D. Bureau of Prisons U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Washington, D.C., March 14, 1969. DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: We are attaching our response to the questionnaire you enclosed with your letter of February 24, 1969. Unfortunately, Mr. Alexander is presently hospitalized and, as a result, was unable to personally complete the questionnaire. We have, however, attempted to respond in his absence. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, H. G. MOELLER, Acting Director. I. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS A. By the nature and responsibilities of correctional administration, citizen input into the decision making process is somewhat limited. We do, however, utilize citizen groups in areas where they can be of assistance and support. One such area is the development and improvement of vocational training programs which provide employment opportunities for inmates following release. In several of our institutions, trade advisory councils have been formed. These groups, composed of employers, craftsmen, and technical experts from the community advise our institutional managers of the relevance of our training programs and suggest ways in which they can be made more effective. B. All major decisions concerning the operation of Federal Prison Industries, Inc., are approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. By statute, the Board is composed of representatives of Agriculture, Labor, the Secretary of Defense, and Retailers and Consumers. Members are appointed by the Attorney General and meet formally at least once each year in order to review the operations and programs of Federal Prison Industries. C. We have not established a formal procedure for considering the views of the poor in the decision making process. Many of our inmates, however, come from impoverished backgrounds and have limited resources available to them. In all of our institutional and community based activities, this factor is considered in assigning inmates to specific programs. As an example, one of the primary criteria in selecting inmates for assignment to work release programs is the need for financial assistance. D. In the Federal Prison System, the majority of complaints received come from individual inmates. A formal procedure has been established which enables inmates to mail uncensored letters to the following individuals and agencies: The President; Vice President; Attorney General; Director, Bureau of Prisons; Pardon Attorney; Surgeon General; Secretary of the Army, Navy or Air Force; U.S. Courts; and Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Complaints received in the Central Office of the Bureau of Prisons are reviewed by appropriate staff members. In situations which appear to require an in estigation, steps are taken to look into the situation. Based on the findings of such an investigation, appropriate sanctions can be taken if indicated. E. The individuals primarily affected by the Bureau of Prisons are inmates confined in the various institutions. By virtue of their confinement, they are aware of the agency and its operations. During 1965, a Public Information Office was established in the Bureau of Prisons. The function of this office is to provide material and information to the public and mass media. Official information concerning individual inmates is made available to the public. This information is limited to the facts of official record, individual's name, age, offense and sentence. Information concerning the agency and its mission is made available, both by the Central Office and by the 35 institutions and facilities of the Federal Prison Service. Free access to the Administrators of the Bureau of Prisons and other officials is available to inmates through the Prisoners Mail Box, described in Section D. Citizens in the community have access to the staffs of each institution and to the Central Office through correspondence, phone calls, and personal visits. II. PROCEDURES FOR PROMOTING MORE RESPONSIVE AGENCY DECISION-MAKING A. The majority of decisions made by the Bureau of Prisons involve the case management of individual inmates. With few exceptions, these decisions have been delegated to institutional administrators and their staff. In most instances, the decision making process operates with reasonable speed. B. Information and data concerning inmates in custody has been computerized within the past two years. This has greatly improved the availability of information concerning population trends, types of offenders, etc. C. A formal liaison program has been developed with the U.S. Board of Parole and the U.S. Probation Service. Regular meetings involving key staff members of these agencies have been established in order to coordinate programs and activities. D. The development of research techniques to evaluate correctional programs is a critical need. We are attempting to substantially improve our research capability within existing budgetary constraints. The concept of "Programming, Planning and Budgeting" offers promise in evaluating effectiveness of the Bureau of Prisons and its mission. Despite problems encountered in the attempting to quantify the outputs of the system, i.e., corrected offenders, PPB and the concept of systems analysis has demonstrated the need to carefully evaluate all programs and activities. At present, there are no major gaps in our statutory authority. When such gaps exist, appropriate legislation is proposed as part of the Department of Justice legislative program. III. THIS QUESTIONNAIRE Approximately two hours were required to complete Sections I and II of this questionnaire. The questions were generally relevant to our problems and practices. Correctional administration, however, presents a number of unique problems by the nature of the mission of the agency. E. Civil Rights Division DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: In answer to your letter of February 24, 1969, please find response of this Division. Should you have any further or other questions please do not hesitate to call upon us. Sincerely, JERRIS LEONARD, Assistant Attorney General, ANSWERS TO QUESTIONNAIRE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION For purposes of these answers, we have regarded the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice as the "agency" within the meaning of the questions. We have not attempted, except where indicated, to treat the Department of Justice as the "agency". I. A. Since we are a law enforcement agency, we take the view that private citizens and citizens' groups as such, should not have a direct input into the Division's decision-making process. We regard it to be essential that law enforcement decisions be made objectively and free from the urgings of private interest groups. We have an obligation to enforce and administer the laws equally and the discharge of that obligation requires immunization from the pressures of private citizens and groups. This does not mean, however, that the activities, needs, and views of private citizens and groups do not have an impact on our decisionmaking process. Where, for example, private groups institute litigation in federal courts to protect rights which the Attorney General has also been called upon to protect by litigation, such private litigation frequently will have an impact on our decision as to how best to use our limited litigation resources. Frequently it would be wasteful to duplicate private litigation. B. The Civil Rights Division does not have any citizen or industry advisory groups. We listen to and consider the views of citizens and groups who may be affected by our law enforcement program. C. The Civil Rights Division has not formalized any special procedures for taking account of the views or the needs of the poor, as such. In two categories, however, Congress has specifically provided that the authority of the Attorney General to institute civil rights litigation based on complaints is limited to those instances where the complainant himself is economically unable to proceed with the litigation on his own behalf. D. Whenever we receive a complaint which suggests a violation of a federal law within our enforcement jurisdiction, we institute a preliminary investigation to determine, preliminarily, the validity of the complaint. If that investigation discloses a probable violation of federal law, a full investigation is undertaken. If that investigation discloses a provable violation, remedial action is undertaken. The role of the complaining party is to provide such information as he may have regarding the potential violation. Our sanctions are judicial sanctions, and they are adequate. E. We think those whose rights are secured by law, and those whose obligations are to respect those rights, are fairly adequately informed of those rights and obligations and of the enforcement authority of the Civil Rights Division. Invariably, the enactment by Congress of civil rights legislation receives wide national publicity. Also, it has been the standard policy of the Department of Justice to issue press releases upon the institution of each civil rights lawsuit. In addition, following the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, this Division sent letters to hundreds of officials and groups explaining the provisions of the new laws and their obligations under them. Our investigative files, and our case preparation files are not normally made available to the public where to do so might jeopardize the successful prosecution of the lawsuit. F.This question is largely answered by E above. The Division has followed and does follow the policy of answering all inquiries from citizens, groups, and officials; but we do not break out this expense separately for accounting purposes. It would be helpful to have a special appropriation for this purpose not attributable to or connected with our appropriations for law enforcement purposes. II. A. Our decision-making procedures operate with reasonable speed. The decision-making procedure could operate faster by delegating more of the decision-making function to smaller units within the agency. These are two basic requirements for making this kind of delegation work successfully: (1) developing very specific guidelines within which decisions are made, thereby limiting the probability of deviation and mistakes; and (2) developing and upgrading the caliber of intermediate-level leaders and reducing their turnover rate, thereby promoting responsible professional expertise at that level. The Civil Rights Division is doing this. B. The Civil Rights Division, in common with other divisions, has access to automatic data processing equipment maintained by the Department of Justice. The problem seems to be that the demands on that equipment are much greater than its capacity; so that we suffer from unavoidable delays. Despite these delays, however, the lack of such resources has not put us at a substantial disadvantage in relation to the defendants against whom we prépare cases. Occasionally defendants, such as large corporations, maintain informational resources sufficient for our use. On the human resources side, the Civil Rights Division has increasingly relied on research assistants who, though not lawyers, are able to undertake successfully a research workload which would otherwise be done by lawyers. Such research work is thus accomplished more efficiently and at a lower cost. C. The Civil Rights Division has an Office of Planning and Coordination, one function of which is to coordinate the work of the Division with other agencies which have overlapping or inter-related responsibilities. We also have a small staff headed by a Special Assistant to the Attorney General which is responsible for coordinating with all federal agencies having financial assistance programs. This responsibility is to see that no person is subjected to discrimination in federally-assisted programs. D. Our Office of Planning and Coordination is also responsible for assessing the quality and efficiency of our own performance. On a continuing basis, this Office reviews the activities of the Division in relation to its goals and priorities. This Office tries, to the extent relevant, to use the P.P.B.S. The problem with using it is that, while it is not difficult to express goals and priorities, and to measure inputs, it is virtually impossible in the law enforcement field to make meaningful measurement of outputs. This problem is under continuous study. E. This question is answered in large part by earlier answers. The Civil Rights Division has a high quality staff, but it is not large enough to handle all violations of law within the enforcement jurisdiction of the Division. Because the work is very demanding and the pay is low, our turnover is relatively high. One consequence is that, overall, we have a very young and inexperienced staff. One remedy is to increase the staff, and to provide some form of compensation for overtime work. III. It took approximately one hour to prepare Sections I and II. We think the questions are useful and relevant, but obviously are geared more to agencies which have affirmative programs than to a law enforcement agency. It would be helpful to have a separate questionnaire for different categories of agencies. F. Criminal Division DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: The reason for my delay in responding to your letter and questionnaire of February 24, 1969 is that I have been systematically interviewing each of the lawyers in this division assigned to duty here in Washington in an effort to appraise each job and each assignment and to determine where the total energy available to the section can best be used. I have not completed these interviews but have gotten far enough into the work to be able to answer your questionnaire. In response to your questions, I respectfully submit the following: A. The great bulk of the routine work of this division originates with the various investigative agencies of the federal government. However, we do have frequent contact with private citizens and citizen groups who through personal visits or letters call our attention to possible violations of federal laws and possible improvements in federal laws. We do encourage suggestions and information from citizens and citizen groups and we frequently make use of this. One negative aspect of this is that we spend a considerable amount of lawyer time answering letters from the public and letters which have been forwarded from Members of Congress from constituents about specific cases, statutes or situations. We attempt to service promptly all of this correspondence, but this is often a diversionary use of the energies of the department which might be better used in direct enforcement activities. Therefore, we do not wish to encourage any increase |