페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

-4

and basements

By these criteria, Mr. Chairman, Bureau institutions are presently over

crowded 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

Bur eau 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.

Let me say that I have no quarrel with those who are disenchanted with the

effectiveness of the criminal justice system, corrections in particular.

But

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

-6

and design of a facility for 500 offenders.

The need for this facility is even greater today than it was when we

initially made the request.

Institution overcrowding in the Northeast Region

is currently 19 percent. Existing institutions at Danbury, Connecticut and

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania are overcrowded by more than 30 percent.

In addition,

more than 1,400 offenders with legal residence in the Northeast region are now

confined in institutions outside the area.

We are requesting $21.7 million in

fiscal year 1977 to build this urgently needed facility, which will permit us

to reduce critical overcrowding at the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg,

Pennsylvania, and the Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury, Connecticut,

and to move offenders from institutions in other regions who have residence in

the area closer to their homes.

The requested institution will provide a safe, humane environment for

offenders.

A wide variety of program options will be offered including academic

and vocational/occupational education, individual and group counseling, career

guidance and development of employment skills.

Plans also include development

of an appropriate industrial project by Federal Prison Industries, Inc.

Initially, we had hoped to locate the institution near New York City and

worked closely with local authorities in efforts to locate a suitable site.

After extensive surveys, we concluded that sites in or immediately adjacent to

New York City were unavailable.

We have, however, identified a site in Otisville,

New York which is approximately 70 miles from New York City, and New York State

officials have declared their intent to sell the property to the Federal

Government.

The distance between Otisville and New York City is not considered

excessive and commerical transportation is readily available.

We are also requesting $16,535,000 to construct the third of the complex

of three youth institutions planned in the Southeastern region.

The Congress

appropriated $2.5 million in 1973 for site acquisition and design of this complex

of facilities.

This institution is designed to serve 400 youthful offenders

between the ages of 18 and 26.

In addition to fulfilling the requirement for

youthful offenders in the Southeast, the availability of this facility will permit

the total conversion of the Federal Correctional Institution at Ashland, Kentucky

to an adult institution, an important step in our longer range goal of closing

the antiquated Atlanta Penitentiary.

The projection of closing Atlanta was

partly contingent on our ability to obtain construction funds for this facility

in fiscal year 1977.

We have obtained a site in Talladega, Alabama and are

prepared to commence design and construction if and when construction funds are

approved.

Mr. Chairman, the third major thrust of this budget request is in response

to critical jail problems in several areas of the country.

State and local

contract facilities have become non-existent in the Detroit, Michigan area.

Federal detainees have been removed from the Wayne County Jail because of severe

overcrowding and exorbitant costs.

Further, Federal detainees are no longer

being accepted at the Oakland County, Michigan Jail because of severe overcrowding

in that institution.

With no abatement in the detention caseload in the Detroit

area, averaging in excess of 100 detainees daily, we have found it necessary to

convert a portion of the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan to

serve as a temporary jail.

This represents neither a permanent nor an effective

remedy to the problem, primarily because it is located over 40 miles from Detroit.

This distance presents problems to the courts, to the defense counsel and to

the U. S. Attorneys..

In view of these factors, we are requesting $2.8 million for site acquisition

and design of a 300 bed Metropolitan Correctional Center to be located in Detroit, Michigan.

This facility, similar to those recently constructed in San Diego,

New York and Chicago, will serve the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District

of Michigan by providing housing for study and observation cases referred by the

courts, for persons awaiting trial and sentencing, and for offenders serving short

term sentences.

We are also requesting $2.7 million for site acquisition and design of a

Metropolitan Correctional Center of 400 beds to be located in either Phoenix

or Tucson, Arizona.

Both Phoenix and Tucson are rapidly growing metropolitan

areas with an expanding Federal detention caseload averaging approximately 345

daily - 170 in Phoenix and 195 in Tucson.

There are few available detention

facilities.

The Federal Detention Center at Florence, Arizona initially designed

to house 75 offenders, has been accommodating a daily population averaging 120.

Many court-ordered study cases must be transferred to California, Colorado, Texas

and Missouri, at added cost and delay.

This proposed facility will provide for

urgently needed capacity for persons awaiting trial in Arizona, for study cases

referred by the courts, and for those offenders who are serving short-term

sentences.

It is premature at this time to specify the location of this facility.

The site will be determined later, after an analysis of Federal detainee case

loads and other pertinent factors.

Mr. Chairman, I have discussed at length the critical need for these four

new facilities, which are designed to alleviate the overcrowding in institutions,

to permit the eventual closing of antiquated penitentiaries, and finally, to make

an effective response to the critical lack of jail capacity for Federal detainees.

I consider these to be the most important problems the Bureau faces, and,

with the continued support of the Congress we will be able to deal with them

effectively. This concludes my formal statement, Mr.

Chairman.

I would be

pleased to answer any questions you and members of the Committee may have.

« 이전계속 »