, Fourth Ward; Pagano, Joseph L., 192 West Main Street, Port Jervis, N.Y. 12771, councilman; Wilbur, Francis, 3 Harding Street, Otisville, N.Y. 10963, councilman, Town of Mt. Hope; Wanser, Donald E., 29 Emboden Avenue, Otisville, N.Y. 10963, mayor, Village of Otisville; Walker, J. Robert, Box 471, Otisville, N.Y. 10963, supervisor, Town of Mt. Hope; Perry, Myron R., 57 Sprague Avenue, Middletown, N.Y. 10940, mayor, City of Middletown; McArdle, Henry, One Lafayette Street, Newburgh, N.Y. 12550, business agent, Local 825, Operating Engineers; Fanning, Jack, One Lafayette Street, Newburgh, N.Y. 12550, business agent, Local 825, Operating Engineers; Otte, Walter W., Rural Delivery No. 4, Box 116, manager, Otisville Office, Chester National Bank; Pagano, John, Box 44, Rural Delivery No. 3, Port Jervis, N.Y. 12771, councilman, Town of Deerpark; Garvey, James F., Box 204, Hugenot, N.Y. 12746, supervisor, Town of Deerpark; Westcott, W. T., Orange County Chamber of Commerce, Middletown, N.Y. 10940.

Clearly, there is overwhelming local support for this proposed prison facility at Otisville.

The need for a Northeast adult institution is critical. Offenders who would be housed at Otisville are now incarcerated in crowded conditions at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Conn., and in the U.S. Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pa.

Moreover, because of the intense crowding in the Northeast, the Bureau is forced to place many offenders from New York State in institutions hundreds of miles from their homes and families. The Otisville location is much more accessible to metropolitan New York City than is Lewisburg Penitentiary, not to mention institutions located in other regions.

Moreover, Otisville is located in an area from which major interstate highways radiate to all of the other localities in the Northeast region. Bus transportation from New York City and other Northeast cities is regular and conveniently scheduled. While the community of Otisville is relatively small, the site is located only 12 miles from the city of Middletown, N.Y., which is the center of a marketing area of over 40,000 people. Middletown has excellent educational, housing, recreational, cultural and health care facilities.

For New York City inmates, the Otisville site offers inexpensive, convenient visiting for their families. Eight express buses travel the 142-hour trip daily between Middletown and New York City. In addition, there are 10 local bus trips scheduled and, consequently, buses are available at least every hour. The round-trip fare is $10.50. Rail service is also available between Otisville and Hoboken, N.J., twice daily, with available subway connections directly into Manhattan. The train trip takes 1 hour and 52 minutes and the round-trip fare is $6.95.

Essential to any institution is a competent, well-trained staff. The Otisville area has a distinct advantage for the recruitment of staff, if the experience of the New York State Drug Rehabilitation Center is any indicator. This facility was adjacent to our proposed site and was readily able to recruit a staff including 32 percent minority employees.

Adequate housing is available for staff in the town of Mt. Hope, in Middletown, Newburgh, or Port Jervis, and larger communities within a radius of 30 miles. Not inconsequential are the economic benefits the region will derive from this project. Orange County, wherein Otisville is located, had a 9.9 percent overall unemployment rate in February of this year.

Even more significant is the fact that in the construction trades, unemployment ranges from 65 to 80 percent. This project will bring in much needed employment for the construction industry in the short term, in addition to long-term jobs.

Because there is a clearly demonstrated need by the Federal Government for new prison facilities and a local need with wholehearted acceptance for the Otisville institution, I urge your favorable consideration of this proposal and the entire construction budget of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to interject in this important hearing.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you, Congressman Gilman. STATEMENT OF MS. BETTY

ADAMS, CHAIRPERSON, YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CLUSTER, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF OR

GANIZATIONS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH Ms. Adams. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Youth Development Cluster of the National Council of Organizations for Children and Youth, I am pleased to accept your invitation to testify in support of funding for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.

With a combined membership of over 150 National, State, and local private organizations, the National Council of Organizations for Children and Youth has as its primary goal the improvement in the quality of life for all children and youth. Its fundamental commitment is to the promotion of adequate family living standards and of familyoriented services to foster the health, education and well-being of children and youth.

For fiscal year 1977, we are requesting that this act be funded for $100 million. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 is probably the most significant piece of Federal legislation to address troubled youth of the last decade. Simply, its aim is to extend and expand justice for children.

It requires States to remove youth convicted of status offensesbehaviors that are not law violations for adults, runaways, truants, incorrigibles-from their prisons and detention facilities. It encourages States to engage in programs to prevent youth from entering the justice system in the first place.

The act gives the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration the authority to assist States in these reforms of their juvenile justice systems with critically needed Federal funds. Forty-four States and two territories have agreed to institute these major reforms. By August 1, 1977, they will have “deinstitutionalized” status offenders and will stop trying to "help" them by placing them in prison and detention.

Fiscal year 1977 is the most critical year for getting the necessary resources into the States to make these reforms a reality. The uncertainty of the level of Federal support for these needed reforms has already had a negative impact. First, the Administration requests no funds, then the President requests a deferral of funds and, finally, requests only $10 million. This has seriously damaged States' planning efforts in implementing these reforms.

With uncertain funding, the States are uncertain of what they can accomplish. More seriously, States who have already committed themselves to reform, North Carolina and Maine, among others, are now questioning the seriousness of the Federal support and considering withdrawing from the program. Furthermore, those States not participating in the act cite inadequate Federal support as a primary

reason.

No one knows exactly how many youth are locked up each year. LEAA date from 1971 report over 600,000 were locked up, mostly in detention. The average daily population of young people in jails was between 12,000 and 13,000. Other surveys have consistently shown that about 75 percent of females and about 25 percent of males are locked up for status offenses.

The funding of the act is not coddling anybody. It is taking youth out of prisons and detention centers who never should have been there in the first place, and providing treatment for them in their communities. These funds appropriated for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act are not for brick and mortar and are not for hardware. The funds put people to work on critical needs. The act envisions putting people, particularly young people, to work helping other young people.

During the 15 months of fiscal year 1976, LEAA will receive and obligate $75 million under this act. In the last 3 weeks of fiscal year 1975, the Congress appropriated $25 million for the act, which LEAA obligated during fiscal year 1976. For fiscal year 1976, the Congress appropriated $40 million to the act. The transitional quarter adds almost $10 million, for a total of $75 million that LEAA will receive and obligate in fiscal year 1976.

An appropriation level of $75 million in fiscal year 1977 for the act would only maintain the status quo. An appropriation level of $75 million in fiscal year 1977 for this act-half the amount the act authorizes—is essential if these 44 States and 2 territories are to mount effective programs.

Mr. Chairman, as one of the supporters of this act, you are certainly aware of the overwhelming support it received in both the Senate, 88-1, and the House, 329–20. The act has an equally widespread base of support among the public and private sectors who work with youth. The administration, as you know, has not been supportive.

The administration did not request any funds for the act in the first 2 years, and now asks only $10 million. The Congress removed this legislation from HEW and placed it in LEAA-in part because HEW was spending only $10 million per year, a level of effort that Congress found totally inadequate.

The administration's other arguments have also fallen by the wayside. First, they said that they could not "responsibly” spend any amount of funds on a new program, while LEA, geared up to start its efforts. Under the leadership of Milton Luger, Assistant Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, whose appointment was confirmed by the Senate early last fall, LEAA has done a commendable and responsible job committing its funds to these needed reforms.

The administration also argues that no new funds are needed under this act because of funds spent under the Safe Streets Act. At the same time, however, it has worked successfully to eliminate the maintenance of effort requirement on the Safe Streets Act, which required LEAA to continue to fund juvenile justice programs under Safe Streets Act.

The following appropriations level appears to have these results: $10 million level, support that has been demonstrated as inadequate; $40 million level, serious and damaging cutbacks in current and future efforts; $75 million level, maintains current level of available resources; $ 100 million level, allows some expansion of youth services as youth crime rise continues.

Historically, it has been Federal support that has produced the necessary change and innovation in services to young people. Youth crime and its prevention must be addressed locally. Federal money is critical to starting those reforms this year.

The deinstitutionalization of status offenders is the most comprehensive prevention effort against juvenile justice systems that the Federal Government has ever embarked upon. It demands your support now. We urge you to fund the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act for $100 million.

STATEMENT OF CAROL S. VANCE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HARRIS

COUNTY, TEX. Senator PasTORE. Next we will hear from Mr. Carol S. Vance, District Attorney, Harris County, Tex. Mr. Vance must catch an afternoon plane. Please proceed, Mr. Vance.

Mr. VANCE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear before you today representing the National District Attorneys' Association as well as my own elected office to urge that block grant funds and discretionary funds of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration be increased and not decreased. From 18 years' experience as a prosecutor, a former president of the National District Attorneys' Association, and a continuous member of the Governor's Advisory Committee for Criminal Justice Grants since the inception of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, I would like to share with you several valid reasons why the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration needs your support and increased funding.

« 이전계속 »