Federal Prison System

STATEMENT OF NORMAN A. CARLSON, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PRISONS

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I welcome the opportunity to appear today to support the fiscal year 1977 budget for the Federal Bureau of Prisons that requests a total of $304,127,000 and 8,296 positions. Apart from our request in the appropriation "Buildings and Facilities," the only major new initiative is the National Institute of Corrections, which was established by Congress under Title V of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.

Mr. Chairman, the Bureau's 1977 budget request focuses on three major

areas:

Reducing the overcrowding currently existing in Federal institutions

Moving toward the eventual replacement of the large, antiquated
penitentiaries at McNeil Island, Washington; Atlanta, Georgia; and
Leavenworth, Kansas

- Providing critically needed detention facilities for offenders
awaiting trial before the U. S. District Courts in Detroit, Michigan
and in the State of Arizona.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would first like to deal with the issue of
When I appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee

overcrowding.

in February of this year, I indicated that critical overcrowding in the institutions was the most serious problem that the Bureau faced. At that time

the Federal Bureau of Prisons' institutional population, 25,600, had reached

-2

an all-time high. The population has continued to increase rapidly and now stands at 26,848, an increase of 3,663 over one year ago. Excluding the

increases resulting from activation of the new Metropolitan Correctional Centers in Chicago and San Diego, this represents an increase of 3,205 over last year. Nationwide, prison populations have soared in the past year, reversing a 12-year trend of decreasing population. The January 1, 1976 total of 249,538 inmates is nearly 24,000 higher than the population one year ago.

The recent population increase in the Federal System (see Attachment 1) follows a brief period of decline during the middle of fiscal 1975. This decline resulted primarily from the release of Selective Service violators under the Presidential clemency program and the granting of parole to drug offenders not previously eligible, pursuant to P.L. 93-481, enacted by the Congress on October 26, 1974.

In analyzing the recent increase, we find that the following key indicators which occurred during 1975 are relevant.

Criminal filings in U. S. District Courts - up nine percent over

from 93.4 months in 1974 to 99 months in 1975

These key factors combined with actual experience in recent months indicate that the institutional population will continue to increase during the

next fiscal year.

During the past year, there have been questions raised concerning institution overcrowding. Unfortunately, the concept of overcrowding has been given

various meanings. The Bureau has one basic measure of overcrowding.

-

This is

the level of population institutions should house under favorable circumstances. This capacity is called "Physical Capacity" and is shown as 22,484 in Attachment 4. "Physical Capacity" is based on standards developed and advocated by the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Offenders, the American Correctional Association, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals for eliminating overcrowding and undesirable housing and

-

to provide an element of privacy for inmates and an acceptable level of safety

for both staff and inmates.

While these are long range goals and are many years away from being

achieved, we base the definition of "Physical Capacity" on the following criteria:

- A minimum of 45 square feet per person in multiple occupancy cells,
although this allowance is substantially below current standards for
new institutions

Including only specifically designed housing areas, thus excluding
most medical and segregation space, administrative detention space and
inadequate housing areas such as renovated shower facilities, corridors

and basements

-4

By these criteria, Mr. Chairman, Bureau institutions are presently overcrowded by 19 percent or nearly 4,365 inmates. Internally, we also use an

operational concept of capacity on which we base daily decision-making for

designating and transferring inmates. This is a relative measure of the number of inmates institutions can house to accommodate the actual population on any day and is referred to as "Operating Capacity," shown as 25,355 in Attachment 4. I should point out, that this figure includes double bunking and utilizing areas that are far from ideal.

Unfortunately, the House Appropriations Committee Staff report submitted in August 1975, has led to the erroneous conclusion that Bureau institutions have excess capacity of 3,800 beds. At the time of the Committee Staff survey, the Bureau did in fact have approximately 3,800 beds set up over and above its total inmate population. Nearly 2,000 of these beds, however, were in segregation, administrative detention and hospital space, or for inmates who were on short-term furlough and would soon be returning to the institution. Effective management of

correctional institutions requires that space be available for hospitalization, to separate offenders who present serious disciplinary problems and for those who are temporarily absent from the institution for short periods of time. The remaining beds were set up in areas not designed for housing because of the necessity to accommodate incoming population which in some institutions fluctuates daily.

A recent General Accounting Office report to Congress (entitled "Federal Construction Plans Should Be Better Developed and Supported") indicated that inadequate and often uncoordinated data between various elements of the Criminal

-5

Justice System hampers the effectiveness of Bureau planning efforts. However, the report indicated a need for new facilities, given the apparent overcrowding that exists.

But

Let me say that I have no quarrel with those who are disenchanted with the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, corrections in particular. incarceration is and will continue to be a reality for many years to come. It is ironic to witness the injustice to incarcerated offenders caused by individuals who, while carrying inmates' rights as their banner, zealously work to deny inmates their right to decent and humane living conditions.

Mr. Chairman, I testified before a House Judiciary Subcommittee on July 30, 1975 that the Bureau of Prisons' facilities development program was vital to the elimination of overcrowding in institutions. I also testified that we projected closing of the U. S. Penitentiary, McNeil Island, Washington during 1979, the

U. S. Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia in 1983, and the U. S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas in 1985. As I indicated at that time, this projection was predicated on the assumption that there would be no dramatic increase in the inmate population and that there would be continued Congressional support for the Bureau's construction program. We are already behind in achieving these goals, primarily because of the recent upsurge in institutional population, and I urge this Committee to respond favorably to the fiscal year 1977 request for the Federal

Bureau of Prisons.

Mr. Chairman, two years ago, we testified before this Committee the need for an additional adult correctional facility in the Northeastern area of the United States because of the population pressures on existing facilities in that region. The Congress subsequently appropriated $1.5 million for site acquisition