Page images

new programs. There has been very little time to determine systematically the degree to which a program is producing results. It is proposed to undertake a continuous analysis of operations with the requested additional staff. Examples of the kinds of questions which should be considered include

1. Determining whether present training programs are providing skills which will be used by an inmate once he leaves the institution.

2. Finding out what parts of farm programs produce the best financial return to the institution while still providing training opportunities.

3. Finding better ways to select those individuals who can reasonably be expected to benefit from education.

4. Finding ways to designate the proper institution for an individual at the time of commitment so that the number of transfers will be reduced.

5. Reexamining policies on the funds which inmates are permitted to spend so that they will have more funds to maintain themselves after release.

6. Comparing the costs and the effectiveness of individual and group counseling. All of these studies will have as their dual objectives (a) doing a better job of rehabilitation with available staff and funds, and (0) consequently reducing the proportion of persons who may be expected to return to penal institutions because of additional violations. The spiraling cost of crime paid by the lawabiding citizen, the steady growth in prison population, the sheer waste of human lives; all demand that we rehabilitate criminals earlier in their careers thus breaking the vicious circle of repeated commitments. Most of the work will be carried out in the institutions and in close cooperation with the wardens and institution personnel. The staff will seek help and guidance in the experience of other prison systems. It will draw heavily on the increasing body of knowledge being accumulated by researchers in the behavioral sciences and medicine. It will pay special attention to the results of the study of Federal prisons now being made by the University of Illinois. Demonstration projects will be developed to test programs in selected institutions before they are established service wide. The emphasis of the staff will be on the practical question of what to do with people after they get to prison, but certainly its findings will have significance and applicability for those interested in delinquency prevention.

The staff will include two senior correctional personnel who are skilled in both research techniques and practical operations. Two junior level staff members will collect data and make basic analyses. The potential of the unit will be multiplied many times by using institution personnel to carry out and report on specific projects. The two secretaries will assist in preparing data as well as carrying out normal clerical and secretarial duties. Wage board increases ($169,000)

About 16 percent of Burean employees are paid under wage board schedules. Since submission of the 1961 appropriation request, 490 or 60 percent of these employees have received increases as a result of new community wage surveys. The requested appropriation covers the full year costs of these increases. Including additional retirement and insurance contributions, this amounts to $169,000. (Note: This amount is also included in a 1961 supplemental request.) Maintenance of average employment ($145,000)

Employment is programed so as to maintain a lapse rate of slightly more than 2 percent of authorized positions. In a high percentage of Bureau of Prisons positions vacancies must be filled immediately in order to assure custodial se curity and protect plant operations.

The $145,000 requested is due to the fact that within-grade increases are not fully financed by turnover savings. It is estimated that there is a deficiency of about $30 per employee. This is less than one-third of the minimum step increase earned annually by the great majority of Bureau of Prisons employees.


Nine hundred increase in population ($260.000)

The average inmate population is estimated to increase from the budgeted figure of 23,100 to a total of 24,000. (Note: A supplemental estimate is being submitted for 1961 to raise the population estimate to 23,500.) The increases are due to several factors primarily the longer sentences being served by narcoties cases and youthful offenders. Other important factors are a slight upturn in

total court commitments and a larger number of inmates returned to institutions after violating the terms of their parole or conditional release.

The population estimates for fiscal year 1962 and subsequent years will not include prisoners in Alaska since the great bulk of those prisoners will be financed by the State. The 1962 estimates also anticipate the transfer in 1981, of youthful District of Columbia offenders to the District's new youth facility. "Care" increase of 1 cent ($88,000)

An increase of 1 cent to a total of 80 cents is requested. “Care" includes the costs of feeding, clothing, and otherwise maintaining prisoners. The need for an increase is attributable to

(a) Higher than average costs of operation at Sandstone and Lompoc.

(b) Higher transportation expenses in connection with the release of prisoners.

(C) Declines in the availability of surplus clothing due to the Department of Defense's policy of giving a clothing allowance rather than issuing clothing to enlisted men.

(d) Increased costs of medicine and purchased clothing.


Increases in utility rates ($130,000)

During fiscal year 1960 utility rates paid for services such as gas, electricity, and water increased an average of more than 7 percent over fiscal year 1959 rates. $130,000 is requested to cover the cost of those rate increases which have already occurred. Building and grounds ($78,000)

A 10-percent increase ($78,000) is requested in funds for the purchase of supplies and materials used in the day-to-day maintenance and operation of institutions. The amounts presently appropriated are not sufficient to meet the requirements imposed by increases in population, continued aging of plant and equipment, and accomplished price increases. The result is that institutions must defer many maintenance tasks. While these tasks could be accomplished now at costs of a few hundred dollars, deferrals can only result in increasing the size and urgency of the work to the extent they become very expensive projects.


Mr. ROONEY. This request for Salaries and Expenses is in the amount of $46,550,000, or an increase of $3,505,000 over the amount appropriated to date in the current fiscal year. This is an increase of $1,605,000 when anticipated pay act supplements are taken into consideration. This, of course, is exclusive of the matter to which I previously referred; to-wit, the request for $618,000 under Salaries and Expenses for the Institutional Treatment Program for Juveniles and Youths.

The requested increases are set forth beginning at page 28–7 of the justifications.

ADDITIONAL POSITIONS It would appear from that that you are requesting 143 additional positions ?

Mr. BENNETT. That is correct, sir.
Mr. ROONEY. What are these eight positions under Education?

Mr. BENNETT. Those are the academic teachers in our various institutions, such as Atlanta, Terre Haute, Petersburg, Ashland, Alderson, Lompoc, and Terminal Island.

Mr. ROONEY. Under Salaries and Expenses are included the transferees from the Bureau of Health, Education, and Welfare and Public Health Service?

Mr. BENNETT. The doctors; yes, sir.



Mr. Rooney. How much did you receive in the last fiscal year for housing these doctors!

Mr. BENNETT. We did not receive anything, Mr. Chairman. The doctors pay us for the houses in which they live.

Mr. ROONEY. Yes, that is what I am asking about.
Mr. BENNETT. You mean the total amount they paid us?
Mr. ROONEY. Do you have that?

Mr. Sugarman. We would have to supply it for the record, but I would estimate it at about $30,000.

Mr. ROONEY. Is it possible that these doctors receive an allowance from Health, Education, and Welfare for housing and that all of it is not transferred to the Bureau of Prisons?

Mr. BENNETT. That is correct. It is allowed to them as individuals and then they pay us the rental set by the Budget Bureau for the houses in which they live.

Mr. Rooney. Let us take a specific example, Mr. Bennett.
Does one occur to you?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I think so. Down at the Atlanta Penitentiary we have a residence for the Chief Medical Officer. The rental on that house is $75 per month according to my recollection and that rental

Mr. ROONEY. How many rooms does it have?
Mr. BENNETT. I think seven rooms.

Mr. WILKINSON. It has three bedrooms, dining room, kitchen and living room.

Mr. ROONEY. That is a pretty fair sized house for $75 a month. Go ahead.

Mr. BENNETT. The Chief Medical Officer receives an allowance from the Public Health Service, a rental allowance and I think it is in his grade, about $125 a month.

Mr. ROONEY. This is nice work if you can get it.

In this budget, there is the money to reimburse the Public Health Service for the salaries of these medical officers; is that right?

Mr. BENNETT. That is correct. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. Has this ever been discussed with the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. I think they know this.
Mr. ROONEY. What did they say about this?

Mr. BENNETT. This was a system that has been in effect for a good many years. It was felt that there should be no discrimination in the rentals charged the Public Health Service officers over the rentals charged other people in similar

Mr. ROONEY. Why should they get any more allowance than they have to pay in rent for the building?

Mr. BENNETT. I do not know, Mr. Chairman. That is the way these commissioned officers, whether Army, Navy, or what not, or Public Health Service, they receive a cash allowance, or a rental allowance, and if they

Mr. Rooney. That is expected to be in buildings other than Gov. ernment buildings?

Mr. BENNETT. That is right.
Mr. Bow. That is discrimination against the taxpayer, Mr. Chair-


Mr. ROONEY. It sure is.

Mr. BENNETT. They are allowed to rent the house at any amount they see fit. Of course, one of the other things

Mr. Rooney. Why do you not charge them $125 a month in this particular instance and put the difference in the Treasury?

Mr. BENNETT. That is the rental of the house. If he is a non-Public Health Service

Mr. Rooney. What do you have to do to change the matter of the rental of the house?

Mr. BENNETT. Sign an order establishing this.

Mr. Rooney. Why do you not sign an order preventing these doctors from making money like that at the expense of the taxpayers?

Mr. BENNETT. One of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, is that I require them to live on the reservation because they are on call 24 hours a day. They have to be on duty or near at hand. One of the reasons is that if we charge them more than other employees they might find quarters elsewhere where they would not be accessible.

ow. Mr. Chairman, would you yield to me for an observation ? Mr. ROONEY. Yes, Mr. Bow. Mr. Bow. Do we reimburse HEW at $125 a month? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. In other words, he is paying $75 but we reimburse him at $125? Mr. Chairman, I think we should do something about this, put a limitation on this.

Mr. Rooney. I am wondering why Mr. Bennett has not done something about this over all these years.

Mr. BENNETT. For the reason I have given. This was agreed upon years ago bet ween

Mr. ROONEY. Does the military officer who uses Government quarters at a military installation also get a rental allowance ?

Mr. BENNETT. I do not know. I suppose he does.

Mr. SUGARMAN. Under certain circumstances he does, Mr. Chairman, depending on the nature of housing and whether it is considered to be standard or substandard housing. If it is standard housing, he does not.

Mr. Rooney. Would you say that yours is standard housing ?
Mr. BENNETT. Usually.
Mr. ROONEY. Pretty good ?
Mr. BENNETT. Pretty good.
Mr. Rooney. Kept up quite well?
Mr. BENNETT. Kept up quite well.

The only thing I can say is that this has been customary and one of the things that attracts these doctors to our service, and one of the things that enables us to call on them at all times.


Mr. ROONEY. Will you please insert at this point in the record a statement with regard to each Public Health Service officer at your prison institutions, showing the amount of rent he pays and the amount of rent he is allowed ?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. Of course, this only applies to Public Health Service people living in Government-owned property.

Mr. BENNETT. That is right. (The information follows:)

FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM Comparing quarters allowances paid U.S. Public Health Service commissioned

personnel with rent paid Bureau of Prisons by such personnel who OETUPY Government housing

[blocks in formation]

U.S. Penitentiary, Atlanta, Ga.:

Chief medical officer (director grade).

Chies, surgical service (director grade).
U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kans.:

Chief medical officer (director grade).
Surgeon (full grade)...

Medical officer (senior assistant grade).
U.S. Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pa.:

Chief medical officer (director grade).

Chies, psychiatric service (senior grade).
U.S. Penitentiary, McNeil Island, Wash.:

Chief medical officer (senior grade).
Surgeon (senior assistant grade).

U.S. Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Ind.:

Chief medical officer (director grade)

Medical oflicer (senior assistant grade).
Federal Reformatory for Women, Alderson, W. Va.:

Chief medical officer (senior assistant grade)

Medical officer (senior assistant grade)
Federal Reformatory, Chillicothe, Ohio: Chief medical officer

(senior grade).
Federal Reformatory, El Reno, Okla.: Chief medical officer


1 35.00

101. 80






64. SO


1 42.00


(senior grade) National Training School for Boys, Washington, D.C.: Super

intendent (director grade) Federal Reformatory, Petersburg, Va.: Chief medical officer

(senior assistant grade).
U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Mo.:

Warden (director grade)
Chiet, medical services (director grade)
Chief, NP service (director grade).
Chief, surgical service (director grade)
Chief. dental services (director grade).
Medical officer (full grade).
Deputy chief, NP service (director grade)

Medical officer (senior assistant grade).
Federal Correctional Institution, Ashland, Ky.: Chief med-

ical officer (full grade)
Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury, Conn.: Chief

medical officer (senior assistant grade) Federal Correctional Institution, Englewood, Colo.: Chief

medical officer (senior grade). Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna, Tex.: Chief medi

cal officer (senior assistant grade)
Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc, Calif.:

Chief medical officer (director grade).
Dental officer (full grade)

Assistant medical officer (senior assistant grade)
Federal Correctional Institution, Milan, Mich.: Chief medi-

cal officer (senior assistant grade)
Federal Correctional Institution, Sandstone, Minn.: Chief

medical officer Federal Correctional Institution, Seagoville, Tex.: Chief

medical officer (senior grade). Federal Correctional Institution, Tallahassee, Fla.: Chief

medical officer (senior assistant grade)
Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island, Calif.:

Chief medical officer (director grade).
Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana, Tex.: Chief

medical officer (full grade).

136.80 136, 80 136. 80 136.80 136.80 119. 70 136.80 102. 60

85.00 80.00 80.00 66.00

48.00 1 40.00 1 48.00 1 40.00

51.8 56. 90 56. SO 20. SO $8.50 79. 70 88. 80 62. 60

119. 70

1 45.00

74. 70

102. 60

1 58.00




66. 80

102. 60



136. SO
119. 70
102. 60


54. 80
48. 70



24. 60






76. SO



37. 60

136. 80


51. 80

119. 70


59. 70

Total. -

4, 753.80

2, 359.00

2, 394. 80

Note.-In establishing the monthly rental for these quarters, the Bureau has relied on the provisions of Public Law 120, 79th Cong.. approved July 2, 1945. which authorizes Public Health Service Personnel to occupy housing on a rental basis if there are no public quarters constructed or designated for assignment without charge to such personnel. The Bureau has not constructed or designated housing specifically for Public Health Service personnel. The applicability of the authority is now under consideration by the General Accounting Office and we will abide by its decision.

1 Housing is considered substandard.

« PreviousContinue »