Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
16988049
label
Justice (6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16988049
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Justice (6)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Civil rights
Correctional institutions
Crime
Law enforcement
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16988049
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-12-31
month
12
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-09-01
month
9
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
0ba1b03f574b2740
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 20, folder "Justice (6)" of the James M. Cannon
Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
file
MEMORANDUM
Justice
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 1, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jim Cannon
FROM:
Dick Parsons D.
SUBJECT:
Public Works and Prison Construction
You requested my comments on the Attorney General's memorandum
of November 24 (attached at Tab A).
The short answer is that it is too late to do anything about
the problem the Attorney General has addressed. I spoke with
John Eden, EDA Administrator, today and he has informed me
that:
1. EDA has received more than $16 billion in applications
for the $2 billion of public works construction funds.
They are no longer accepting applications.
2. EDA is well into the winnowing process and will be
ready to make awards within two weeks.
3. He (Eden) expects that they will find a number of
kinds of projects Justice has suggested, even
without a Presidential directive.
I suggest we tell the Attorney General it is too late to
follow up on his precise suggestion now, but that we have
made known to Commerce the President's interest in this area.
So that you may have the complete file before you in reviewing
this matter, I have also attached the draft memo we circulated
to senior staff (Tab B) and OMB's and Counsel's Office's
responses (Tabs C and D).
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Digitized from Box 20 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
120202
LISHARY
FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 16, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
ROBERT T. HARTMANN
JACK MARSH
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
ALAN GREENSPAN
JIM LYNN
BILL SEIDMAN
FROM:
JAMES CANNON Hill Suon
SUBJECT:
Public Works and Prison Rehabilitation
Attached is a draft memo to the President regarding
a proposal by the Department of Justice to allocate
a specific portion of public works construction funds
for the renovation of State and local penal institutions.
The funds would be administered by the Economic Development
Administration under Title I of the Public Works Employment
Act of 1976.
I would appreciate your comments on the proposal by
Wednesday, October 20.
Attachment
FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 16, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
Attached is a draft memo to the President regarding
a proposal by the Department of Justice to allocate
a specific portion of public works construction funds
for the renovation of State and local penal institutions.
The funds would be administered by the Economic Development
Administration under Title I of the Public Works Employment
Act of 1976.
I would appreciate your comments on the proposal by
Wednesday, October 20.
HiDeXuern
James Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
Attachment
ALL P. FORD LIBRA
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
October 15, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Jim Cannon
SUBJECT:
Public Works and Prison Rehabilitation
This memorandum seeks your guidance on a proposal by the Depart-
ment of Justice for the dedication of public works construction
funds for construction and renovation of State and local penal
institutions.
BACKGROUND
On July 22, 1976, the Congress enacted into law (over your veto)
the Public Works Employment Act of 1976. The ostensible purpose
of the Act was to stimulate employment through the creation of
public works jobs. Title I of the Act specifically provided for
the funding of projects for the construction, renovation and
repair of public facilities.
On October 2, 1976, you signed into law H. R. 15194, the Public
Works Employment Appropriations Act of 1976, appropriating some
$3.95 billion for public works projects under the authorization
act. Of this amount, up to $2 billion is available under Title I
for construction and renovation projects.
The Economic Development Administration in the Department of
Commerce is responsible for administration of this program.
PROPOSAL
The Department of Justice has recommended that you direct the
Secretary of Commerce to dedicate up to one-fourth of the funds
available under Title I of the Act to be expended on construction,
renovation or repair of State and local correctional facilities.
DISCUSSION
The need for more prisons and for rehabilitation of existing
prisons is clear and compelling. As you pointed out in a speech
before the Florida Chapter of the Federal Bar Association last
2
February:
"
America still has the same prison capacity
as in 1960, although crime has doubled and the population
has burgeoned."
Because of overcrowding and dilapidation, many judges are
reluctant to send convicted prisoners to certain jails. In
fact, several Federal courts have ordered certain State and
local governments to stop accepting prisoners into their
jails and to begin expensive renovations. Moroever, many
believe the corollary to mandatory minimum prison sentences,
as you and other responsible leaders have advocated, is more
prisons. Finally, as a practical matter, dedication of up to
one-fourth of the public works construction funds to building
new prisons and renovating old ones would put "teeth" in your
anticrime program.
On the other hand, it should be noted that Title I funds are
available for prison construction projects now and if a State
or local government deems construction or repair of a
correctional facility to be a priority it may apply to EDA
for public works funds for the project. It could be argued,
therefore, that by dedicating a set percentage of these funds
to construction or repair of correctional facilities you are
limiting the flexibility of State and local governments to
set their own priorities. Secondly, dedicating a portion of
the funds to one purpose would inevitably create pressures
for similar dedications for other purposes.
Additional background materials are attached at Tab A.
OPTIONS
If you are inclined to take action on this problem, three options
present themselves.
1. Direct the Secretary of Commerce to dedicate up to
one-fourth of the funds available under Title I to
be expended on construction, renovation or repair of
State and local correctional facilities. (Department
of Justice proposal.)
2. Publicly encourage State and local governments to
submit applications for Title I funds for construction,
renovation or repair of correctional facilities and
direct the Assistant Secretary for Economic Develop-
ment to give "high priority" to these applications.
FORD & LIBRARY
3
3. Call upon State and local governments to give
priority attention to construction, renovation and
repair of correctional facilities in applying for
Title I funds.
RECOMMENDATIONS
DECISION
Option 1 -- Dedicate one-fourth of Title I funds
to prison projects.
Option 2 -- Direct Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development to give prison projects
"high priority"
Option 3 -- Encourage State and local governments
to use Title I funds for prison projects.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530
REQUITURE
September 7, 1976
JUSTITIA
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES T. LYNN, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SUBJECT:
The Public Works Employment Act of 1976
It appears that the Administration may have been presented
with an opportunity to accomplish something of significance
in regard to the problem of crime.
Ken Lazarus has inquired of the Departments of Commerce
and Justice whether the provisions of Title I of the Public
Works Employment Act of 1976 permit part of the authorized
$2 billion to be expended on state and local penal facilities,
thereby helping to resolve a problem identified by the
President in his Crime Message.
As you can see from the attached memorandum, the Depart-
ment of Justice believes that some portion (about one-fourth)
of these funds can be expended, efficiently and effectively,
in carrying out a stated aim of the Administration -- adequate
penal and correctional facilities. The funds realistically
are available from no other source. The planning is well
advanced. The need is clear. In his speech last February in
Miami before the Florida Chapter of the Federal Bar Association,
the President stated:
FORD LIBRART
- 2 -
Unbelievably, America still has the same
prison capacity as in 1960, although crime
has doubled and the population has
burgeoned. The need for more prisons is
obvious and very, very urgent.
The impact of such a program would go far beyond
alleviating unemployment -- the primary purpose of the Act.
It would result in an increased deterrent effect, reduced
litigation as to jail conditions, and reduced future spending
on federal correctional facilities.
I hope you can take the time to peruse the memorandum
and to let me know your thoughts on the subject. Time is
of the essence since the temporal strictures of the Act are
so severe and since, as page 1 of today's "Wall Street
Journal" indicates, the scramble to use these funds (for
such projects as landscaping trolley tracks) has begun.
HAROLD R. TYLER, JR.
Attachment
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Funding State and Local Penal and Correctional Facilities
under the Public Works Employment Act of 1976
This memorandum addresses the issue whether the Public
Works Employment Act of 1976 can be of assistance in helping
state and local governments meet their requirements for
adequate penal facilities.
Summary
The funds authorized by the Act can be used to aid local
governments in constructing new jails and in renovating old
ones. Such expenditures would be within the purposes of
the Act, and the funds could be used quickly and efficiently
within the alloted time limits. Such use of the funds could
not only have a potential effect in reducing the level of
the nation's crime, but could result in substantial savings
to the federal government by obviating a considerable amount
of proposed federal jail construction.
Discussion
I.
The Public Works Employment Act of 1976.
A. The Statute.
On July 22, 1976, Congress enacted the Public Works
Employment Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-369), an intended anti-
recession measure under which federal funds will be distributed
to state and local governments under the auspices of the
Economic Development Administration of the Department of
Commerce. Title I of the Act is intended to produce greater
employment through the funding of projects for the construction,
renovation, and repair of public facilities. 1/ (A copy of
the Act is appended at Tab A.)
1/ Only Title I of the Act is directly relevant to the
subject of this memorandum. Title II, which seeks to avoid
recessionary budget cuts by providing grants to local
governmental units to be used for the maintenance of basic
governmental services, may have some marginal relevance.
Title III (amending the Federal Pullution Control Act) is
irrelevant.
FORD & LIBRARY are
- 2 -
Section 111 of Title I of the Act authorizes an
appropriation of up to $2 billion for the period ending
September 30, 1977. 2/ The money is to be distributed in
the form of grants of 100 percent of the cost of the
projects funded (Section 103(b)). The money may also be
distributed as increased contributions to projects
initiated under other federal legislation, raising the
federal share of such projects to 100 percent (Section
104), and to projects initiated under state or local laws
requiring a contribution (Section 105).
The money is to be expended for construction,
renovation, repair, or improvement of public works projects
(Section 103 (a) ) or to produce plans, specifications, and
designs for such projects (Section 103 (a) It may not be
used for site acquisition (Section 106(b)), for building
certain water projects (Section 106 (a)), or for maintenance
of projects constructed with funds from the Act (Section
106 (c) ) Since the purpose of the Act is to provide needed
employment promptly, grants are to be conditioned upon
assurances that the projects can be started with on-site
labor within 90 days of approval (Section 106 (d)
The money is to be allocated to projects through-
out the nation (Section 108 (a)), with preference to areas
of high unemployment (70 percent, preferentially, to those
areas where unemployment exceeds 6 1/2 percent and the
national average and 30 percent to those areas where the
rate is below the national average but in excess of 6 1/2
percent) (Section 108(c)). Priority is to be given to
projects of local, as opposed to state, governments
(Section 108(b)).
B. The Implementing Regulations
Under Section 107 of the Act, the Secretary of
Commerce is to issue implementing regulations within 30 days
of passage. Those regulations were issued on August 20,
1976, under the signature of the Assistant Secretary for
2/ On August 25, by a vote of 311-72, the House of Repre-
sentatives passed a bill (H.R. 15194) appropriating $2
billion for Title I projects. The next day the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported the House bill to the
floor of the Senate, increasing the appropriation for the
whole bill by $500 million. It is likely that a conference
will be required after Senate passage.
FORD
LIBRAR
- 3 -
Economic Development, and were published in the Federal
Register on Monday, August 23 (41 F.R. 35670). (A copy
is appended at Tab B.)
The regulations are not restrictive. For the
most part, they merely provide detail to the eligibility
aspects of the Act. However, Section 316.11 (c) of those
regulations requires that any detention facilities funded
under Title I must be in compliance with the provisions
of Part E of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750b (1), (4)-(9)). Those pro-
visions require that applications include a comprehensive
statewide program, an emphasis on community based
corrections, advanced design features, regional sharing
(where feasible and desirable), advanced correctional
practices, personnel standards, and drug and alcohol
treatment. Since only the first of these requirements
would be particularly burdensome, and since it would
already have been met by state planning agencies in earlier
applications to LEAA for funds for penal or correctional
purposes, these requirements do not appear to be a serious
bar to the effective use of Title I funds for such
purposes.
Conclusion: Funds under the Act may be used to build
penal and correctional facilities and to renovate existing
facilities. The strictures of the Act, however, indicate
that the bulk of this money would go to local communities,
and thus that the funds used for such purposes would most
likely be available for jails rather than penitentiaries.
II. The Need for Jail Construction and Renovation.
There is an urgent, demonstrable need for construction
and renovation of jails. The nature of the specific need
varies with the size of the community.
3/ The regulations ($316.10 (g) ) limit project costs to $5
million but permit the Assistant Secretary to waive the
limit for "good cause." This provision would affect only
a limited number of large, metropolitan jail construction
projects, and "good cause" in those cases would seem to be
apparent.
GESTLO FORD LIBRARY
- 4 -
Jails located in or near large metropolitan areas are
commonly overcrowded. 4/ The jail in Prince Georges County
is operating at 297% above capacity. Florida is using tents
and airplane hangars to house prisoners. Maryland has
purchased a "mothballed" freighter to use as a prison. The
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has recently
resorted to authorizing the purchase of hundreds of trailers
for use as substitute facilities.
Most rural jails, although small (75 percent have
capacities of 20 or less), are still large enough to handle
existing and projected near-term needs. However, the
conditions of many of these jails have been described by
knowledgeable authorities as anywhere from "despicable" to
"abominable." Six percent are more than 100 years old; 12
percent are more than 75 years old; 25 percent are more than
50 years old. Eighty percent have no recreational facilities
available and many have no visitation facilities. Some have
totally inadequate sanitation facilities. Many present
safety hazards -- to both inmates and staff -- as a result
of non-locking cell doors and antiquated security features.
These overcrowded and substandard conditions have a
drastic effect on the criminal justice system. Judges are
understandably reluctant to detain persons prior to trial
where such facilities exist, and, although evidence suggests
incarceration of convicted offenders deters crime, 5/ in
the last few years an increasingly number of serious
offenders has been sentenced only to probation, frequently
because judges are unwilling to send offenders to overcrowded
The 1972 census stated that five percent (or 167) of the
nation's jails were then overcrowded. Many experts now
allege that all urban jails are overcrowded and that rural
and county jails are nearing a crisis point.
5/ For a general discussion of the subject, see James Q.
Wilson, Thinking About Crime (New York, Basic Books, 1975) ;
Norval Morris, The Future of Imprisonment (Chicago, University
of Chicago Press, 1974) ; and Ernest van den Haag, Punishing
Criminals (New York, Basic Books, 1975).
FORD & LIBRARY
/
- 5 -
or substandard jail facilities. Indeed, in recent years
the conditions in some penal facilities have been found so
poor that federal courts have ruled that being sentenced to
them constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the
Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. 6/ The states of
Alabama and Louisiana currently have all their jails under
either court attack or court order. It is acknowledged by
all who have studied the field that these local jails are
in serious need of renovation, both for humanitarian and
correctional purposes.
Other detrimental consequences can be found where
overcrowded or poorly designed jails exist, since most jails
are multi-use facilities. Thirty percent of jails house
juveniles with adult offenders. Ten percent do not segre-
gate mental patients awaiting commitment. Some sixty percent
do not segregate pretrial detainees.
Conclusion: There is a pressing and widely-recognized
need for jail construction and renovation. (A copy of a
recent GAO study that is in agreement with this conclusion
is attached at Tab C. See pp. 19-27).
6/ See, e.g., Costello V. Wainwright, 525 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir.
1976) ; Finney V. Arkansas Bd. of Corrections, 505 F.2d 194
(8th Cir. 1974) ; Gates V. Collier, 501 F.2d 129 (5th Cir.
1974).
FORD : LIBRARY GERALD
- 6 -
III. The Need for Federal Funds for Such Purposes.
Penal and correctional facilities have never ranked
high in the priorities of taxpayers. Even where some local
funds are available, they are usually inadequate to permit
the construction of modern facilities. For example, while
correctional experts are in general agreement that single
inmate cells should be the rule (for safety and privacy
purposes), local authorities are reluctant to build such
facilities because of their cost.
State funding may be a more realistic means of pro-
viding adequate jails than local funding. Yet those states
which have inadequate jails are also likely to have in-
adequate penitentiaries, and consequently statewide systems
can be expected to continue to receive higher priority.
Past efforts at federal funding have not been parti-
cularly successful because of two principal shortcomings.
First, the total federal funds available have been
inadequate for the purpose. The LEAA funds available for
jail construction and repair, under Part E of the Safe
Streets Act, total $37 million for FY 1977 and $41 million
for FY 1978. Yet LEAA has projected a figure of $300
million as necessary merely to bring those correctional
facilities now under federal court orders into compliance
with court standards, and a joint ABA/LEAA study estimates
the cost of bring all correctional facilities up to such
standards at $3.5 to $4.7 billion. (A copy of the ABA/LEAA
study is appended at Tab D.) Second, problems have been
encountered as a result of the requirement that, as a
requisite to obtaining LEAA funds, the local governments
supply up to 50 percent of the costs of such projects.
Some locales, even where under court order, have simply
been unable to raise the necessary revenue. Some are
reluctant to expend the required matching funds because of
the view that the proposed facilities are too expensive as
a result of what they perceive as unnecessarily high LEAA
standards (e.g., single occupant cells). Others, under
pressure from federal courts to renovate their jail systems,
quite naturally resent being forced to expend local funds
at federal direction.
GERALD FORD
- 7 -
The availability of federal funds an order of magnitude
greater than those previously available for penal facilities,
dispensed under a program that places no burden upon states
and localities to produce matching funds, should resolve most
of the funding problems previously encountered.
A further rationale for the use of federal funds for
such purposes is the long-term savings that can accrue to the
federal government. The Bureau of Prisons contracts with
local jails for housing of federal prisoners (there are
some 6,100 federal prisoners, about one-fourth of the total,
in non-federal facilities). The inadequacies of many local
jails, however, has led to the construction by the Bureau of
three federal Metropolitan Correctional Centers (MCC's).
The Bureau has determined that there is an immediate need for
construction of MCC's in three more metropolitan areas 7/,
and is studying the need for construction of MCC's in 17 ad-
ditional cities. 8/ There is much to be said for aiding in
the improvement of local jails and avoiding the construction
of at least some of these MCC's, especially since the MCC's
already constructed have served the purpose of providing
models for jail construction. The construction of a dozen
more such facilities could be avoided through the use of
Title I funds to improve local jails. 9/
Conclusion: There does not appear to be any other
adequate, practicable source of funds for the building of
local penal facilities, and the use of Title I funds for
this purpose may result in substantial savings from other
parts of the federal budget.
7/ These metropolitan areas are Baltimore-Washington, Detroit,
and Phoenix.
These cities are Atlanta, Boston, Houston, Los Angeles,
Miami, New Orleans, Philadelphia, St. Louis, East St.
Louis, San Antonio, San Francisco, Sacramento, Tampa,
Tucson, and Orlando.
The 17 cities indicated include some within the same state.
The strictures of the Public Works Act would probably limit
construction to one jail per state, thus reducing to 12 the
total of MCC's that could be obviated.
GERALO, FORD LIBSARY
- 8 -
IV. The Ability to Plan and Execute a Program of Construction
Within the Stated Time Limits.
Since the Public Works Employment Act is designed as
an immediate anti-recession measure, it is replete with pro-
visions requiring the prompt expenditure of the funds au-
thorized, Intelligent spending for penal facilities can, in
fact, be accomplished promptly. 10/
The federal government is in a unique position to plan
and execute an expidited program of construction of penal and
correctional facilities. The Bureau of Prisons has had long,
high-level experience with planning such facilities. Its
National Institute of Corrections is designed to provide
technical assistance to local penal and correctional authori-
ties, and the Bureau's task force on jails is nearing comple-
tion of its work. Moreover, the National Clearinghouse for
Criminal Justice Planning and Architecture (an LEAA-funded
group at the University of Illinois) has developed comprehen-
sive plans not only for general application but for specific
application as well; it has plans for renovating all correc-
tional facilities in Nevada, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii,
and Oklahoma, among others, and has specific plans for a
number of local jails. 11/ (An example of one such plan is
attached at Tab E. See pages 67-93.)
The above groups can readily be formed into a task force
to set specific standards for applicants. Although, in the
past, local authorities have opposed national standards
because of the cost of their implementation, with 100 percent
federal funding such objections should be avoided.
10 Such a utilization of Title I funds would help in other
ways to achieve the purpose of the legislation. Section
316.10 (a) (2) (i) (C) of the implementing regulations states
a strong preference for labor intensive projects.
Experts on penal and correctional architecture have
advised the Department of Justice that jail facilities
are more labor intensive than other public works projects
because they require little capital for special equipment
or expensive frils, they are not subject to prefabrica-
tion, and they use a wide variety of labor skills.
11 / These include at least five county jails in Texas,
SEAMLD FORD LIBRARY
Indiana, and Nebraska. State and county plans are being
developed for Oregon, Colorado, New Hampshire, Tennessee,
and New Mexico. Kentucky and Kansas have completed their
own plans, and other states are working on plans of their
own.
- 9 -
Conclusion: If some portion of the Title I funds are
earmarked for correctional purposes, they can be expended
within the timetable of the Act with a substantial level of
efficiency.
V. The Amount of Funds Needed.
Using as a base figure the $300 million that LEAA has
projected as necessary merely to comply with existing court
orders, and adding to that figure approximately $180 million
estimated as necessary for construction, expansion, and
renovation in a dozen large cities where the federal needs
are greatest 12/ and an additional $100 million for renovation
of small jails not presently under court order, the sum of
$580 million would be an appropriate benchmark. Of course
these figures are estimates, and the need for funds is greater
than is reflected by these figures. Moreover, it cannot be
determined which areas of the country would be eligible for
funds under the unemployment formula used in the Act. Never-
theless, $580 million appears to be a reasonable working
estimate. A substantially smaller program would do no more
than enable localities to comply with court orders. A sub-
stantially larger program might lead to undesirable inef-
ficiency in expenditure.
Conclusion: A sum of money between $500 million and
$600 million can effectively be expended for this purpose
in the coming year.
VI. Arguments Against Such a Program.
The chief arguments against this program would be anti-
prison sentiment and the existence of greater priorities.
The arguments regarding anti-prison sentiment, 13 / can
be disposed of on the merits. In any event, the force of
any such arguments could be reduced by concentrating initially
on renovation of existing facilities since many of those who
are opposed to prison expansion are strongly in favor of
modernizing existing facilities.
12 / They would be selected from among those cities targeted
for MCC construction.
13 / Such sentiment is divided among those who believe that no
one should be incarcerated and those who feel that tax
money should not be wasted building "country clubs" for
criminals.
2112 R. FORD
- 10 -
The arguments regarding priorities are of greater
concern, since many localities may indeed have more urgent
needs. Certainly institutions for the mentally retarded,
hospitals, and the like will to many be more attractive
projects than jails. Nevertheless, given the national
preoccupation with the problem of crime and the potential
of such a construction program for helping indirectly to
meet that problem, the expenditure for prison facilities
seems clearly justifiable. Moreover, since the sum
suggested is only one-fourth of that authorized, other
priorities should be able to be dealt with under the Act.
Conclusion: There appears to be no insurmountable
arguments against such a program.
Recommendation
The first recorded reference to building a jail in
America appears to be a 1632 order by the city of Boston
requiring "a people pen to be constructed with all
convenient speed." We still tend to address the issue
only when, under all the circumstances, we find it
convenient. The Public Works Employment Act seems to have
made addressing the problem surprisingly convenient at
this time, and the opportunity should not be lost.
FORD
Office of the Attorney General
JUSTIVIS
Washington, D. C. 20530
September 17, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES T. LYNN, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
Edward H. Levi
Attorney General
T-ml
RE:
The Public Works Employment
Act of 1976
I think the proposal that the Public Works
Employment Act funds be used in part for much needed
local penal facilities is a good one.
While everyone talks about a crisis in everything,
the lack of adequate penal facilities is real and will
cause very great problems. So this would be most helpful
and constructive.
CC: Ron Gainer
FORD LIBRARY & BERALD
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530
September 7, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES T. LYNN, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SUBJECT:
The Public Works Employment Act of 1976
It appears that the Administration may have been presented
with an opportunity to accomplish something of significance
in regard to the problem of crime.
Ken Lazarus has inquired of the Departments of Commerce
and Justice whether the provisions of Title I of the Public
Works Employment Act of 1976 permit part of the authorized
$2 billion to be expended on state and local penal facilities,
thereby helping to resolve a problem identified by the
President in his Crime Message.
As you can see from the attached memorandum, the Depart-
ment of Justice believes that some portion (about one-fourth)
of these funds can be expended, efficiently and effectively,
in carrying out a stated aim of the Administration -- adequate
penal and correctional facilities. The funds realistically
are available from no other source. The planning is well
advanced. The need is clear. In his speech last February in
Miami before the Florida Chapter of the Federal Bar Association,
the President stated:
FORD & LIBRAR 079838
- 2 -
Unbelievably, America still has the same
prison capacity as in 1960, although crime
has doubled and the population has
burgeoned. The need for more prisons is
obvious and very, very urgent.
The impact of such a program would go far beyond
alleviating unemployment -- the primary purpose of the Act.
It would result in an increased deterrent effect, reduced
litigation as to jail conditions, and reduced future spending
on federal correctional facilities.
I hope you can take the time to peruse the memorandum
and to let me know your thoughts on the subject. Time is
of the essence since the temporal strictures of the Act are
so severe and since, as page 1 of today's "Wall Street
Journal" indicates, the scramble to use these funds (for
such projects as landscaping trolley tracks) has begun.
HAROLD R. TYLER, JR.
Attachment
FORD is LIBRARI 038830
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
RONALD L. GAINER
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLICY AND PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FROM:
KENNETH A. LAZARUS
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Public Works Employment Act of 1976
During the formulation of the President's Crime Message,
we became aware of a current critical lack of adequate
jail and prison facilities. Moreover, a large number
of these operating institutions are seriously over-
crowded. Despite the fact that the Justice Department
recently initiated a number of emergency programs to
deal with this overcrowding, the need for additional
local and state correctional facilities remains in light
of the increasing offender population.
As you know, the Public Works Employment Act of 1976
will provide money to state and local units of government
to be used for public works projects. It is my under-
standing that Mr. John Eden of the Economic Development
Administration is currently drafting regulations to
implement this new program.
I would like to have your thoughts as to whether the
Public Works Employment Act of 1976 can be of assistance
in meeting the requirements of state and local criminal
justice systems. Would you be so kind as to forward
your views in this regard as soon as practicable.
Thank you.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
specks
OPP
9/7/76
Funding State and Local Penal and Correctional Facilities
under the Public Works Employment Act of 1976
This memorandum addresses the issue whether the Public
Works Employment Act of 1976 can be of assistance in helping
state and local governments meet their requirements for
adequate penal facilities.
Summary
The funds authorized by the Act can be used to aid local
governments in constructing new jails and in renovating old
ones. Such expenditures would be within the purposes of
the Act, and the funds could be used quickly and efficiently
within the alloted time limits. Such use of the funds could
not only have a potential effect in reducing the level of
the nation's crime, but could result in substantial savings
to the federal government by obviating a considerable amount
of proposed federal jail construction.
Discussion
I.
The Public Works Employment Act of 1976.
A. The Statute.
On July 22, 1976, Congress enacted the Public Works
Employment Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-369), an intended anti-
recession measure under which federal funds will be distributed
to state and local governments under the auspices of the
Economic Development Administration of the Department of
Commerce. Title I of the Act is intended to produce greater
employment through the funding of projects for the construction,
renovation, and repair of public facilities. 1/ (A copy of
the Act is appended at Tab A.)
1/ Only Title I of the Act is directly relevant to the
subject of this memorandum. Title II, which seeks to avoid
recessionary budget cuts by providing grants to local
governmental units to be used for the maintenance of basic
governmental services, may have some marginal relevance.
Title III (amending the Federal Pullution Control Act) is
irrelevant.
- 2 -
Section 111 of Title I of the Act authorizes an
appropriation of up to $2 billion for the period ending
September 30, 1977. 2/ The money is to be distributed in
the form of grants of 100 percent of the cost of the
projects funded (Section 103 (b) ) The money may also be
distributed as increased contributions to projects
initiated under other federal legislation, raising the
federal share of such projects to 100 percent (Section
104), and to projects initiated under state or local laws
requiring a contribution (Section 105).
The money is to be expended for construction,
renovation, repair, or improvement of public works projects
(Section 103(a)), or to produce plans, specifications, and
designs for such projects (Section 103(a)). It may not be
used for site acquisition (Section 106(b)), for building
certain water projects (Section 106(a)), or for maintenance
of projects constructed with funds from the Act (Section
106 (c)). Since the purpose of the Act is to provide needed
employment promptly, grants are to be conditioned upon
assurances that the projects can be started with on-site
labor within 90 days of approval (Section 106 (d)
The money is to be allocated to projects through-
out the nation (Section 108 (a)), with preference to areas
of high unemployment (70 percent, preferentially, to those
areas where unemployment exceeds 6 1/2 percent and the
national average and 30 percent to those areas where the
rate is below the national average but in excess of 6 1/2
percent) (Section 108 (c) ) Priority is to be given to
projects of local, as opposed to state, governments
(Section 108 (b) )
B. The Implementing Regulations
Under Section 107 of the Act, the Secretary of
Commerce is to issue implementing regulations within 30 days
of passage. Those regulations were issued on August 20,
1976, under the signature of the Assistant Secretary for
2/ On August 25, by a vote of 311-72, the House of Repre-
sentatives passed a bill (H.R. 15194) appropriating $2
billion for Title I projects. The next day the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported the House bill to the
floor of the Senate, increasing the appropriation for the
whole bill by $500 million. It is likely that a conference
will be required after Senate passage.
FORD GE
- 3 -
Economic Development, and were published in the Federal
Register on Monday, August 23 (41 F.R. 35670) (A copy
is appended at Tab B.)
The regulations are not restrictive. For the
most part, they merely provide detail to the eligibility
aspects of the Act. However, Section 316.11 (c) of those
regulations requires that any detention facilities funded
under Title I must be in compliance with the provisions
of Part E of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750b(1), (4) - (9)) Those pro-
visions require that applications include a comprehensive
statewide program, an emphasis on community based
corrections, advanced design features, regional sharing
(where feasible and desirable) advanced correctional
practices, personnel standards, and drug and alcohol
treatment. Since only the first of these requirements
would be particularly burdensome, and since it would
already have been met by state planning agencies in earlier
applications to LEAA for funds for penal or correctional
purposes, these requirements do not appear to be a serious
bar to the effective use of Title I funds for such
purposes.
Conclusion: Funds under the Act may be used to build
penal and correctional facilities and to renovate existing
facilities. The strictures of the Act, however, indicate
that the bulk of this money would go to local communities,
and thus that the funds used for such purposes would most
likely be available for jails rather than penitentiaries.
II. The Need for Jail Construction and Renovation.
There is an urgent, demonstrable need for construction
and renovation of jails. The nature of the specific need
varies with the size of the community.
3/ The regulations (8316.10 (g) ) limit project costs to $5
million but permit the Assistant Secretary to waive the
limit for "good cause." This provision would affect only
a limited number of large, metropolitan jail construction
projects, and "good cause" in those cases would seem to be
apparent.
FORD
LIBRARY
4
Jails located in or near large metropolitan areas are
commonly overcrowded. 4/ The jail in Prince Georges County
is operating at 297% above capacity. Florida is using tents
and airplane hangars to house prisoners. Maryland has
purchased a "mothballed" freighter to use as a prison. The
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has recently
resorted to authorizing the purchase of hundreds of trailers
for use as substitute facilities.
Most rural jails, although small (75 percent have
capacities of 20 or less), are still large enough to handle
existing and projected near-term needs. However, the
conditions of many of these jails have been described by
knowledgeable authorities as anywhere from "despicable" to
"abominable." Six percent are more than 100 years old; 12
percent are more than 75 years old; 25 percent are more than
50 years old. Eighty percent have no recreational facilities
available and many have no visitation facilities. Some have
totally inadequate sanitation facilities. Many present
safety hazards -- to both inmates and staff -- as a result
of non-locking cell doors and antiquated security features.
These overcrowded and substandard conditions have a
drastic effect on the criminal justice system. Judges are
understandably reluctant to detain persons prior to trial
where such facilities exist, and, although evidence suggests
incarceration of convicted offenders deters crime, 5/ in
the last few years an increasing number of serious
offenders has been sentenced only to probation, frequently
because judges are unwilling to send offenders to overcrowded
The 1972 census stated that five percent (or 167) of the
nation's jails were then overcrowded. Many experts now
allege that all urban jails are overcrowded and that rural
and county jails are nearing a crisis point.
5/ For a general discussion of the subject, see James Q.
Wilson, Thinking About Crime (New York, Basic Books, 1975) ;
Norval Morris, The Future of Imprisonment (Chicago, University
of Chicago Press, 1974) ; and Ernest van den Haag, Punishing
Criminals (New York, Basic Books, 1975)
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
- 5 -
or substandard jail facilities. Indeed, in recent years
the conditions in some penal facilities have been found so
poor that federal courts have ruled that being sentenced to
them constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the
Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. 6/ The states of
Alabama and Louisiana currently have all their jails under
either court attack or court order. It is acknowledged by
all who have studied the field that these local jails are
in serious need of renovation, both for humanitarian and
correctional purposes.
Other detrimental consequences can be found where
overcrowded or poorly designed jails exist, since most jails
are multi-use facilities. Thirty percent of jails house
juveniles with adult offenders. Ten percent do not segre-
gate mental patients awaiting commitment. Some sixty percent
do not segregate pretrial detainees.
Conclusion: There is a pressing and widely-recognized
need for jail construction and renovation. (A copy of a
recent GAO study that is in agreement with this conclusion
is attached at Tab C. See pp. 19-27).
6/ See, e.g., Costello V. Wainwright, 525 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir.
1976) ; Finney V. Arkansas Bd. of Corrections, 505 F.2d 194
(8th Cir. 1974) ; Gates V. Collier, 501 F.2d 129 (5th Cir.
1974).
FORD LIBRARY & 078870 8770
- 6 -
III. The Need for Federal Funds for Such Purposes.
Penal and correctional facilities have never ranked
high in the priorities of taxpayers. Even where some local
funds are available, they are usually inadequate to permit
the construction of modern facilities. For example, while
correctional experts are in general agreement that single
inmate cells should be the rule (for safety and privacy
purposes), local authorities are reluctant to build such
facilities because of their cost.
State funding may be a more realistic means of pro-
viding adequate jails than local funding. Yet those states
which have inadequate jails are also likely to have in-
adequate penitentiaries, and consequently statewide systems
can be expected to continue to receive higher priority.
Past efforts at federal funding have not been parti-
cularly successful because of two principal shortcomings.
First, the total federal funds available have been
inadequate for the purpose. The LEAA funds available for
jail construction and repair, under Part E of the Safe
Streets Act, total $37 million for FY 1977 and $41 million
for FY 1978. Yet LEAA has projected a figure of $300
million as necessary merely to bring those correctional
facilities now under federal court orders into compliance
with court standards, and a joint ABA/LEAA study estimates
the cost of bring all correctional facilities up to such
standards at $3.5 to $4.7 billion. (A copy of the ABA/LEAA
study is appended at Tab D.) Second, problems have been
encountered as a result of the requirement that, as a
requisite to obtaining LEAA funds, the local governments
supply up to 50 percent of the costs of such projects.
Some locales, even where under court order, have simply
been unable to raise the necessary revenue. Some are
reluctant to expend the required matching funds because of
the view that the proposed facilities are too expensive as
a result of what they perceive as unnecessarily high LEAA
standards (e.g., single occupant cells). Others, under
pressure from federal courts to renovate their jail systems,
quite naturally resent being forced to expend local funds
at federal direction.
GERALD FORD LIGRARY
- 7 -
The availability of federal funds an order of magnitude
greater than those previously available for penal facilities,
dispensed under a program that places no burden upon states
and localities to produce matching funds, should resolve most
of the funding problems previously encountered.
A further rationale for the use of federal funds for
such purposes is the long-term savings that can accrue to the
federal government. The Bureau of Prisons contracts with
local jails for housing of federal prisoners (there are
some 6,100 federal prisoners, about one-fourth of the total,
in non-federal facilities). The inadequacies of many local
jails, however, has led to the construction by the Bureau of
three federal Metropolitan Correctional Centers (MCC's).
The Bureau has determined that there is an immediate need for
construction of MCC's in three more metropolitan areas 7/,
and is studying the need for construction of MCC's in 17 ad-
ditional cities. 8/ There is much to be said for aiding in
the improvement of local jails and avoiding the construction
of at least some of these MCC's, especially since the MCC's
already constructed have served the purpose of providing
models for jail construction. The construction of a dozen
more such facilities could be avoided through the use of
Title I funds to improve local jails.
Conclusion: There does not appear to be any other
adequate, practicable source of funds for the building of
local penal facilities, and the use of Title I funds for
this purpose may result in substantial savings from other
parts of the federal budget.
1/ These metropolitan areas are Baltimore-Washington, Detroit,
and Phoenix.
These cities are Atlanta, Boston, Houston, Los Angeles,
Miami, New Orleans, Philadelphia, St. Louis, East St.
Louis, San Antonio, San Francisco, Sacramento, Tampa,
Tucson, and Orlando.
The 17 cities indicated include some within the same state.
The strictures of the Public Works Act would probably limit
construction to one jail per state, thus reducing to 12 the
total of MCC's that could be obviated.
CORALE FORD VIBRARY
- 8 -
IV. The Ability to Plan and Execute a Program of Construction
Within the Stated Time Limits.
Since the Public Works Employment Act is designed as
an immediate anti-recession measure, it is replete with pro-
visions requiring the prompt expenditure of the funds au-
thorized, Intelligent spending for penal facilities can, in
fact, be accomplished promptly. 10/
The federal government is in a unique position to plan
and execute an expedited program of construction of penal and
correctional facilities. The Bureau of Prisons has had long,
high-level experience with planning such facilities. Its
National Institute of Corrections is designed to provide
technical assistance to local penal and correctional authori-
ties, and the Bureau's task force on jails is nearing comple-
tion of its work. Moreover, the National Clearinghouse for
Criminal Justice Planning and Architecture (an LEAA-funded
group at the University of Illinois) has developed comprehen-
sive plans not only for general application but for specific
application as well; it has plans for renovating all correc-
tional facilities in Nevada, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii,
and Oklahoma, among others, and has specific plans for a
number of local jails. 11/ (An example of one such plan is
attached at Tab E. See pages 67-93.)
The above groups can readily be formed into a task force
to set specific standards for applicants. Although, in the
past, local authorities have opposed national standards
because of the cost of their implementation, with 100 percent
federal funding such objections should be avoided.
10 Such a utilization of Title I funds would help in other
ways to achieve the purpose of the legislation. Section
316.10 (a) (2) (i) (C) of the implementing regulations states
a strong preference for labor intensive projects.
Experts on penal and correctional architecture have
advised the Department of Justice that jail facilities
are more labor intensive than other public works projects
because they require little capital for special equipment
or expensive frils, they are not subject to prefabrica-
FORD
tion, and they use a wide variety of labor skills.
11/ These include at least five county jails in Texas,
LIBRARY
Indiana, and Nebraska. State and county plans are being
developed for Oregon, Colorado, New Hampshire, Tennessee,
and New Mexico. Kentucky and Kansas have completed their
own plans, and other states are working on plans of their
own.
- 9 -
Conclusion: If some portion of the Title I funds are
earmarked for correctional purposes, they can be expended
within the timetable of the Act with a substantial level of
efficiency.
V.
The Amount of Funds Needed.
Using as a base figure the $300 million that LEAA has
projected as necessary merely to comply with existing court
orders, and adding to that figure approximately $180 million
estimated as necessary for construction, expansion, and
renovation in a dozen large cities where the federal needs
are greatest 12/ and an additional $100 million for renovation
of small jails not presently under court order, the sum of
$580 million would be an appropriate benchmark. Of course
these figures are estimates, and the need for funds is greater
than is reflected by these figures. Moreover, it cannot be
determined which areas of the country would be eligible for
funds under the unemployment formula used in the Act. Never-
theless, $580 million appears to be a reasonable working
estimate. A substantially smaller program would do no more
than enable localities to comply with court orders. A sub-
stantially larger program might lead to undesirable inef-
ficiency in expenditure.
Conclusion: A sum of money between $500 million and
$600 million can effectively be expended for this purpose
in the coming year.
VI. Arguments Against Such a Program.
The chief arguments against this program would be anti-
prison sentiment and the existence of greater priorities.
The arguments regarding anti-prison sentiment, 13 / can
be disposed of on the merits. In any event, the force of
any such arguments could be reduced by concentrating initially
on renovation of existing facilities since many of those who
are opposed to prison expansion are strongly in favor of
modernizing existing facilities.
12 / They would be selected from among those cities targeted
GERALD FORD VIBRANT
for MCC construction.
13 / Such sentiment is divided among those who believe that no
one should be incarcerated and those who feel that tax
money should not be wasted building "country clubs" for
criminals.
- 10 -
The arguments regarding priorities are of greater
concern, since many localities may indeed have more urgent
needs. Certainly institutions for the mentally retarded,
hospitals, and the like will to many be more attractive
projects than jails. Nevertheless, given the national
preoccupation with the problem of crime and the potential
of such a construction program for helping indirectly to
meet that problem, the expenditure for prison facilities
seems clearly justifiable. Moreover, since the sum
suggested is only one-fourth of that authorized, other
priorities should be able to be dealt with under the Act.
Conclusion: There appear to be no insurmountable
arguments against such a program.
Recommendation
The first recorded reference to building a jail in
America appears to be a 1632 order by the city of Boston
requiring "a people pen to be constructed with all
convenient speed." We still tend to address the issue
only when, under all the circumstances, we find it
convenient. The Public Works Employment Act seems to have
made addressing the problem surprisingly convenient at
this time, and the opportunity should not be lost.
FORD
LIBRARY
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
F-1
The Washington Star
11-21-76
Page
Date
How crowded prisons throw sentencing out
sons in prison for gambling is not re-
By James Q. Wilson
ported, but could not exceed one per
cent.
of whack
No accurate national figures exist
Others have argued that prison
murderer or robber and much less
on changes in total prison capacity,
should be reserved for repeat offend-
likely to be a burglar or auto thief. If
but whatever the actual figure, it has
ers and not used for persons convict-
time served has remained constant,
so far been inadequate to alleviate
ed for the first time. By and large,
it can only mean the time served in
the severe overcrowding that exists
that is already the case. Less than
prison for more serious offenses,
and that will, almost certainly, be-
one per cent of the inmates had never
such as murder and robbery, has be-
come worse.
been sentenced before; 28 per cent
come less.
Because capacity has not kept up
had served four or more prior sen-
It is not clear, of course, whether
with inmate population, there has
tences.
any changes in time served were the
occurred a dramatic shift in the
Prison inmates are, as one would
result of judicial decisions. Other
kinds of crimes for which persons go
expect, disproportionately drawn
agencies, such as parole boards, can
to prison. In 1960 the federal Bureau
from among the poorly educated and
and do decide how long a person will
of Prisons ner-
those with low income. About half are
stay in prison whatever the initial
FORD & LIBRARY 078 0
a
6801
it
CC: Parsons
Quern
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 19, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
THROUGH:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
KEN LAZARUS
SUBJECT:
Public Works and Prison
Rehabilitation
We have reviewed your draft memorandum to the President
on the subject noted above and offer the following:
(1) We would suggest that you merge Options
2 and 3, which would appear to logically supplement,
rather than supplant, one another.
(2) Three additional points should be made
in support of the proposal:
(a) Approximately $300 million would
be required merely to bring various
correctional facilities now under federal
court order into compliance with federal
court standards.
(b) This proposal is entirely
consistent with the Public Works
Employment Act, in that it suggests
employment programs which are labor
intensive as required by the legislation.
(c) There is no other source
of funding for the needs of our court
systems.
(3) Under the Act, the 25 percent set aside
recommendation advanced by Justice could be done on
either a state-by-state basis or in the aggregate. In
our view, the latter would be preferable.
(4) Counsel's Office supports Option 1.
FORD & LIBRAR CERALD
File
DECISION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Justice
December 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES M. CANNO
SUBJECT:
Public Works Jun Employment Act:
Prison Construction and Renovation
This memorandum seeks your guidance on a proposal advanced
by the Attorney General for the earmarking of public works
construction funds for projects of construction and
renovation of State and local penal institutions.
Alternatively, the Attorney General suggests that you
direct a "high priority" be given to such projects.
BACKGROUND
On July 22, 1976, the Congress overrode your veto of the
Public Works Employment Act of 1976, thus enacting the
measure into law. As you know, the avowed purpose of
the Act is to stimulate employment through the creation
of public works jobs. Title I of the Act specifically
provided for the funding of projects for the construction,
renovation and repair of public facilities.
On October 2, 1976, you signed into law H.R. 15194, the
Public Works Employment Appropriations Act of 1976,
appropriating some $3.95 billion for public works projects
under the authorization act. Of this amount, up to $2
billion is available under Title I for construction and
renovation projects.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) in the
Department of Commerce is responsible for the administration
of this program.
PROPOSAL
The Attorney General has recommended that you direct the
Secretary of Commerce to dedicate up to one-fourth of the
funds available under Title Tab of the Act to be expended on con-
struction, renovation or repair of State and local
correctional facilities.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
-2-
In the event you are opposed to an earmarking of these
funds, the Attorney General suggests that, at a
minimum, you encourage State and local governments to
review their needs for construction, renovation and
repair of correctional facilities in applying for
Title I funds and direct the Assistant Secretary for
Economic Development to give "high priority" to these
applications.
DISCUSSION
The need for more prisons and for rehabilitation of
existing prisons is clear and compelling. As you pointed
out in a speech before the Florida Chapter of the Federal
Bar Association last February:
"
America still has
the same prison capacity as in 1960, although crime has
doubled and the population has burgeoned."
Because of overcrowding and dilapidation, many judges are
reluctant to send convicted prisoners to certain jails.
Indeed, approximately $300 million is required merely to
bring various correctional facilities now under federal
court order into compliance with federal court standards.
Moreover, many believe the corollary to mandatory minimum
prison sentences, as you and other responsible leaders
have advocated, is more prisons. Finally, as a practical
matter, dedication of up to one-fourth of the public works
construction funds to building new prisons and renovating
old ones would put "teeth" in your anticrime proposals.
Professor James Q. Wilson, of Harvard University, recently
advocated a program of this sort as a fundamental building
block of his theory on crime control.
It is clear that at least $500 million of the $2 billion
could be utilized effectively at the present time for the
purpose advanced by the Attorney General.
On the other hand, it should be pointed out that Title I
funds will be available for prison construction projects
and if a State or local government deems construction or
FORD
repair of a correctional facility to be a priority it may
apply to EDA for public works funds for the project. It
could be argued, therefore, that by dedicating a set
percentage of these funds to construction or repair of
BERALD
LIBRARY
correctional facilities you are limiting the flexibility
of State and local governments to set their own priorities.
Secondly, dedicating a portion of the funds to one purpose
would inevitably create pressures for similar dedications
for other purposes. Finally, certain timing problems are
raised by the proposal since it would require further delays
in the distribution of grants under the Act and could result
-3-
in substantial embarrassment to the Administration for
its failure to alert State and local officials of the
dedication of prison funds in timely fashion.
The alternative recommendation advanced by the Attorney
General, to require "high priority" treatment for appli-
cations for prison funds would appear to be administratively
workable, albeit burdensome, at this stage. Although EDA
has all but finalized its consideration of applications
for Title I funds, the application period could be
extended slightly for the purpose of receiving additional
grant requests for the construction or improvement of
prison facilities.
Attached (at Tab A) is a copy of the Attorney General's
proposal. Also attached are copies of the objections to
the proposal which have been raised by Commerce and OMB
(at Tab B) and Justice's reponse to those objections (at Tab C).
ACTION
Three options are available to you with regard to the
proposal advanced by the Attorney General. An affirmative
decision in this regard would be reinforced in your State
of the Union message.
1. Direct the Secretary of Commerce to earmark
up to one-fourth of the funds available
under Title I ($500 million) to be expended
on construction, renovation or repair of
State and local correctional facilities.
[Principal recommendation of the Attorney
General.]
Approve
Disapprove
2. Direct the Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development to give high priority to appli-
cations for Title I funds to construct,
renovate or repair correctional facilities.
[Alternative recommendation of the Attorney
General. Recommended by Counsel's Office
and the Domestic Council.]
FORD
Approve
Disapprove
3. Advise the Attorney General that you have
rejected his proposal. [Recommended by
OMB and Commerce.]
Approve
Disapprove
6511
MEMORANDUM
Justice
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
Decem ber 976 15, DLC 1976 PM 5 15
MEMORANDUM FOR JIM CANNON
FROM:
Jeanne W. Davi om
SUBJECT:
Telegram to the President from Congressman
de la Garza on Border Patrol Academy
With regard to the attached correspondence from Congressman
de la Garza, we believe that the matter concerning the Border
Patrol Academy closing is a domestic issue and would suggest
that Justice provide its recommendation on an appropriate reply.
We have recently prepared a reply to Congressman de la Garza
regarding the fishing agreement with Mexico.
file
cc: Charles Leppert, Jr.
Allen- I sent original direct
PUI. to I.4N.S. for
reply.
Dick
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
121508
E
western union
Telegram
NO. WDS. - CL. OF SVC.
PD. OR COLL.
CASH NO.
CHARGE TO THE ACCOUNT OF
THIS MESSAGE WILL BE SENT
PRESS
OVER NIGHT
AS A TELEGRAM UNLESS IT IS
DPR
NPR
TELEGRAM
OTHERWISE INDICATED.
9 December 1976
The Monorable Gerald R Ford
The White Rouse
Washington, D c 20500
DEAR MR PRESIDENT
REMOVAL OF BORDER PATROL ACADEMY FROM PORT ISABEL-LOS FRESHOS, TEXAS AT
THIS TIME ADDS TO ALBRADY DISASTROUS ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF ENTIRE BORDER
AREA. RESPECTFULLY SOLICIT YOUR COMPASSIONATE CONSIDERATION AND INTERCESSION.
YOU ARE PERSONALLY AWARE OF SERIOUSMESS NEGATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MEXICAN-PESO
DEVALUATION ADDED TC ONLYMS OF FISHING AGREEMENT WITH MEXICO.
ACTION
AGAIN, I VERY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OR POSSIBLE DELAY OF THES ACT10
so TO MY area.
SINCERELY,
= (Kika) de la Garza, MC
FORD LIBRARY s OF
Justice Crime
CC: Quern
Moore
Parsons
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
December 20, 1976
Talleck with
12/16/26
MEMO TO: JIM CONNOR
FROM:
ALLEN MOORE
her ,Hr /
will wwicare call
FYI. Cannon notes on attached memo:
Wallow
"Talked with Levi - he will
1 CANNON
Jun
call Wallace." 12/16/76
1 CONNOR JE: be
on the Victims of Crime
December 6 on the
0 Minutes"
FORD LIBRARY & 07V839
CC: Quern
Moore
THE WHITE HOUSE
Parsons
WASHINGTON
976 DEC 9 PM betember 9, 1976
Talked with
12/16/26
fen case He
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
will
wallou
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
Jun
FROM:
JIM CONNOR JEE
SUBJECT:
60 Minutes on the Victims of Crime
The President reviewed your memorandum of December 6 on the
above subject and made the following decision:
"Ask Attorney General Levi to contact 60 Minutes"
Please follow-up with appropriate action.
cc: Dick Cheney
Phil Buchen
FORD LIBRARY i GERALD
Crime
INFORMATION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 6, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
Jim
SUBJECT:
60 Minutes on the Victims of Crime
As you requested, I looked into the report on the 60 Minutes
television show on the victims of crime. Morley Scafer's
quote at the very end of the show was: "The chief opposi-
tion came from the Justice Department on financial grounds"
(script at Tab A).
In your proposal to the Congress, you advocated a Federal
Victims Compensation Program for the victims of federal
crimes. The first year cost was estimated at about $7.5
million.
However, the Senate passed a bill which:
(a) established a Federal Victims Crime Program, such
as you advocated; and
(b) authorized states to utilize LEAA bloc grant
monies to fund state victims compensation programs
on a 90% (federal)/10% (state) basis.
LEAA Administrator Velde testified in favor of your program.
However, he testified against federal funding of state and
local victims compensation programs, the beginning cost of
which would have been about $20 million annually.
I recommend that someone on your behalf make the point to 60
Minutes that you supported the principle of compensating
victims and proposed specific federal funds for it.
We could ask Attorney General Levi to do this or I could do
it for you.
Ask Attorney General Levi to contact 60 Minutes
FORD LIBRARY
Cannon to contact 60 Minutes
Discuss
"VICTIMS"
OPEN
SAFER:
We don't have to remind you that this country is in the
middle of a wave of violent crime -- all the statistics do
is reconfirm what we know, only too well.
With this nightly news of muggings, hold-ups, rapes and mur-
ders, more and more attention has been focused on reforming
prisons...on rehabilitation of violent offenders. In a
sense, criminals have been cast as a deprived and under-
privileged minority.
All this attention has tended to cast into the shadows
another group of Americans who are closely related to
criminals and crime. The victims. They make very few
demands -- very little noise. Often they are too hurt --
emotionally and physically to speak out for their rights.
It's something worth thinking about because one thing all
of
us share is the chance to become the victim of a crime,
any time, any place.
For example, a shopping center in the suburbs of Minneapolis.
FORD & LIBRARY DERALD
- 1 -
60 MINUTES
"VICTIMS"
VOL. IX, No. 11
FINAL CUT
12/5/76
SAFER:
IN NOVEMBER, 1974, THIS WAS A BASEMENT RECORD
SHOP, THE KIND OF PLACE THAT YOUNG PEOPLE
HANG OUT IN. ONE SATURDAY NIGHT THERE
WERE FOUR PEOPLE DOWN HERE, A YOUNG WOMAN,
A CLERK, AND THREE YOUNG MEN.
ONE OF THE MEN AFTER BROWSING AROUND LEFT,
WENT ACROSS THE STREET, BOUGHT HIMSELF A HAMBURGE
BROUGHT IT BACK HERE, SAT DOWN ON THE TOP
STEP AND ATE IT. WHEN HE WAS FINISHED HE
PULLED OUT A GUN AND A MACHETE. WALKED
BACK DOWN HERE SHOT ONE OF THE YOUNG MEN,
KILLED HIM INSTANTLY; SHOT THE OTHER FOUR TIMES
AND CRIPPLED HIM FOR LIFE, AND THEN HE CHASED
THE CLERK, THE YOUNG WOMAN, BACK HERE, BACK
INTO THIS BACK ROOM
HE SHOT HER FOUR TIMES.
WHAT WERE THE PERMANENT INJURIES?
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
- 2 -
JENNY RANDELL:
WELL, MY ARM'S PARALYZED.
SAFER:
IT'S YOUR LEFT ARM?
JENNY RANDELL:
YEAH. AND MY VOICE, IT USED TO BE A LOT
WORSE THAN IT IS NOW.
SAFER:
WHAT HAPPENED?
JENNY RANDELL:
HIT ONE OF THE VOCAL CORDS, GOT SEVERED.
AND I DON'T KNOW ALL THE SCARS I GOT. You
KNOW, ....
KEVIN FINNEMAN:
HE COME BACK AFTER ME BECAUSE HE'D SEEN ME
UP AND HE STUCK THE GUN UP TOWARDS MY HEAD
AND I DUCKED A SHOT. LANDED ON MY STOMACH.
AND HE STUCK ONE --STUCK THE GUN UP TO MY BACK
AND SHOT ME SQUARE IN THE SPINAL CORD, WHICH
PARALYZED ME.
SAFER:
Two PEOPLE SCARRED HORRIBLY FOR LIFE, ONE
YOUNG MAN DEAD, AND AS IN MOST CASES LIKE
THIS ONE, A KILLER STILL ON THE LOOSE.
FORD & LIBRARY QERALD
- 3 -
SAFER: ( CONTINUED)
IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT HE IS CAUGHT,
THE STATE WILL BEND EVERY EFFORT TO CURE HIM,
TO MAKE HIM A BETTER MAN. BUT WHAT ABOUT
THE VICTIMS?
KEVIN FINNEMAN, FOR EXAMPLE, HE WILL NEVER
WALK AGAIN
....
KEVIN IS A STRONG, DETERMINED TO BE INDEPENDENT,
YOUNG MAN. HIS NEIGHBORS HELD A DANCE TO
RAISE MONEY FOR THIS ESPECIALLY EQUIPPED VAN.
HE'S STUDYING MECHANICAL DRAFTING. AND IF
YOU CAN BELIEVE IT, KEVIN IS LUCKY. HE
LIVES IN MINNESOTA, ONE OF SIXTEEN STATES
THAT PROVIDES SOME COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS
OF CRIMES. THE COMPENSATION BOARD GAVE
HIM THE MAXIMUM, TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS TO
COVER MEDICAL BILLS, REHABILITATION AND THE
LOSS OF HIS LEGS FOREVER. IT IS PAID IN
MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS. LAST MONTH IT RAN
OUT, KEVIN FINNEMAN, AGE TWENTY-ONE, IS
PAID IN FULL.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
- 4 -
SAFER:
NEW YORK STATE TOO, HAS A VICTIM COMPENSATION
BOARD. IT HEARS APPEALS. AND LIKE MOST BOARDS
IT AMOUNTS TO A VICTIM'S COURT, IN ORDER
TO COLLECT REPARATIONS, THE VICTIM MUST
PROVE HIS INNOCENCE, MUST PROVE HE OR SHE
HAS NOT CONTRIBUTED TO THE CRIME. AND MOST
STATES VIEW COMPENSATION AS A FORM OF CHARITY
RATHER THAN A RIGHT, FORCING THE VICTIM TO
DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL NEED. IF THE VICTIM
ALREADY HAS INSURANCE AND MEDICAL COVERAGE
AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, HE COLLECTS
VIRTUALLY NOTHING. AND JUST LISTEN TO THE
RESULTING STATISTICS
ONLY FOUR OF A HUNDRED VICTIMS ARE ELIGIBLE.
AND ONLY A FIFTH OF THEM, FEWER THAN ONE PERSON
IN A HUNDRED, MAKE APPLICATION. THEY EITHER
DO NOT KNOW ABOUT COMPENSATION OR DO NOT
WANT THEIR LIVES INVESTIGATED.
JENNY, THE CLERK AT THE MINNEAPOLIS RECORD
STORE, RECEIVED ONLY NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS
FROM THE MINNESOTA BOARD. THAT'S BECAUSE
JENNY WAS ELIGIBLE FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
FORD & LIBRARY 038470
- 5 -
SAFER: (CONTINUED)
BUT FINANCIAL PROBLEMS ARE NOT THE ONLY
PROBLEMS THAT VICTIMS HAVE. JENNY WAS
AN EXPERT WATER SKIER, Now SHE FINDS IT
DIFFICULT TO WALK. HER SENSE OF BALANCE
HAS BEEN IMPAIRED. AT TWENTY-ONE, JENNY RANDELL
MUST TRY TO BUILD A NEW LIFE OUT OF A BROKEN
BODY.
WAS THERE ANY OTHER STATE AID OR STATE
PROGRAM TO HELP YOU, TO REHABILITATE YOU?
JENNY RANDELL:
No. THERE WASN'T.
SAFER:
No PROGRAM TO TEACH YOU A JOB OR A TRADE OR
EDUCATE YOU?
JENNY RANDELL:
NOTHING SPECIAL, NO.
THEY HAVE THE
VO-TECH SCHOOLS, BUT THAT'S FOR EVERYONE.
THEY DON'T HAVE IT JUST FOR VICTIMS OF
CRIME,
SAFER:
WHAT ABOUT ANY PHYSIOTHERAPY, THAT KIND OF
THING?
JENNY RANDELL:
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
No.
- 6 -
SAFER:
To GET YOU OVER YOUR CURRENT PROBLEMS?
JENNY RANDELL:
No, THERE'S NOTHING.
SAFER:
ARE YOU BITTER IN ANY WAY JENNY, THAT
I SUPPOSE YOU COULD GO INTO ANY PRISON IN THE
COUNTRY AND SEE FANTASTIC TECHNICAL SCHOOLS,
TRADE SCHOOLS AND ALL KINDS OF METHODS BEING
USED TO "REHABILITATE" PEOPLE.
#
JENNY RANDELL:
YES, I AM.
SAFER:
AND YET, FOR YOU, AS A VICTIM, NOTHING?
JENNY RANDELL:
YEAH, THAT BOTHERS ME QUITE A BIT, THEY'RE
TRYING TO HELP THEM SO MUCH, BUT THEY --
YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T REALLY DO. ANYTHING FOR
ANYBODY ELSE. You KNOW. THEY PAY MORE
ATTENTION TO THEM, THEY'RE MORE WORRIED ABOUT
THEM.
GERALD FORD
JIM FOGARTY:
THERE STANDS THE VICTIM OUT IN THE STREET,
BADLY BEATEN OR RENDERED DESTITUTE, OR INCAPACI-
TATED EMOTIONALLY OR PHYSICALLY IN SOME WAY.
- 7 -
FOGARTY: (CONTINUED)
No ATTENTION HAD BEEN PAID TO THE VICTIM.
AND I THINK ANYONE WHO HAS EVEN THAT AMOUNT
OF HUMAN NATURE IN THEM CERTAINLY WOULD FEEL
THAT THAT REQUIRES SOME KIND OF ATTENTION
PROMPTLY.
SAFER:
JIM FOGARTY IS THE SENIOR VICTIM ADVOCATE
IN THE FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA, POLICE
DEPARTMENT. IT'S ONE OF THE FEW SUCH
PROGRAMS IN THE COUNTRY. HE'S A ONE-MAN
BAND TRYING TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE, DO SOCIAL
WORK AND BE, GENERALLY, A HELPING HAND
TO VICTIMS, IT'S A PITIFULLY SMALL, PITIFULLY
BUDGETED OPERATION. YET, HE IS A GREAT
HELP TO THOSE VICTIMS HE GIVES COUNSEL TO.
VICTIMS LIKE RUTH PITT, WHOSE MISFORTUNE IT
WAS TO STOP INTO A TAVERN OWNED BY SOME FRIENDS,
A ROBBERY TOOK PLACE AND SHE WAS STRUCK IN THE
FACE BY A RICOCHETING BULLET.
RUTH PITT:
FORD i LIBRARY 033ALD
WHEN I WAS IN THE BAR AND THE MAN CAME IN
AND SHOT, THE ONE BULLET BOUNCED OFF THE BAR,
HIT MY CHEEK, CUTTING ALL THE NERVES ON THE
SIDE OF MY FACE. WENT THROUGH MY EAR WHICH
- 8 -
RUTH PITT: (CONTINUED)
HAS MADE ME STONE DEAF IN THE ONE EAR AND
LODGED AT THE BASE OF MY SKULL.
JIM FOGARTY:
CON PHONE) JIM FOGARTY, VICTIM ADVOCATE OFFICE
OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
SAFER:
RUTH PITT WAS DESTITUTE AND WOULD HAVE REMAINED
so HAD JIM FOGARTY NOT STEPPED IN AND CUT
THROUGH THE RED TAPE, AND FOUGHT THREE APPEALS
BEFORE HE WON FOR HER, A SOCIAL SECURITY
DISABILITY PENSION OF TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY
DOLLARS A MONTH.
RUTH PITT:
I FOUGHT SOCIAL SECURITY BY MYSELF BY GOING
DOWN THERE AND BEING HASSLED, THE FOOD STAMPS
WAS THE SAME WAY. I WAS HASSLED AND -- AND
so AND I WAS READY TO GIVE UP, I REALLY WAS.
No ONE HAS ANY IDEA OF WHAT IT'S LIKE UNTIL
YOU GO THROUGH IT.
FORD i IBRAR, GERALD
SAFER:
THERE ARE SOME FEDERAL FUNDS DESIGNED TO HELP
VICTIMS, MONEY THAT COMES FROM LEAA, THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION.
BUT THAT MONEY CANNOT GO DIRECTLY TO VICTIMS.
- 9 -
SAFER: (CONTINUED)
IT GOES INTO SUCH THINGS AS COURTHOUSE AMENITIES,
LOUNGES FOR WITNESSES, PEOPLE TO HELP WITNESSES
THROUGH THE LAW'S DELAYS.
BUT EVEN THIS INDIRECT HELP IS MINISCULE,
ONLY SIX MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
AND WHILE ALL CRIMES PRODUCE VICTIMS, FEW
CRIMES RESULT IN PROSECUTION. ONLY ABOUT
ONE IN TEN. WHEN THERE IS A REAL LIVE CRIMINAL
OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO ENSURE
THAT HIS RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED. AND ONCE A
PROSECUTION IS MADE, OUR PENAL SYSTEM SPENDS
BILLIONS TO EDUCATE, REHABILITATE OR SIMPLY
OCCUPY THE TIME OF THE GUILTY.
BUT ONCE A CASE IS CLOSED, WE RARELY HEAR
ANYMORE ABOUT THE CRIMINAL AND HIS VICTIM,
WE DECIDED TO FOLLOW UP ON ONE CRIME, TO LOOK
INTO THE LIVES OF BOTH MEN.
GERALD FORD
THIS MAN, JAIME FIGUEROA, WAS SENTENCED TO
TEN YEARS IN A NEW YORK STATE MEDIUM SECURITY
PRISON. Two YEARS AGO, FIGUEROA AND A FRIEND
GOT A GUN AND HELD UP THIS MAN IN A NEW YORK
-10- -
SAFER: (CONTINUED)
SUBWAY. HIS NAME IS SYLVESTER DAVIS,
AGE THIRTY-NINE, SHOT IN THE HEAD AT CLOSE
RANGE RESULTING IN BLINDNESS AND SOME BRAIN
DAMAGE, HE WAS A WELL-PAID CONSTRUCTION
WORKER, NOW HE VEGETATES, HE DID GET VICTIM
COMPENSATION. HIs WIFE DISCOVERED HE COULD
ALMOST BY ACCIDENT BECAUSE SHE WORKED FOR
AN ANSWERING SERVICE THAT WORKED FOR A LAWYER
WHO LED THE DAVIS' THROUGH THE PAPERWORK
JUNGLE. HIS BENEFITS RUN TO JUST OVER FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH. As A WORKING MAN
HE BROUGHT HOME NEAR A THOUSAND.
MR. DAVIS:
So I WENT DOWN IN THE SUBWAY STATION, PUT MY
TOLL IN THE SLOT, WALKED ON IN.
MR. FIGUEROA:
WE WENT TO THE TRAIN STATION. WE WAS ACTUALLY
GOING TO TAKE OFF A PIMP, A SO-CALLED PIMP.
SAFER:
You WERE GOING TO ROB A PIMP?
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
MR. FIGUEROA:
YEAH, BECAUSE WE KNEW HE HAD MONEY THE WAY
HE WAS DRESSING, HAD A LOT OF WHITE COAT
BUT IT so HAPPENED THAT THIS MAN GOT IN THE
-11-
FIGUEROA: (CONTINUED)
WAY.
DAVIS:
HE GRABBED ME FROM BEHIND. AND I TWIST, AND
I TURNED, so I GOT A LOOSE FROM HIM.
AND JUST AS QUICK AS I'D GOTTEN A LOOSE
FROM HIM AND I LOOKED AT HIM AND THE OTHER
GUY SAID, "SHOOT, SHOOT."
FIGUEROA:
WE DIDN'T WANT TO SHOOT. WE TOLD HIM.
BUT HE KEPT COMING AT US, YOU KNOW, HE JUST
WANTED TO GET US, YOU KNOW, HE GOT TO THE
STATE WHERE IT WAS HIM OR US. THE WAY
HE WAS FIGHTING, BECAUSE HE WAS BIGGER THAN
US,
SAFER:
BUT THERE WERE TWO OF YOU, HE WASN'T ARMED.
FIGUEROA:
RIGHT. THERE'S TWO OF US, WE'RE YOUNG, WE'RE
IGNORANT, WE'RE SCARED. You KNOW, WE NEED,
WE'RE HUNGRY
You KNOW, WE WANT TO GET
MONEY TO EAT.
FORD LIBRARY i GERALD
DAVIS:
I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE MORE MONEY WAS COMING FROM,
so I HAD TO TRY AND WORK FOR IT. BUT I
- 12 -
DAVIS: (CONTINUED)
WOULDN'T LET ANYBODY COME UP TO ME AND TAKE
IT FROM ME.
FIGUEROA:
HE WANTED TO KILL US, THAT'S HOW IT SEEMS
TO ME. So I SAID, "IT's EITHER HIM OR ME."
AND I DIDN'T WANT TO DIE so YOUNG. I DIDN'T
WANT TO GET HURT so YOUNG.
SAFER:
BEFORE THIS HAPPENED WERE YOU A PRETTY STRONG
FELLOW?
DAVIS:
VERY STRONG.
MRS. DAVIS:
THEY HAVE TAKEN MY HUSBAND AWAY FROM ME IN
EVERY WAY. LIKE I NEED HIM AND HE'S NOT
THERE,
SAFER:
SINCE YOU'VE BEEN OUT OF THE HOSPITAL, HAS
ANYONE -- HAS A THERAPIST COME AROUND,
HAS A SOCIAL WORKER COME AROUND, HAS THE
STATE BEEN AROUND IN ANY WAY TO TRY AND ASK
"Do YOU NEED ANYTHING? CAN WE HELP YOU IN
ANY WAY?"
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
- 13-
MRS. DAVIS:
NO WAY, No, NOTHING.
FIGUEROA:
I WENT AND SPOKE TO MY COUNSELOR AND I
TOLD HIM THAT I WANTED TO GO TO SCHOOL AND
I WANTED TO HAVE A VOCATIONAL SHOP,
BECAUSE I KNEW THAT IF I DIDN'T DO SOMETHING
FOR MYSELF WHILE BEING IN HERE, WHEN I GO
OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST GONNA FALL
BACK INTO THESE CONDITIONS, AND WHEN I
WENT TO THE SHOP --
SAFER:
YOU WENT TO SCHOOL FIRST, THOUGH, RIGHT?
FIGUEROA:
YEAH, SCHOOL AND SHOP....
GERALD LIBRARY R. FORD
SAFER:
THEY TRIED TO TEACH JAIME FIGUEROA A TRADE,
WELDING, THE INSTRUCTOR SAYS HE SHOWED SOME
APTITUDE. BUT HE CHOSE TO DROP OUT. HAD HE
COMPLETED THE COURSE HE COULD EARN UP TO
TWELVE DOLLARS AN HOUR WHEN HE'S RELEASED FROM
PRISON.
THERE ARE OTHER TRADES OPEN TO FIGUEROA, BUT
NONE INTEREST HIM. THERE'S ALSO A HIGH
-14-
SAFER: (CONTINUED)
SCHOOL WITHIN THE PRISON AND SOME COLLEGE
DEGREE COURSES, FIGUEROA WENT TO SCHOOL
BUT THEN DECIDED THAT HE WOULD DROP OUT. OF
THAT AS WELL, THE STATE GIVES HIM A CHOICE
OF THE KIND OF WORK HE WILL DO IN PRISON
AND HE CHOOSES THIS. 8 JANITOR WORK IN THE
SCHOOL BUILDING. IT COSTS THE STATE
FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR TO KEEP
JAIME FIGUEROA, BUT HE IS NOT IMPRESSED
WITH THE FACILITIES.
FIGUEROA:
OKAY, THEY GAVE ME A PAIR OF PANTS TO WEAR,
OKAY. BUT WHAT DO THEY GIVE ME TO REHABILITATE
ME so THAT WHEN I GO OUT THERE I WON'T DO THE
SAME THING?
SAFER:
THEY TRIED TO TEACH YOU A TRADE.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
FIGUEROA:
A TRADE? A TRADE, ANYBODY WITH A TRADE CAN
GO OUT THERE AND COMMIT CRIMES AGAIN, BECAUSE
YOU CAN USE THE TRADE TO COVER UP YOUR CRIMES.
So WHAT'S A TRADE. A TRADE AIN'T NOTHING
IF THEY DON'T GIVE YOU SOMETHING FOR YOUR MIND.
- 15-
SAFER:
DOES IT BOTHER YOU THAT THOSE MEN INSIDE
NOW, ARE BEING OFFERED OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO
SCHOOL, OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN A TRADE?
THAT THE STATE IS PUTTING THAT KIND OF EFFORT
INTO REHABILITATING, AS THEY CALL IT, THOSE
MEN?
MRS. DAVIS:
I FEEL THAT IF THEY CAN DO IT FOR THEM
THEN THEY SHOULD DO IT FOR US, BECAUSE
NUMBER ONE, WE WERE BOTH WORKING PEOPLE ALL
OUR LIVES AND I WOULDN'T SAY THEY OWE US,
YOU KNOW, ANYTHING, BUT AT LEAST THEY SHOULD --
IF THEY CAN OFFER THAT TO THEM, THEN, YOU
KNOW, DO THE SAME TO SOMEONE THAT ARE
UNPROTECTED.
SAFER:
DON'T YOU THINK THAT IT'S KIND OF UNFAIR THAT
HERE YOU ARE IN HERE WITH THE STATE SPENDING
A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY ON YOU WITH SCHOOLS, AND
HOSPITALS AND A WARM PLACE TO SLEEP, AND ALL
THAT, AND THERE'S MR. DAVIS OUT THERE VIRTUALLY
BLIND, THE STATE'S DOING ALMOST NOTHING FOR HIM?
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 16- -
FIGUEROA:
YOU SEE, IT'S NOT A POINT OF BEING FAIR OR
NOT, OKAY. IF THE STATE PUT ME HERE so THAT
I COULD SEE MY WRONG, So THAT WHEN I GO
OUT THERE, THEN WON'T DO IT AGAIN
THEN IT'S FAIR FOR ME TO RECEIVE ALL THIS
BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT I DONE WRONG AND I KNOW
IT WAS WRONG, AND THERE'S NO WAY IN THE WORLD
I COULD REPAY MY WRONG TO THAT PERSON BECAUSE
HOW CAN I GIVE THAT MAN BACK HIS EYES, HIS
EYESIGHT? I CAN'T DO THIS, I'M NOT GOD.
ONLY GOD COULD REPAY WHAT I'VE DONE WRONG.
SAFER:
THE GOVERNMENT TAKES MUCH THE SAME ATTITUDE
TO VICTIMS AS JAIME FIGUEROA. OF THE FIFTEEN
BILLION DOLLARS SPENT EACH YEAR ON CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, POLICE, COURTS, PRISONS AND REHABILI
TATION PROGRAMS, LESS THAN ONE PERCENT GOES
TO HELPING VICTIMS OF CRIMES,
FORD LIBRARY &
CLOSE
SAFER:
A federal bill that would help states pay victims com-
pensation and promote more compensation boards failed
once again to clear the House of Representatives in the
last Congress. The chief opposition came from the Justice
Department on financial grounds.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD