A report of the Governor's Commission on Crime and Justice

A Report of the
. .II. . GOVERNOR'S I I COMMISSION ON
CRIME and JUSTICE .

A Report of the
1111111 coS:::s~~!:'soN
CRIME and JUSTICE
1968

>

'!!les ter Jililuhhnx
G OV ERNOR

1:x.e.cn1iu~ tEl ~v ar!m~nt J\t1anht

\lrlynmus m. Jlruin
E X ECUTI V E SECRETARY

In ~e~pon~e to you~ u~gent demand 6o~ law and o~de~, I c~eated a Commi~~ion to ~tudy the p~oblem~ o6 c~ime and ju~tice in the State o6 Geo~gia.
The ~epo~t o6 thi~ Commi~~ion i~ a comp~ehen~ive ~tudy o6 the extent, cau~e~ and t~eatment on c~ime in Geo~gia. It i~ a n~amewo~k which will allow the State to imp~ove the pe~no~mance and ennectivene~~ on all pe~~onnel and agencie~ conce~ned with c~ime p~evention and cont~ol, ~ehabilitation on onnende~~, and the admini~t~ation on ju~tice.
The ~ecommendation~ on the Commi~~ion have become public ~eco~d, yet no implementation o6 the~e will be po~~ible without you~ ~uppo~t and all othe~ Geo~gia
citizen~.
Since~ ely,

LM/mb

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... . .. . .. .... ... .... . ...... .. ... . ... . .... . . .
MEMBERS OF COMMISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CONSULTANTS AND ADVISERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
CHAPTER I SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Crime and Needed Legislation Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Law Enforcement Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
(j) The Juvenile Delinquency Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Courts, Probation, Pardon, Parole and Correction Committee . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Alcoholism and Dangerous Drugs Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
CHAPTER II CRIME TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Central Criminal and Statistical Information Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Single Fingerprint System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Merger of Law Enforcement Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Uniform Liquor Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
CHAPTER III LAW ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Part I Analysis of Law Enforcement Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Part II Other Findings of Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Police Public Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 State Crime Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Department of Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 State Department of Justice for Better Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 State Fire Marshal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
CHAPTER IV JUVENILE DELINQUENCY .... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71 The Juvenile Court in Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
@ Need For A New Juvenile Code .. ... . .. ... . .. .. ... .. . ... . ... .. . ..
Court Service Worker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Causes of Juvenile Delinquency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Youth Employment . . .. . ... . . . . .. ... . ........... . ..... . ..... 77 Community Service Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
W Treatment and Detention Facilities ..... . ... . . . ... . . . ..... . .. . ....
The Alto Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Pornography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
CHAPTER V COURTS,PROBATION,PARDON,PAROLEAND ..... ... ... 95 PAROLE AND CORRECTION
Courts ...... ....... . . . . ... . .. .. ..... . . . . . . ....... ... . . . . 95 Sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Sentencing Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Appellate Review of Sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Joinder of Defendants . ... . .. .. ... ...... . .. . ... . . .. ..... . . . . . . 100 Prosecution's Right To Appeal Pretrial Motion ... ... .. .. ........ .. .... 101 General Immunity Statute . . . .... . . ...... ... ... . . ... .. . . ... .... 101 Unsworn Statement ... ..... . . . . .. .. ...... . . ... .. ...... . ..... 102 Bail .... ... . . . . ... . . . .... .. ... .. . . . ... . . .... .. ...... .... 103 Probation and Parole ....... .. . . .... ........... .. . ... ......... 104 Recommendations of Prison Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ... 106
CHAPTER VI ALCOHOLISM AND DANGEROUS DRUGS ... . . . ... .... . . 109 Part I Alcoholism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Existing Help for Alcoholics .... . .. . .. .... ... . . .. . .. .. .. ... ... 111 Recommended Legislation . . . .... . ... .. ..... ... . . .... . .... .. . 114 Part II Narcotics and Drug Abuse .... ... ........ . ...... .... ... . .. 116 Need for Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Squad . . .. .. ...... ... .. .... 119 Recommended Legislation . .. ... . .... . ........ ....... . . . . . . .. 120
APPENDIX A. RESULTS OF MAIL SURVEYS . . .. . ....... ...... ... .. 123
APPENDIX B. RESPONSE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ...... . ......... .. 127 QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX C. CODE OF ETHICS . . . .... . . . .... . . ..... . .... ..... . 131
(!E) APPENDIX D. JUVENILE COURT ACT ...... ... .... ... .. . . . ... .. .
APPENDIX E. NEW YORK PENAL LAW ... . . . . .. . ... ..... ... . . .... 149
APPENDIX F. TIME INVOLVED IN DISPOSITION . . .. ...... ... ..... .. 151 OF CASES BY SUPERIOR COURTS
APPENDIX G. NUMBER OF CASES .. . . .. . .... . ........ .... ... . .. 153
APPENDIX H. MODEL ACT . . . . ... .... . .. ....... . . . ... ..... ... 155 JOINDER OF OFFENSES AND DEFENDANTS
APPENDIX I. REPORT OF GEORGIA PRISON .... ...... . . ... .. ... . . 157 FACILITIES STUDY
APPENDIX J. COMMENTS ON REPORT BY ... . ..... . . .. ....... .... 167 ROBERT CARTER

INTRODUCTION
The Governor's Commission on Crime and Justice was created by executive order on July 7, 1967. lt was established in recognition of the rapidly escalating problem of crime prevention and control, not only in the State of Georgia but throughout the United States. The Commission, under the personal direction of Governor Lester Maddox utilized resources available in government, academic and private fields, as well as conducted an intensive study of the extent, causes and treatment of crime in the State of Georgia.
About two-thirds of the cost of this study was assumed by the State, and a grant of $25,000 was obtained from the U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Law Enforcement Assistance .
The primary goal of the Commission is a critical evaluation of existing policies and programs in crime detection, prevention and control, pardon and parole, and corrections at all levels of government in the State. Information developed through the studies and deliberations of the members and staff are being made available to all agencies concerned with the fight against crime. The Commission makes specific recommendations, based on this information , for preventing and controlling crime, treating offenders and administering justice in Georgia.
Some of these recommendations are directed to the Governor, the General Assembly, other state officials, county and municipal authorities, and law enforcement officials. Still other recommendations address themselves to business, industry and civic leaders and to all conscientious citizens of Georgia.
A table of these recommendations appears in Chapter I of this report.
The Commission was initially divided into five committees to study particular topics and was composed of:
Governor Lester Maddox Chairman
Chief Ray Pope Waycross Police Department
Vice Chairman
H. Oliver Welch State Planning Officer Executive Secretary

Crime and Needed Legislation Committee Thomas B. Murphy, Representative (Administration Floor
Leader) Wiley H. Montague, Sr., President, State AFL-CIO (the late) Frank E. Coggin, Senator (Administration Floor Leader) James C. Quarles, Dean Mercer Law School Peyton S. Hawes, Commissioner, State Revenue Depart-
ment Mrs. Jack T . May, Church Women United in Georgia,
Athens Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney Genral Conrad J. Sechler, Chairman of Board, Tucker Federal
Savings and Loan Assn.
Law Enforcement Committee Barney Ragsdale , Chief, Georgia Bureau of Investigation Ray Pope, President, Peace Officers Association of Georgia R. H. Burson, Director, Department of Public Safety Kenneth Goolsby, President, Solicitors-General Association
of Georgia General George J . Hearn, Adjutant General, Department of
Defense Harold Hefner, Chairman, Gilmer County Commission James V. Davis, Attorney at Law, Albany Frank 0. Downing, Attorney at Law, Savannah
Juvenile Delinquency Committee Father R. Donald Kiernan, St. Jude's Catholic Church Jack P. Nix, State Superintendent of Schools Wellborn Ellis, Director, Children & Youth Div. of Dept. of
Family & Children Serv. John F. T. Murray, Professor, University of Georgia Law
School Horace Ward, State Senator
Courts, Probation, Pardon, Parole and Corrections Committee J. 0 . Partain, Jr., Member, Board of Pardons and Paroles Asa D. Kelley, Jr. , Driector, Department of Corrections John E. Frankum, Judge (Supreme Court Justice) Charles A. Wofford, Judge , Superior Court Robert Hall, Judge (Court of Appeals) Frank Shackelford, Attorney at Law W. J . Logan, Parole Officer, Savannah
Alcoholism and Dangerous Drugs Committee Bruce R. Jacob, Professor, Emory University School of Law John H. Venable, Director, Department of Public Health William B. Rogers, Jr., CPA, Atlanta John P. Culver, Executive Secretary, Georgia Association of
Broadcasters, Inc.

The Staff
Joseph C. Holmes, Director Charles Cory, Consultant Analyst Thomas H. Davis, Consultant Analyst
Anne Karlson, Secretary
Consultants and Advisers: John Carbo, Jr. Chief Probation Officer Northern District of Georgia
Representative Charles L. Carnes I 29th District of Fulton County
Richard Chappell Assistant Professor Institute of Government University of Georgia
Claude B. Corry Assistant Director Division for Children and Youth In Charge of Institution State Department of Family and
Children Services
William A. Crump Assistant Division Director Services to the Mentally Retarded and Public Offenders Georgia Office of Vocational Rehabilitation
John Dick Employment Service Staff Supervisor State Labor Department
Sgt. Frank Durham Georgia State Patrol
Dr. Addison M. Duval Director Georgia Department Public Health Division of Mental Health
Joseph N. Edwards Director Division of Financial Services State Department of Education
Lt. A. J. Farr Georgia State Patrol
William L. Foster Information Officer Georgia Department of Public Safety

Dr. Vernelle Fox Medical Director Georgian Clinic and Rehabilitation Center
Reid Gillis Administrative Assistant Fulton County School System
Mary Gordon Consultant in Early Childhood Education Department of Curriculum State Department of Education
John R. Gore , Jr. State Fire Marshall
Officer Lewi~ Graham Atlanta Police Department
William N. Griffin Assistant Regional Commissioner Alcohol and Tobacco Tax U. S. Treasury Department
Paul L. Hanes Former Assistant State Revenue Commissioner
Mrs. Margaret Hassloch Psychiatric Social Worker Emory University- Vocational Rehabilitation Alcohol Project
Bruce Herrin Assistant Project Director Emory University- Vocational Rehabilitation Alcohol Project
Judge Elmo Holt Superior Court Fulton County
Captain Arthur Hutchins Director Georgia Police Academy
Russell L. Jessup Agent in Charge of U. S. Bureau of Narcotics
Dr. Herman D. Jones Director State Crime Laboratory
Richard Kicklighter Coordinator of School Psychologists State Department of Education
2

William B. Logan Director of Atlanta Field Office
u. S. Bureau of Narcotics and Drug Abuse Control
James L. McGovern Director Metropolitan Atlanta Commission on Crime and Juvenile
Delinquency
Charles B. Methvin Director Alcoholic Rehabilitation Service Department of Public Health
Major E. D. Mink Secretary-Treasurer Georgia State Patrol
George M. Murphy Law Enforcement Training Coordinator University of Georgia Institute of Government
Charles F. Rinkevich Law Enforcement Consultant Institute of Government University of Georgia
)

Robert Shigley Director Division of Special Education and Pupil Personnel Services State Education Department
Judge C. V. Tillman Juvenile Court DeKalb County
Jerry Veldhuis Psychiatric Social Worker Emory University- Vocational Rehabilitation Alcohol Project
Donald G. Verbeck State Director NCCD Georgia Commission
Major Giles Webb Superintendent Georgia Police Academy
Warren Whitte Data Processing Manager Georgia Department of Public Safety

..

Members, the director and his staff were chosen on the

basis of their knowledge and experience in the subject with

..

which their committee was concerned.

The first Commission meeting was held on November 3,

1967, at the State Capitol. Chief Ray Pope, Waycross Police

Department, was elected Vice-Chairman, and since that

time , the separate committees have been devoted to

..

investigation. A second meeting of the full Commission was held on

May 1, 1968, to approve the work already completed by

the five committees. The final meeting to approve the

completed work was held on September 6, 1968.

The life of the Commission was to be for one year until

June 30, 1968, but because of a late start, it was extended

until September 30, 1968, by a second executive order.

The Commission's research took many forms, such as

visits to correctional institutions and written questionnaires

to law enforcement agencies and selected officers

throughout the State. Questionnaires were also sent to

selected parolees and probationers. The Institute of Government at the University of Georgia was commissioned to make these three studies:
(1) "An Analysis of a Law Enforcement Questionnaire for the Governor's Commission on Crime and Justice." Results of this analysis appear as Part I of Chapter III.
(2) "A Survey Study of Juvenile Delinquency in Georgia." Portions of this study have been incorporated in Chapter IV of the Commission's report.
(3) "Georgia Prison Facilities Study." The recommendations of this study have been endorsed and adopted by the Commission and appear in the "Prison Study" section of Chapter V and the study is set out in Appendix H herein.
The Commission had the benefit of data and suggestions from federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, U. S.

3

Treasury Department, Federal Bureau of Drug Abuse, Food and Drug Administration, and the U. S. Bureau of Narcotics. The Commission has also had the benefit of data and suggestions from all state and local agencies concerned. The Commission actively sought the advice and help of experts in law enforcement, criminal justice, and crime and its prevention. These experts freely contributed their time and expertise.
The report by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice released in 1967 and the nine Task Force Reports in which the President's Commission compiled its massive documentation of nationwide crime were used extensively. Those recent studies and their fmdings and recommendations were carefully considered to determine which apply to the crime situation in Georgia.
The report of the Atlanta Commission on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency, "Opportunity for Urban Excellence," completed in February, 1966, served as a valuable source of current information on crime conditions in Georgia's most populous area. Mr. James L. McGovern,

present Director of this Commission, was particularly helpful during this study.
Many of the fmdings and recommendations made by the Commission were based on the suggestions made in answer to a mail survey of 2,000 randomly selected Georgia peace officers, with over 300 responding. Also, many of the suggestions made by the selected 500 parolees and I ,300 probationers were taken into consideration by the committees in making their recommendations. Total results of these three surveys will be found in Appendix A.
This Commission's report embodies the research and analyses of the staff and Commission members. The reader should note that some members of the Commission have reservations on points covered in this report, but the report has the general endorsement of the entire Commission.
The Commission is deeply grateful for the talent and services contributed by its members, consultants, advisers and staff whose combined efforts have gone into the completion of this report.

4

CHAPTER I
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations of the Commission range from broad, long-term programs to proposals for immediate action. The Commission feels that the following recommendations will aid in the administration of justice and reduction of crime in Georgia.
The recommendations made by each committee are grouped together and text material supporting these can be found in the appropriate chapter.
The CRIME AND NEEDED LEGISLATION COMMITTEE recommends that:
It be made mandatory by legislation for all local, county, and state law enforcement agencies to contribute such information as will be required by the Director of the State Department of Public Safety to the Computerized Central Criminal and Statistical Information Center being established in Georgia.
The budget of the Georgia State Department of Public Safety be sufficiently increased so as to provide for the implementation of Chapter 92A-3 , titled, "Bureau of Investigation, Georgia Code."
A single fingerprint system be established for the State of Georgia. The State Legislature pass a statute which allows two or more law enforcement agencies to merge even across county lines. The merger would be accomplished only after favorable referendums in the communities involved. A Uniform Liquor Law should be enacted to provide that liquor and beer licenses may be issued in any county in Georgia.
The LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE recommends that:
Local and county governments make provisions to increase salaries and fringe benefits for law enforcement officers in their communities to a level comparable with those in private enterprise.
The Governor and Legislature consider additional state grants to the local law enforcement agencies specifically to increase police salaries.
In an effort to attract and keep better qualified personnel, law enforcement agencies throughout Georgia should, where none exists, set up a promotional system and policy, and make same known to all employees and to those interested in seeking employment with that agency. This system should include a salary schedule reflecting the salaries for the various ranks, and the increases possible within a rank. A personnel file should be maintained on each employee. Each agency should also adopt a standard efficiency or performance rating system and periodically, at least once a year, rate each employee and discuss in detail with each employee, his past performance and progress.
Legislation be enacted requiring that the minimum training standard for law enforcement in Georgia require that any newly-employed officer shall serve a six months probationary period and that during said period he shall be required to complete the basic police course given by the Georgia Police Academy, or the equivalent of same.
The Georgia Police Academy, working in cooperation with the Georgia Center for Continuing Education, University of Georgia, Athens, continue
5

the police training television by re-running the films which have been made by the Institute of Government.
Legislation be enacted to make it mandatory that every law enforcement agency in Georgia have, as the minimum educational requirement for any officer-applicant, the receipt of a high school diploma or a GED certificate.
All applicants for employment as a law enforcement officer in Georgia should be thoroughly screened before being accepted. This process should include a very thorough character investigation, and a check of applicant's fingerprints against the criminal identification records at the local, state, and federal levels. Care should be exercised to approve only duly qualified applicants for employment, and only those concerning whom no derogatory information was developed during the screening process.
Every medium-sized and large police department should have internal investigation units and in small departments the chief should be responsible for a planned program to investigate reported cases of police misconduct and to insure integrity.
The state should provide the necessary trained investigators to assist local authorities in those cities which do not have the resources to maintain
adequate internal investigation units. Starting salary be approved which will attract a PhD graduate, to be
trained as the potential ultimate assistant director of the State Crime Laboratory. This is to fulfill a contemplated replacement need.
Funds be approved for the hiring of two college trained toxicologists and two such criminalists, one of each being now needed at the crime laboratories in Atlanta and Savannah.
Salary adjustments be made to successfully compete with other potential employers of college graduates trained in the chemical and physical sciences.
Future planning include the establishment of two more branches of the State Crime Laboratory. These branch laboratories, to be located at intelligently chosen sites, as to geography and anticipated volume of services to be rendered, should become operational within the next three or four years, and qualified personnel should be made available.
After the Department of Public Safety's computerized data processing equipment has been installed and become completely operational consideration should be given to equipping every State patrol station with a teletypewriter. This would enable all forty-two, not just eight, to communicate with the Data Processing Division and have the capacity of remote input and the retrieval of data at will.
The Georgia State Patrol obtain an additional frequency and adopt a radio band for the handling of station traffic exclusively.
Funds be made available to permit the Department of Public Safety to purchase four mobile communications vehicles equipped with radio equipment capable of monitoring all law enforcement radio frequencies, and capable of handling traffic with the military, and all law enforcement agencies in Georgia.
To attract and keep qualified personnel, the salary scales of the Department of Public Safety personnel be substantially increased and arranged for entry of new troopers and G.B.I. agents on three salary levels:
High school graduates with three (3) years law enforcement experience should receive the base salary.
High school graduates with (2) years of college, preferably in police science, administration or criminology should receive the base salary plus $50 per month. No experience required.
6

College graduates, preferably in police science, administration or criminology should receive base salary plus $100 per month. No experience required.
And that all officers presently on the force having the above qualifications be entitled to the above increases. The Governor and General Assembly consider whatever legislation or constitutional amendment procedure or executive action necessary to create a Georgia Department of Justice headed by an attorney general with the authority and responsibility to assist any solicitor-general, sheriff or law enforcement officer in the discharge of their duties and, where he deems it necessary to take full charge of any investigation or prosecution of violations of law of which the superior courts have jurisdiction. It is recommended that the proposed Department of Justice assist in handling appeals for the state in the Appellate Courts, and provide legal advisory services to the solicitors-general on a regular basis. It is recommended that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the State Crime Laboratory be transferred to the Department of Justice as elements of an enforcement division ; that funds be provided to employ well-qualified men and train them as skilled investigators and organize them into specialized squads to assist all law enforcement agencies in the state. The budget of the State Fire Marshal be increased in order that additional arson investigators can be employed.
The JUVENILE DELINQUENCY COMMITTEE recommends that:
@e General Assembly enact the Uniform Juvenile Court Act)n the event that it is not deemed advisable to enact thjs Act at this time, it is recommended that the General Assembly enact the Juvenile Court Act prepared at the University of Georgia School of Law.
Any future revisions to Juvenile_Court Statute should be reviewed in relation to the Youth Act of 1963 to insure clarity of responsibility between the youth division and the court.
A state system of juvenile probation should be established by statute to guarantee uniform standards and strengthen services throughout the state. This should be placed in the Division of Children and Youth which is now
performing this function for most _of the Superior Court Circuits. obation services should be strengthened throughout the sta0The
relationship between state court service workers and juvenile court workers should be clarified in all jurisdictions. This action should not await the legislation required to establish a state-wide juvenile probation system.
~w enforcement agencies should establish juvenile programs an~sign ap~priately trained personnel to work with juveniles on the progral!!U
~he authority and role of all law enforcemen~gencies in the matter of informal dispositions should be clearly delin_ya~riteria and methods of handling such dispositions as well as procedures for filing complaints should be jointly agreed upon in writing between the law enforcement agencies and
th~ourts.
\.[he authority of law enforcement agencies in regard to the detention and custody of children should be clarified by law and procedures established in each jurisdicti<i!Y
State and local governments and private organizations and employers cooperate to fmd methods of reducing unemployment in the poverty areas.
Welfare programs should be revised to give the unemployed an incentive
7

to find employment and help keep their families together. Where conditions warrant, a job placement specialist be included on the
staff of secondary schools with priority given to areas where the dropout and delinquency rate is high.
A job placement specialist be included on the staff of every youth development center to provide jobs for the youths upon release if they do not return to school.
A plan be initiated where private industry , federal, state and local government would attempt to fmd suitable employment for these youths.
Civic and church organizations in all Georgia communities become involved in some like project which will fmd summer and part-time jobs for our youths.
The General Assembly appropriate funds necessary to begin implementation of a public kindeq~arten program as proposed by the State Superintendent of Schools.
The state adopt a twelve-month school system with its increased curriculum which will help reduce the juvenile delinquency problem.
The state school system courses on social studies include, starting with the first grade, the value of law and its affect upon citizens, specifically the high school curriculum should include a program to educate the students on crime and its punishment and the effect of committing crimes.
Preventive programs now underway under the sponsorship of law enforcement departments should be strengthened and extended throughout the state. These should be coordinated with other programs in the community which share in this responsibility.
Local citizens and community groups should be assisted with planning and implementing youth programs.
The larger Georgia cities and towns launch programs to establish community service officers.
The state should establish operational standards for local detention and should give consultant services to the centers subsidized by the state. State funds allocated to these centers should be directed toward the refmement of programs and increased services.
There should be continuous coordination between the state and local law enforcement officials to insure that the state detention centers are being fully and properly utilized. There should also be a clear understanding between the jurisdiction of the local authorities and the state in regard to procedures for detention.
The state regional detention centers and local detention centers should be provided the staff and resources required to extend diagnostic and social services for all children. This information should be made available to the courts in making dispositions of cases and to state court service workers so that, where possible, alternate plans rather than institutionalization can be developed.
An extensive program of group homes and half-way houses should be established to care for the delinquent in lieu of institutional care and serve as a transition between the institution and re-entry into the community.
A special institution should be constructed for the custody and treatment of those children not suitable for care in the other youth development centers. The projected capacity of this institution should be based on a detailed review of the characterisitcs of children currently in the institutions.
Those juveniles under seventeen at Alto should be transferred to the
8

..
)

youth division under the provisions of the statute which authorizes such transfer. This should be accomplished as soon as suitable facilities can be provided for the youth division.
The facilities of the youth development centers should be studied to determine if they can be redesigned to accommodate the atypical child who does not require care in a special institution.
Additional cottage staff should be provided the youth development centers to insure adequate supervision at all times. The staff-child ratio on all tours of duty needs to be greatly reduced.
In-depth studies of the youth development centers should be conducted similar to that recently completed for Milledgeville by Peabody State Teachers College.
Programs at youth development centers should be expanded to include more participation in local church, school, recreation and work programs.
A Central Information Service should be established in the Youth Division of the Department of Family and Children Services.
A Statistical Reporting System should be developed by the Central Information Service. It should include uniform definition of offenses, dipositions, and other pertinent data.
Legislation should be enacted to require state agencies, courts and law enforcement agencies to submit such information as is necessary to maintain comprehensive, current state-wide data.
The Juvenile Information Center should periodically publish all pertinent data required to provide exchange of information between jurisdictions and agencies and to furnish data for research, evaluation and planning.
The confidentiality of information regarding the individual juvenile should be safeguarded at all times.
The Legislature adopt an obscenity statute protecting minors patterned after the New York law which was held constitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
The COURTS, PROBATION, PARDON, PAROLE AND CORRECTIONS COMMITTEE recommends that:
There be unification of all felony , misdemeanor and juvenile courts into one judicial department with administrative control at both the circuit and state level.
Jury sentencing in non-capital cases be abolished. The state organize and fmance regular judicial institutes at which judges meet with other judges and with correctional authorities to discuss sentencing standards. The institutes can produce meaningful criteria for sentencing which can serve as a means of basic improvement in the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing. The Legislature provide a means of judicial review for all sentences with power in the reviewing court to reduce, review without change or to increase sentencing of defendants who have appealed. The present law be changed to provide that the trial court shall have the discretion to determine whether or not jointly indicted persons are to be tried together or separately. The Legislature enact a statute permitting the prosecution to appeal pre-trial orders suppressing statements of seized evidence, thus granting the prosecution a more general right to appeal from adverse pre-trial rulings on pleadings and motions.
9

A general witness immunity statute providing immunity sufficiently broad to assure compulsion of testimony.
The Legislature abolish the unsworn statement of the accused. Bail reform statutes based on the Manhattan Bail Project and/or elements of the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966 be passed by the Legislature. The Legislature appropriate the necessary funds so that the Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Board of Probations can each hire an additional 25 officers (a total of 50). The State Board of Pardons and Paroles be merged with the State Board of Probation. The Legislature empower the appropriate state agency with the authority to provide a prison releasee with sufficient funds upon his release, in addition to a suit of clothes. Consideration be given to the abolition of the present State Board of Corrections or that it be changed into an advisory body only. The Director of the State Department of Corrections be given complete authority over his departmental operations and responsibility for the success or failure of the service. This authority must encompass recruiting, promoting, and separating personnel. Careful professional staffmg of the Reception and Diagnostic Center become a top priority project as soon as operational guidelines are complete.
Recent and long overdue efforts at staff training be encouraged, intensified, and expanded.
Steps be taken to enlarge the populations and programs of the prison branches, so as to permit the phasing out of assignment of felony offenders to county-operated public work camps.
Growth and diversification of prison industries be fostered until work is available for every prisoner.
There be initiated effective service-wide programs of preventive maintenance that will <1-SSure future avoidance of neglected and deteriorated physical plants such as have faced Alto and Buford.
The procedure currently employed for awarding good time, both statutory and extra, be subjected to a serious and searching official scrutiny to ascertain if it is achieving even limited success in fostering the incentive-producing objectives that were intended to result from the legislation that authorized such action.
There be constant and relentless upgrading of the most important single resource in corrections - staff - through the processes of recruitment, training, periodic evaluation of employee progress, and through the provision of a career ladder within the service.
Realistic efforts toward conditioning both staff and inmates to court-ordered racial integration be made.
There be early implementation of both work release and the incentive pay program.
Greatly improved prisoner classification and progress records be accomplished.
An improved system of policy issuance be created and put into effect. The small, but impressive starts in both academic education and vocational training be accorded servicewide expansion wherever possible, with the full support of such community agency allies as the State Department of Education, VRA, and NMDTA that have provided real program enrichment at Buford and Alto.
10

The ALCOHOLISM AND DANGEROUS DRUGS COMMITTEE recommends that:
The state's responsibilities for alcoholism programs should be essentially those of providing education, training and rehabilitation, giving technical and financial assistance to local communities, coordinating services, stimulating research and providing care for patients in need of intermediate and long term hospitalization.
The budget of the Georgia Clinic be increased sufficiently so that it can expand its needed programs.
A patient data bank should be established on the state level to provide biostatistical information for use by participating service agencies.
The state help communities develop comprehensive programs for alcoholism and alcohol-related problems as part of total health care services for areas of approximately 75 ,000 to 200,000 population.
The Georgia Department of Public Health should actively support and encourage professional manpower development to meet program needs.
Specific instruction on working in alcoholism programs should be included and expanded in the curricula of colleges and universities as part of the training of all professions involved.
Stipends, scholarships or other means of support should be made available through state and/or federal agencies to students in training.
Emergency involuntary admission of an intoxicated person to a hospital for a period of time not to exceed 72 hours, without legal proceedings or warrant, provided that the admitting physician concurs in the need for detoxification.
The Department of Public Health should have the authority to hospitalize persons with alcoholism or drug dependence who are without psychosis to any of its appropriate state institutions.
The Legislature adopt the interstate compact on mental health and needed provisions should be inserted into the Georgia Health Code for the use of the compact as it applies to alcoholism .
Local communities pass laws which do not make drunkenness itself a criminal offense.
The state should assist communities in establishing educational programs for the prevention, treatment and control of alcoholism and for the development of services for treating and rehabilitating alcoholics.
Professional persons such as physicians, nurses, educators, clergymen and others be encouraged to participate in community educational programs for preventing and controlling alcoholism.
Secondary schools should provide courses on the prevention and control of alcoholism based on factual and scientific information.
Official and voluntary health and social agencies should stimulate and assist industry in the development of alcoholism education and control programs.
The Georgia Department of Public Health establish in one of its present facilities a unit for approximately 15 patients so that treatment, training and research can be carried on locally.
As early as can be effectively done in their education, students in Georgia should be given a comprehensive, factual , scientific education concerning the
11

effects inherent in the use of narcotics, and dangerous drugs, to provide them with the background to enable them to make intelligent, informed decisions when they become exposed to these items.
Educational and commercial television and all news media be utilized to present to the public factual scientific programs concerning the effects inherent in the use of narcotics and dangerous drugs.
The Georgia Police Academy be provided with the manpower and other resources necessary to make possible a more comprehensive program of instruction on these subjects.
More police and law enforcement officers in Georgia be sent to the two-week training school on narcotics and drug abuse presently being offered by the federal government.
A special section should be established within the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, consisting of adequate personnel, as a specialized, highly trained narcotics and dangerous drug section. These persons would work with federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel to curtail the traffic and use of narcotics and dangerous drugs and would be used in the training of local officers.
The Georgia Act be amended so as to include by reference within its regulatory scope all future as well as present designation of dangerous drugs under federal regulation.
The Georgia Department of Public Health establish a unit for drug abusers for approximately 30 patients to combat the continually mounting problem of drug (non-narcotic) abuse in the state.
12

CHAPTER II

CRIME TRENDS

The growing problem of crime is not unique to any one state or local jurisdiction. It is a national problem. In 1967, 3,802,273 crimes were reported in the United States, an increase of over 16 percent from 1966. In other words, one out of every fifty citizens will be a victim of a serious crime in 1968. The crime rate has been soaring for years. Since 1960, the number of crimes has increased by 88.7 percent with :only a 10.3 percent increase in population. It becomes evident that crime is a social problem and a concern of the entire country.1
The crime rate in Georgia has followed the pattern set in the rest of the country. Although some authorities claim there are several times as many crimes against both property and persons as are reported to police, 61 ,588 serious crimes were reported to police in Georgia in 1967an increase of 5.52 percent over 1966.2 This figure includes only the seven crimes included in the annual Uniform Crime Reports issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They are Criminal Homicide, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny and Auto Theft. They are referred to for statistical purposes as the FBI index crimes and are shown here in Table 1 by category:

Table 1 SERIOUS CRIMES IN GEORGIA

1965

1966

Murder and non-negligent

Manslaughter

491

504

Forcible Rape

586

650

Robbery

1,297

1,555

Aggravated Assault

6,403

6,357

Burglary

21,236

24,580

Larceny $50 and Over

13,828

16,616

Auto Theft

8,430

8,104

Percent Increase

52,271

58,366 11.66%

1967
501 561 1,682 5 ,792 26,667 17,371 9,014
61 ,588 5 .52%

It should be noted that the above index crimes represent the most common law enforcement problem. They are all serious crimes either by their very nature or because of the volume in which they occur. These figures do not include any offenses for arson, forgery, counterfeiting, fraud, embezzlement, buying or possessing stolen property, vandalism, carrying concealed weapons, prostitution, sex offenses, narcotics violations, gambling offenses, drunk driving, liquor law violations, and many other misdemeanors and violations of state and local laws.
There are no exact statewide figures available on total arrests in Georgia. However, F.B.I. 1967 arrest statistics received from 28 Georgia law enforcement agencies, which cover an area of 1,419,815 people, show a total of 138,913

arrests, not including traffic offenses, for this one-third of the State's population. So it can be seen that the 61 ,588 serious crimes reported do not reflect the huge task thrown on our police and courts.
Georgia has no uniform crime reporting system which can give an accurate count of the number of crimes committed and the nature of offenses. Police records on crime are kept so differently from city to city and county to county that comparison, for study purposes are often fruitless.
In a recent Commission survey of Georgia law enforcement agencies, 528 questionnaires were mailed and 194 responses received relative to submission of statistics for F.B.I. Crime reports. About 50.77 percent replied that they did submit statistics; about 49.22 percent, that they did not.
Statistics from the Uniform Crime report disclose that most crimes, wherever committed, are committed by boys and young men. Seventy-five percent of all crimes in this country are committed by those between the age of fourteen and age twenty-nine. The figures also show that most crimes are committed in cities. As for Georgia, this report shows in table 3 that the greater part of seriou~
crimes occurred in heavily populated areas.
Georgia is not an island of crime. To give the reader an idea for comparison purposes, here is how the State compares with neighboring states and others for the years 1965 through 1967.

Table 2
SERIOUS (FBI INDEX) CRIMES Per 100,000 Inhabitants

1965

1966

1967

Georgia

1,199 1,309 1,365.9

Neighbors

Alabama Florida South Carolina North Carolina Tennessee

1,067 2,010 1,096
980 1,082

1,209 2,280 1,210 1,087 1,276

1,313.9 2,585.0 1,291.5 1,248.8 1,531.3

Some of the higests:

California New York
Nevada

2,643 1,608 2,395

2,826 3,207.5 2,400 2,908.0 2,360 2,763.1

Some of the lowest:

Maine Mississippi
North Dakota West Virginia

680

660 798.9

690

587 574.9

501

561

596.1

528

591 658 .7

The National Average

1960

United States Crime Rate 1,116 1.502.1 1,656 1,921 .7

percent increase

34.6 10.2%

15%

13

Atlanta Marietta Savannah Athens Macon Columbus Rome Valdosta East Point Augusta LaGrange Decatur Warner Robins Metro Other Cities Rural

Table 3 CRIME RATE PER 100,000 FOR SELECTED GEORGIA CITIES

Pop.**

1965 Crimes*

Crime Rate

Pop**

1966 Crimes*

Crime Rate

Pop.**

1967 Crimes*

Crime Rate

506,900 34,200
142,700 41,900 127,600 132,900 33,300 31,600 38,000 78,500 25,700 25,600 22,900 2,116,000 695,000 1,546,000

13,529 846
3,185 1'134 2,741 2,184
538 379 433 841 190 198
35,057 8,339 8,875

2669.0 2473 .7 2231 .9 2706.4 2148.1 1 6 4 3 .3 1615.6 1199.3 1139.5 1071 .3
739.3 773.4
1656.8 1 1 9 9 .9
574 .0

504.700 36,800
142,700 42,600 123,300 128,700 33,900 32,000 38,500 83,200 23,800
31 '1 00 26,000 2,200,000 702,000 1,558,000

14,151 954
3,670 1,071 2,973 2,192
577 463 385 844 162 196 137 38,831 8,776 10,759

2803 .8 2592.4 2571 .8 2514.1 2411.2 1703.2 1702.1 1446.9 1000.0 1014.4 6 8 0 .7 630.2 526 .9 1750.0 1250.0 691.0

498,200 37,800 135,200 43,100 126,700
127,100 33,500 32,400 37,700 85,000 23,900 32,100 26,400 2,226,000 693,000 1,590,000

14,612 877
4,045
1'180 3,193 2,484
572 569 699 973 205 207 174 41,739 9,406 10,443

2932 .9 2320.1 2991.8 2737.8 2520.1 1954.4 1707 .5 1756 .2 1854.1 1144.7 857.7 644.9 659.1 1875.1 1357.3 656.8

Total State Violent Crime Property Crime

4,357,000

52,271 8,777 43,494

1199.7 201.4 998.3

4,459,000

58,366 9,066
49,300

1309.0 203.3 1105 .6

4,509,000

61,588 8,536 53,052

1365.9 189.3
1176.6

*Figures on crime from Uniform Crime Reports

**Figures on population from the Georgia Dept. of Public Health Biostatistics Service

'i

Central Criminal and Statistical Information Center
Georgia's increasing crime rate demands a centralized criminal information system from which operational information may be instantly retrieved. A progressive development in this field is Georgia's Computerized Central Criminal and Statistical Information Center. The State Department of Public Safety has been cognizant of the need for such a Center for years and is now completing the installation of a computer. This equipment is expected to be operational soon.
Recidivism among criminals is rampant. The importance of having complete and timely information about crimes and offenders available to law enforcement when and where needed cannot be over-emphasized. With such information an arresting officer could determine whether an offender should be held for committing a crime elsewhere. Besides identifying badly wanted fugitives and bringing their criminal acts to a halt, this information system, when implemented, will enable the police to identify stolen vehicles and property.
Criminal statistics are essential for management purposes. Law enforcement must know where it has been before it can reasonably decide where it is going. Statistics provide necessary data to identify crime problems and to evaluate action programs.
Such a Central Criminal and Statistical Information Center is only as effective as the information furnished to

it. The only way to insure that the desired information is deposited in this Center, and to control the type of information to be contributed, is to make data contributing mandatory by statute.
The Commission recommends that:
It be made mandatory by legislation for all local, county, and state law enforcement agencies to contribute such information as will be required by the Director of the State Department of Public Safety, to the Computerized Central Criminal and Statistical Information Center being established in Georgia.
In considering the above recommendation, it should be noted that the Georgia Code already provides for local law enforcement agencies to submit certain reports to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Local agencies are required to submit fmgerprints and descriptions of convicted felons from their jurisdiction to the G.B.I.5 Also, law enforcement officers are required to report the theft of any motor vehicle or license plate to the nearest state patrol post.6 The intentional failure of any officer to render reports may constitute grounds for removal or dismissal from office.7
Since the previously mentioned statutes were passed, no funds with which to enforce these laws have been available. Accordingly, the submission of the reports and information

14

by local law enforcement agencies to the Georgia Bureau of Information, as called for in these statutes, has not been instituted.
The Commission recommends that:
The Budget of the Georgia State Department of Public Safety be sufficiently increased so as to provide for the implementation of Chapter 92A-3, titled, Bureau of Investigation, Georgia Code.
Single Fingerprint System
Of all the technical procedures employed in criminal investigations, none exceeds the potential value of the latent fmgerprint examination. By this means alone, many crimes have been solved and the perpetrators identified beyond all doubt. Latent fingerprints developed in criminal investigations generally occur as isolated single impressions or as groups of two or three fragmentary prints of adjacent fmgers. These prints cannot be searched in an extensive fmgerprint me set up on the basis of the classification of the ten fingers as a combination because of the enormous number of comparisons involved. This is the type fing:rprint file maintained now by the Department of Public Safety. The single fingerprint file is to supplement this existing me.
To make latent print (single print) searches feasible, the size of the file must be limited. Therefore, a single fmgerprint me is limited to the types of crimes in which latent prints are most often developed. These crimes would include, for example, auto theft, burglary, extortion, forgery, robbery, and major sneak thievery. The single fingerprints of notorious gangsters would also be included. These prints can be obtained from a perusal of available identification records, and a continuous check of current fmgerprint cards showing arrests for the offenses cited. The prints of each of the ten fingers appearing on these cards will be photographed and each fingerprint filed separately under its own classification. Any latent print of potential evidentiary value can very readily be searched in this me.
The Commission recommends that:
A single fingerprint system be established for the State of Georgia.
MERGER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
In the State of Georgia there are about 528 local, county, and sheriff law enforcement agencies. With this number of agencies, local police service is highly fragmented, and service to the public in the smaller communities suffers as a consequence. The desire for self-government and control over local law enforcement by the many small communities accounts for the development of this large number of agencies for a state with less than 5

million inhabitants.8 From a survey of the law enforcement agencies in Georgia, it appears that, regardless of size or location or financial resources, each !ocal government wants to have and control its own police department.9
Some communities with as few as 200 persons have a police chief. Many sheriffs have only one duputy. In some Georgia counties of 30,000 population or less, there are a sheriffs office, a county police department and two or more munjcipal police departments.
Jurisdiction disputes, duplication of efforts, divided responsibilities and personal conflicts between departments often work against the community's best interest and certainly against efficient crime control.
While the crime rate rises, law enforcement suffers from fragmented efforts of large numbers of uncoordinated local governments and law enforcement agencies. Since Crime is not confined to the boundaries of any one locality, it seems important to consider some formal coordination or consolidation of agencies in many rural areas.
Small communities with law enforcement agencies consisting of fewer than ten officers often suffer a number of disadvantages.1 0 0perationally, they are not flexible enough to meet the present demands caused by the rising crime rate. The employment of specialists by these small departments is difficult or impossible, and training facilities are non-existent. Promotion is not available in most cases, a condition which stagnates the departments.
All police agencies need qualified, trained personnel capable of performing assigned duties. From the survey conducted by the Commission, it appears that many communities lack the necessary financial resources for recruiting and selecting qualified personnel and for providing training, although they do have law enforcement agencies.
Combining some of these smaller agencies across county or city lines could improve law enforcement. A larger and more efficient department would attract and keep more trained and capable policemen.
Duplication of services could be eliminated in many cases. One or more detectives, trained in modern investigative techniques could be added in communities where none are now available. A centralized crime record me system could be established for the consolidated area. In short, citizens of smaller towns and counties might be able to get more protection and better law enforcement for their tax dollars by a well-planned consolidation with neighboring communities.
The Commission does not advocate any mandatory consolidation, but it does want to encourage desirable community department mergers. It recommends that the officials of Georgia's smaller towns and counties examine their local law enforcement agencies and those of their neighbors to consider the benefits of consolidating two or more agencies.
At present, existing Georgia statutes which authorize local police services impede voluntary mergers among local units unless special legislation is adopted specifically

IS

authorizing such arrangements. School systems have been successfully consolidated across county lines.11
Therefore, the Commission recommends that the State Legislature pass a statute which allows two or more law enforcement agencies to merge even across county lines. The merger would be accomplished only after favorable referendums in the communities involved.

UNIFORM LIQUOR LAW

I.

Present Law

The Revenue Tax Act of 1937-38 is the basic law relating to distilled liquors.12This Act allows the citizens of a county to determine for themselves whether distilled spirits will be sold in the county. Under the law a petition for a referendum must be filed with the ordinary, and that petition must be signed by at least 35 percent of the registered voters qualified to vote at the General Election. An election is then held, and a majority vote is deciding.
Georgia's laws regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages are outdated. The nature of this system generates two factions ; one side theorizes a wet county will cause a reduction in crime, increase individual values, increase revenue, provide for more equitable distribution of income, reduce corruption among public officials and decrease the traffic in illicit whiskey. The other faction points out the religious aspects and the increase in human miseries, such as alcoholism, attendant to the ready availability of whiskey. Members of this dry faction usually consist of persons profiting from the sale of illicit tax-paid and moonshine whiskey, and religious and temperance groups.
Georgians in wet and dry counties must fully realize that state liquor laws are ineffective and that prohibition has been a failure since its dismal crime-breeding era of the 1920's. The fact that such a large segment of the population did not want the liquor laws enforced made it practically impossible to enforce them. On a national basis, this situation brought on the AI Capone-type gangsters, created huge illegal profits, and produced graft and corruption on the biggest scale this country had experienced to that time.

II.

Consumption of whiskey in Georgia

At present, thirty of the 159 counties in Georgia are wet. Thirty-eight percent of the civilian population live in wet counties.
On July 1, 1967, the population of wet counties
was estimated at 1,680,300 persons and the population of Georgia was 4,500,000 persons.13In 1967, 5,808,433 gallons of distilled spirits were sold in these 28 counties.14
Consequently, it could be said from a naive standpoint that
the per capita consumption in Georgia was 3.45 gallons. At
the same time, the per capita consumption for the United

States was 1.57 gallons. One might reasonably conclude that Georgia's 129 dry counties vote dry but drink wet. Using total population, one can obtain a realistic per capita consumption of 1.29 gallons, which would be somewhat nearer the national average if moonshine activities could be eliminated. Several situations are suggested by this : (I) taxpaid whiskey is readily available in supposedly dry counties, either from bootleggers, or "clubs" ; (2) residents of dry counties travel to wet counties or wet adjoining states, in the case of border counties, for their liquor.
Fulton County is the only wet county in the Northern Judicial District of Georgia. Eleven of Georgia's most significant moonshiners, distributing an estimated 28,700 gallons of whiskey each week, are operating in this area. Thirteen wet counties are located in the Middle District and four significant violators, who distribute 6 ,500 gallons of moonshine each week, operate in this District. Sixteen counties in the Southern District are wet, and this District is "home" to five significant violators distributing 7,600 gallons each week. Thus, North Georgia, with only one wet county, apparently consumes an estimated 28 ,700 gallons of moonshine per week, or twice as much as the rest of the state, which contains 29 wet counties.
II I. Federal and State Problems Concerning Moonshine and other non tax-paid liquors.
While the Federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit and the State Revenue Department work very closely in this area, their respective problems, from a legal and practical point of view, differ. The Federal Government is primarily concerned with moonshine. They are not concerned with tax paid liquor from Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee that is brought into Georgia. Under Federal law there is a tax of $10.75 per gallon on distilled spirits, and if this tax has been paid, Federal authorities are satisfied. In addition to collecting a State tax of $3 .75 per gallon on distilled spirits, the State Revenue Department has the responsibility of regulating the legal beverage industry in Georgia and the Federal Government has little responsibility in this area.
The moonshine business in Georgia is " Big Business." In 1967, 84 percent of all distilleries seized in the United States were located in seven southeastern states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. Georgia is the biggest producer of moonshine in the country as thirty-one percent of the distilleries seized in the southeast were located here. Corrupt officials, a misinformed and sometimes uninterested public, and the climate created by Georgia's 129 dry counties have all contributed to this condition.
The Federal Alcohol Tax people estimated that, as of October 1, 1967, there were 749 illicit distilleries operating in Georgia with a utilized mash capacity of 760,540 gallons. If all of them were running at the same time, they could produce 34,768 gallons of whiskey in a single day .

16

For the period of 1960-67, Federal officers seized 6,180 distilleries, 6,126 ,898 gallons of mash and 312,047 gallons of illicit whiskey. In addition , the Georgia State Revenue Department seized 22,807 stills, 16 ,441 ,492 gallons of mash and literally millions of gallons of non-tax paid whiskey during the same period.
For the three years 1965-1967, the State Revenue Department destroyed 7,654 illicit stills. Of this total, 6,224 or 81 percent were in dry counties containing 62 percent of the population ; 1,430 or 19 percent were in wet counties containing 38 percent of the population. Thus 13.8 stills per 100,000 population were found in dry counties, compared with 8.5 stills per 100,000 population in wet counties.
During the same three-year period, State Revenue Department tabulations show totals of 1,720 whiskey cases made in the wet counties, compared with 4,027 cases made in dry counties. 15 This equals 100 cases per 100,000 population in wet counties, contrasted with 144 cases per 100,000 population in dry counties.
A good example for comparison is Crisp County, which voted wet in the year 1961. During dry years, state revenue agents were involved in more than 25 non-tax paid whiskey cases a year. For the years 1963 through 1967, there were only 10 cases, or an average of two cases per year.
Georgia_has the highest percentage of dry population
and the highest percentage of illicit liquor stills seized in the
United States. Chart I and II , pages 18 and 19 and table 4
show the comparative standings of the states. Georgia leads the nation with 59.1 percent of "dry" population and also leads with an amazing 26 .86 percent of all the moonshine stills seized in the United States. Not only does Georgia lead the nation but it had 1,867 stills seized in 1966, in con trast with the next highest state, North Carolina, which had 1,094 stills seized.

Table 4

STILLS SEIZED BY STATES 1966

State ***

Stills Seized Percent

Georgia North Carolina Alabama

1867 1094 1040

26 .8 6 15.74 14.96

South Carolina 689 9.91

Tennessee

682 9.81

Mississippi

407 5.85

Virginia

286 4.11

Florida

145 2.08

Kentucky

130 1.87

Oklahoma Michigan Arkansas West Virginia Ohio Texas Pennsylvania

127 1.82

90 1.29

74 1.06

67

.96

56

.80

36

.51

29

.41

New York Massachusetts Illinois Maryland New Jersey

16

.23

13

.18

12

.17

12

.17

11

.15

Washington

11

. 15

California

11

.15

Indiana Louisiana Connecticut Rhode Island Missouri Wisconsin

11

.15

7

.10

7

. 10

4

.05

3

.04

3

.04

Colorado Oregon

2

.02

2

.02

PERCENT OF POPULATION DRY BY STATES 1966

State **
Georgia Tennessee Kentucky North Carolina Arkansas Texas Alabama Kansas Mississippi Maine Louisiana United States Ohio Illinois Virginia Vermont West Virginia Colorado Massachusetts Florida Maryland Wisconsin New Hampshire New Jersey Minnesota New Mexico Connecticut Rhode Island Alaska Nebraska New York

Percent
59.1 54.3 49.8 43 .8 42.9 40.0 39.7 39.5 32.4 17 .6 16.3 11.1 10.2 10.2 10.0
9.4 7.5 5.4 5.3 4.8 4.3 3 .8 3.7 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.5 0.4

IV. Tax Fraud- Loss of Revenue
The Federal Government has estimated the annual fede ral excise tax fraud in Georgia at about $52 million . The estimated annual state excise tax fraud is almost $19 million. In addition to this loss and the loss of sales taxes on moonshine whiskey, those counties that are legally wet have the authority to levy a tax of 80c per gallon or 16c per fifth on tax-paid alcohol. This would provide about $4,500 ,000 in revenue to local governments which is being lost because of the tax fraud in moonshine whiskey. Georgia's twenty most significant violators distribute an estimated 42,800 gallons of whiskey each week . This amount represents federal and state excise tax losses of $609,900 each week.

A high tax fraud is perpetrated against the Georgia taxpayers because the moonshine racket is so extensive, and the tax loss is so great. Table 5 shows the number of stills found in each wet county and each dry county during the past three years.

V.

Corruption of Public Officials and

the Law Enforcement Problem

There is definitely a connection between the illicit

liquor trade and law enforcement in general.

Since 1955 , fourteen public officials in Georgia

have been tried in federal court for violation of the liquor

laws. These officials have ranged from a state senator to

sheriffs and chiefs of police. In addition to these cases,

other public officials in Georiga have been indicted or tried

in state courts for offenses arising out of the illegal liquor

trade.

17

CHART I

GEORGIA

TENNESSEE

KENTUCKY

N. CAROLINA

ARKANSAS

TEXAS

ALABAMA

KANSAS

MISSISSIPPI

MAINE

LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES

OHIO

ILLINOIS

VIRGINIA

VERMONT

9.4

WEST VIRGINIA - 7.5

COLORADO

-5.4

MASSACHUSETTS - 5.3

FLORIDA MARYLAND

-

4 .8

- 4.3

WISCONSIN

. . 3.8

NEW HAMPSHIRE . . 3.7

NEW JERSEY

2.9

MINNESOTA

2 .8

NEW MEXICO

2.6

CONNECTICUT 2 .6

RHODE ISLAND .1.6

ALASKA NEBRASKA NEW YORK OREGON PENNSYLVANIA

10.6
I 0 .5 I 0 .4 I 0.1
I0. 05

59.1
PERCENT OF DRY POPULATIO
BY STATE 1966
(Population Figures Based on 1960 Census)
+ WET POPULATION-179,323,175
....
DRY POPULATION-19,899,235 TOTAL U. S. POPULATION-179,323,175

The remaining 18 states and the District of Columbia contain no Prohibitory areas to distilled spirits.

CHAR T IT

GEORGI A

2 6 .86

N. CARO LINA

ALABAMA S. CAROLINA

TENNESSE E

MISSISSIP PI

5.85

VIRGINIA

-4.11

FLORIDA KENTUCK Y

-2.08 . . 1.87

OKLAHOMA

. . I. 82

MICHIGAN

1.29

ARKANS A S

1.06

WEST VIR GINIA . 96

OHIO

. 80

TEXAS

I .51

I PENNSYLVANIA

.41

NEW YO RK

I .23

I ) MASSAC HUSETTS .18

PERCENTAGE OF STILLS SEIZED BY STATES 1966

ILLINOIS

1 . 17

MARYLAN D

1.17

NEW JE RSEY

1 . 15

WA SHIN GTON

I .15

CALIFOR NIA

1.15

INDIANA

1 . 15

~ LOUISIAN A

j .IO

CONNECTI CUT j . IO

RHODE ISL AND 1.05

MISSOUR I

\ .04

WISCONS I N

1.04

CO LORA DO OR EGON
DEL AWAR E IDAH O MI NN ESOTA NEVADA

1.02 1.02
! .02
1.01
i .01
1.01

NEW HAM PSHIRE : .01

County
Atkinson Bacon Baker Baldwin Berrien Bibb Brantley Bryan Camden Candler
County
Appling Banks Barrow Bartow Ben Hill Bleck ley Brooks Bulloch Burke Butts Calhoun Carroll Catoosa Charlton Chattahoochee Chattooga Cherokee Clarke Clay Clayton Clinch CobQ Colquitt Columbia Cook Coweta Dade Dawson Decatur DeKalb Dodge Dooly Douglas Early
Echols Effingham Elbert Evans Fannin Fayette Floyd Forsyth Franklin

Table 5

1965
4
23 8 9 3
44 0 8

WET COUNTIES STILLS SEIZED BY COUNTIES 1965, 1966, 1967

TOTAL WET COUNTIES TOTAL DRY COUNTIES TOTALS COUNTIES TOGETHER

1965 530
2,578 3,108

1966 537
1,969 2,506

1967 363
1,677 2,040

1966
2 2 0 29 7 9 12 55 2 7

1967
3 1 6 16 5 0 3 22 2 6

County
Chatham Coffee Crawford Crisp Dougherty Emanuel Fulton Glynn Liberty Lowndes

1965
25 45 22
7 1 65 41 2 84 26

1966
22 38 25
0 0
60 20
1 93 23 '

1967
39 21
9 0 1 28 26
59 22

County
Mcintosh Muscogee Pierce Pulaski Richmond Seminole Sumter Terrell Ware Wayne

DRY COUNTIES STILLS SEIZED BY COUNTIES 1965, 1966, 1967

1965
3 27 12 20
4
18 16 50 37 16 51
0 23
65 55
3 5 9 3 4 2 29 4 11 18 17 10 8 14 4 8 27 13 18 21 3 11
47
27 33 18

1966
3 8 17 13 10 0 5 10 19 12 6 35
26 3
38 39
4
7 16
7 5 21 0 13 17 6 13 10 8 3 13 10 14 12 15 5 9 39 9 10 16

1967
7 12
9 33
8
6 13 27 13 11 41
0 8 0 18 48 2 4 5 16 17 0 15 6 7 4 15 4 2 12 9 4 22 21 10 19 7 18 19 10 13 6

County
Gilmer Glascock Gordon Grady Greene Gwinnett Habersham Hall Hancock Haralson Harris Hart Heard Henry Houston Irwin Jackson Jasper Jeff Davis Jefferson Jenkins Johnson Jones Lamar Lanier Laurens Lee Lincoln Long Lumpkin Macon Madison Marion McDuffie Meriwether Miller Mitchell Monroe Montgomery Morgan Murray Newton Oconee

1965
42 0
26 9 0
12 31 19 10 100 58
7 45 57 13 12
2 26
0 4 2 14 10 9 2 41 2 6 6 34 24 34 10 16 136 14 9 27 6 5 55 15 0

1966
41
14 10
0 5 21 6 4 56 3 3 26 19 13 9 3 12 4 6 10 34 10 14 0 39 4 10 11 15 19 15 21 9 89 6 0 14 9 4 56 18 4

1967
52 0
10 4 0
14 13 13 21
5 12 26
6 8 6 5 2 7 2 3 9 6 10 4 38 0 10 2 7 16 8 14 14 60 4 2 4 6 8 76 5 5

County
Oglethorpe Paulding Peach Pickens Pike
Polk Putnam Quitman Rabun Randolph Rockdale Schley Screven Spalding Stephens Stewart Talbot Taliaferro Tattnall Taylor Telfair Thomas Tift Toombs Towns Treutlen Troup Turner Twiggs Union Upson Walker Walton Warren Washington Webster Wheeler White Whitfield Wilcox Wilkes Wilkinson Worth

20

1965
15 7
15 0
28 0
16 12 17
1

1966
14 7 0 1
32 0
22 10 30 14

1967
3 5 2 3 29 0 10 13 26 2

1965
13 61
11 40 46
3 25 41 27 11
2 8 29 9 2 16 5 32
5 19
43 6
30 129
5 6 0 76 45 7 5 20 13 0 11 5 17 11 20 5

1966
12
94 2
28 15
20 14
3 46 31
6 10 10 20
9 5 3 4 40 11 12 12 3 36 3 16 81 5 14
46 51 10 14
8 4 0 9 9 16 5 27 9

1967
15 79
1 48 40 29
8 0 46 7 3 0 11 35 14
4
18 0
13 0 3
15 6
10 46
10
46 25
9 10 12 15
0 4
20 5
20 5

Reliable intelligence estimates by a Federal enforcement agency indicate that 42 public officials are likely involved in the illicit liquor business at present. Of these 42 suspected officials, only 5 are found in wet counties, and 37 are found in the dry counties. This estimate does not relate to the traffic in tax-paid whiskey in dry counties, or officials with a do-nothing attitude toward enforcement of the liquor laws. It is estimated that at least three other officials either condone or actively support the activities of each corrupt official.
The alliance of public officials with the illicit liquor interests often leads to involvement in other more serious crimes, such as narcotics, prostitution, violence, bribery, car thefts and larceny. The President's Crime Commission found that all available data indicated that organized crime flourishes only where it has corrupted local officials. A vivid example is the recent bombing murder in which Solicitor General Floyd Hoard of Jackson County, who vowed to wipe out illegal liquor operations and car thefts, was the victim of the tax-paid and moonshine liquor law violators. He was killed instantly when he turned on his car's ignition key and set off a bomb beneath the hood.
Another noteworthy example is the murder of three police officers in Gwinnett County by liquor law violators who were surprised as they were stripping a stolen vehicle. One of the murderers was a former public official who had been tried and convicted in federal court for violation of liquor laws. Intelligence reports show an increasing number of liquor racketeers are now engaged in the distribution of counterfeit money. Recently, three moonshiners were arrested as they attempted to distribute $250,000 in counterfeit money.
The moonshine business may be Georgia's largest organized illegal enterprise. Of the 20 biggest moonshine racketeers in Georgia, 16live in dry counties, while 4 reside in wet counties. It would be hard to estimate the extent of the corrupt influence which these 20 affluent outlaws exert on public officials.
Local officials are not entirely responsible for the extremely poor law enforcement in this area. Citizens who

elect in the dry counties tend to vote dry and drink wet. They will vote in a reform candidate who promises to clean up crime and then rage when bootleggers are closed. Although many local public officials are not corrupted by revenue from the illegal liquor trade, the system itself has corrupted law enforcement so that these people simply choose not to enforce the law. No community has any better law enforcement than its citizens demand , and a large segment of the population in Georgia's dry counties do not want liquor laws enforced.
Lack of enforcement of alcohol laws leads to another problem. A contempt for one law is the contempt for all laws. Everyday in dozens of counties in Georgia, citizens see State Revenue Agents , sheriffs and local police officials pass by establishments that are engaged in the illegal sale of mixed drinks . This tolerance of liquor law violations not only creates disrespect for all laws but tears down respect for the law enforcement officer. The
Commission considers this a serious matter, partic.ularly ifl
these times of increasing crime when there is a critical need to improve the image of the law enforcement officer.
The Commission staff has obtained 1967 arrest statistics from a number of Police Departments for comparisons of wet vs. dry city arrests for drunkenness, driving under the influence, liquor laws and disorderly conduct. (See Table 6). Some difficulties were encountered inasmuch as all Georgia cities do not classify these offenses in the same manner. For instance, some cities customarily charge many drivers who have been drinking with " Reckless Driving" instead of "Driving Under the Influence."3 There are differences in policy also; in one place an individual who has become intoxicated may be taken home by the
police or be sent there by taxi. In other communities an
individual in the same condition would most likely be arrested.
A study of 16 city police departments in eight Northeastern states conducted by the Rutgers University Center of Alcohol Studies, and released July 10, 1968, concluded that records on accidents involving drinking drivers are kept so differently from city to city that

~~
Griffin LaGra nge Elberton Dublin Covin gton Tifton Dalton Thomasville

Table 6
1967 ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS, DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE LIQUOR LAW VIOLATIONS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT

Dry Cities 8.3 per 100 Pop.
Poj!ulation
23,900 23,900
7,700 14,200 9,300 11,300 23,100 19,400

Arrests
1,982 1,842
630 1,283 1,140
984 1,824 1,539

Brunswick Waycross Valdosta Americus Jesup Milledgeville Dawson Cordele

Wet Cities 8.3 per 100 Pop.
Poj!ulation
25,000 21,200 32,000 15,100
8,500 14,300
5,600 11,800

Arrests
2,206 1,657 2,618
982 709 2,102 333 554

TOTALS

134,800

11,224 21

134,000

11,161
/

comparisons for research and study purposes are frustrating and often fruitless. The report states, " For research purposes, reports of alcohol-involved accidents and violations may be among the poorest of all police records."
In arrest tables the larger the city, the higher the crime rate is a general rule . (See Table 3, Page 4). In the table below, an effort has been made to compare drunk-related arrests in dry cities with wet cities of similar size. On this basis there are no dry cities to compare with wet metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta, Savannah, Columbus, Macon and Augusta.
In Table 7 drunkenness and related-offense arrests for 1967 in 13 wet cities and 20 dry cities are shown with the total number of arrests (except traffic). In every city , dry or wet, the drunk-related offenses make up the greatest part of the arrests, from 46.44 percent to 91.12 percent. These figures reveal that the problem is about the same in the wet cities (72.15 percent) as in the dry cities (75 .15 percent).
For a long-term, wet-dry comparison of arrests for all offenses (except traffic) in medium and small cities, one may consider the arrests made in two groups of cities which are roughly comparable in size. Each group contains about the same total population, and figures (Table 8) indicate the arrest rate is slightly higher in the dry cities 8.50 to 8.13 per one hundred population. The Commission does not assume these tables are conclusive inasmuch as another grouping of dry cities could show a substantially lower arrest rate . The tables are only to show that crime problems in great numbers are present in all Georgia communities, regardless of size and local-option liquor laws.
VI. Medical Problem
From July 1, 1965, through June 30, 1966, the Central State Hospital admitted a total of 1,296 patients with primary or secondary diagnoses of alcoholism. Of this number, 454 were admitted from wet counties and 842 from dry counties. It is noted that wet counties with 38 percent of the people contributed 32.5 percent while dry counties with 62 percent of the population contributed 67.5 percent of the alcoholic admission to the hospital.
The Commission was able to obtain figures from only two of the private hospitals which treat alcoholism. Both were in the Atlanta Metropolitan area. One reported 1,369 alcoholic admissions for a 12-month period ending in 1968. The patients were from 41 different Georgia counties, 677 from wet counties and 692 from dry counties.
The other private institution admitted 52 alcoholics during the year 1967. Twenty-four lived in wet counties, and 28 lived in dry counties.
Georgia Alcoholic Rehabilitation Service Clinics admitted 1,171 patients for fiscal1968 . Of these, 757 were from wet counties while 414 were from dry counties. Fulton, which contributed 422, had the greatest number,

Table 7

RATIOS OF DRUNKENNESS TYPE ARRESTS TO TOTAL NUMBER OF ARRESTS IN FOLLOWING
WET AND DRY CITIES - 1967

Average Ratio

Wet Cities

1967

72.15%

Average Ratio

Dry Cities

1967

75.15%

WET CITIES

Police Department

Total Arrests Arrests for Percentage of (except traffic Drunkenness and Drunkenness and parking) Related Offenses* Type Arrests

Americus Atlanta Augusta Brunswick Columbus Cordele Dawson Jesup Macon Milledgeville Savannah Valdosta Waycross

1,175 89,048 12,821
3,395 15,236
1,006 440 998
17,236 2,576 8,172 3,096 2,348

982 72,168
9,859 2,206 10,986
554 333 709 9,189 2,102 5,552 2,618 1,657

83.57 81.04 76.89 64.98 72.10 55.07 75.68 71.04 53.31 81.60 67.57 84.56 70.57

DRY CITIES

Athens Cairo Cartersville Dalton Decatur Dublin Elberton Forest Park Gainesville Griffin LaGrange Marietta Moultrie Newnan Smyrna Statesboro Thomaston Thomasville Tifton Warner Robins

3.411 373 719
2,354 1,711 1.408
904 1.480 1,588 2,941 2,203 2,590 1,106 1,067 1.422
634 1,148 2,196 1,101 1,193

1,584 337 630
1,824 1.435 1,283
630 1,091 1,154 1,982 1,842 2,146
956 770 696 385 1,040 1,539 984 689

46.44 90.35 87 .62 77.49 83.87 91 .12 69.69 73.72 72.67 67 .39 83 .61 82.86 86.44 72.16 48 .95 60.93 90.59 70.08 89.37 57.75

*lnc!udes Drunkenness, Driving Under Influence, Disorderly Conduct and violation of the Liquor Laws.
but dry DeKalb County was next with 173 . Excluding Fulton with Atlanta's accumulation of an estimated 10,000 chronic court offender alcoholics, the comparison between wet and dry counties is : 414 dry counties, 335 wet counties. This may be considered valid in view of studies by the Emory University - Vocational Rehabilitation Alcohol Project, which reveal that around 70 percent of Atlanta's alcoholic court offenders are not natives but migrated to Atlanta from mostly rural areas in Georgia.
Medical literature and hospital records prove that moonshine has always been a health menace. Often

22

Table 8

ARRESTS* (EXCEPT TRAFFIC) FOR THREE YEARS: 1964, 1965, and 1966

DRY 8.50 Arrests per year Per 100 Pop.

WET 8.13 Arrests per year Per 100 Pop.

Citv Athens Marietta Rome Griffin Dalton Gainesville Cedartown Toccoa

Pop.
42,600 38,800 33,500 23,900 23,100 18,500
9,600 8,100

Arrests
5,780 8,265 9,023 12,739 4,999 4,412 2,735 2,054

City Albany Valdosta Brunswick Waycross Americus Milledgeville Cordele Jesup

Pop.
66,900 32,400 25,100 21,200 15,100 14,300 11,800
-8-,50-0

Arrests
9,450 8,438 9,937 4,971 2,761 8,302 2,073 1,762

TOTALS

196,100

50,007

195,300

47,694

*Police Department figures taken from Commission questionnaires mailed to Georgia Law Enforcement Agencies, December, 1967.

automobile radiators are used as condensers for distilling moonshine. This pollutes the illicit liquor with poisonous lead salts that can cause paralysis, blindness and death. A doctor at the Milledgeville State Hospital stated that 90 percent of the 1,400 mental patients admitted for brain damage treatment were victims of moonshine poisoning. Chatham County spends over $30,000 per year to care for patients who have received lead poisoning from moonshine. One batch of moonshine seized by a Georgia sheriff contained 11,600 micrograms of lead salt per quart. The Federal Food and Drug Administration warns that any moonshine whiskey containing over 1,000 micrograms of lead salts per liter (slightly more than a quart) should be considered dangerous. Studies by federal authorities show that over 90 percent of the illicit liquor manufactured in the southeastern United States contains high concentration of lead salts.
Bootleggers completely disregard the consequences of their acts, and their eagerness for large profits often prompts them to take many shortcuts in the construction of their distilleries.
VII. The Social Problem Public hypocrisy over liquor laws in the State
creates a social problem. There are apparently two sets of rules for state citizens. Those who are wealthy and powerful in the "dry" corrupunity can obtain alcohol by the drink or package with relative immunity. Those who are poor cannot. This is a situation that comes before state officials repeatedly. In most of the dry counties in Georgia, there are membership clubs which provide liquor by the bottle and by the drink to their members. Of course, this is illegal. At the same time, other private citizens attempt to set up "clubs" or other outlets for the general public, but their members are not afforded the same privileges as members of country clubs. In some of these dry counties where attempts at law enforcement are made, the attempts are all too often made only against those who serve the general public. These people ask a question for which there

is no answer. They ask why the rich man in Georgia can buy tax-paid whiskey and the poor man cannot.
This aspect of the problem concerns local officials who are sincerely trying to do their duty. In DeKalb County several years ago, at the request of local officials, the State Revenue Department brought legal action against establishments which were selling liquor to the general public. Such charges were not made against private clubs. When the cases were presented in court, the judge threw them all out and announced to the solicitor that he would not enforce the law against one and not against all.
VIII. Summary The Commission fmds: Georgia's thirty-one year old liquor laws are
ineffective and should be brought up to date. Moonshine and tax-paid whiskey is sold illegally in
Georgia's so-called dry counties. Whiskey is consumed in Georgia in quantities
comparable with the national average. Georgia's county-option arrangement of 30 wet
counties and 129 dry counties provides a profitable racket for bootleggers and moonshiners.
The illicit liquor business is the largest and most profitable racket in the State.
Georgia leads the nation in "dry" population and in illicit whiskey stills seized.
Prohibition is a failure in Georgia and public tolerance of liquor law violations in dry counties tends to create disrespect for all laws.
Georgia taxpayers lose millions of dollars annually in tax frauds by moonshiners and bootleggers.
Statewide legalization of liquor and beer would probably increase tax revenue by more than 20 million dollars a year.
Drunkenness offenses present law enforcement agencies in dry areas with problems as great as those in wet areas of relative population.
Occurrence of alcoholism in dry areas is comparable with that of wet areas.

23

The Commission recommends that:
A uniform liquor law should be enacted to provide that liquor and beer licenses may be issued in any county in Georgia.

Footnotes
1. Crime in the United States, Uniform Crime Reports - 1967, issued by Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D. C. (hereinafter cited as Uniform Crime Reports).
2. Ibid .
3. Figures from Un iform Crime Reports for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967.
4. Ibid.
5. Ga. Code Ann. 92-307.
6. Ga. Code Ann. 92-308 .
7. Ga. Code Ann. 92-310.
8. A Study by the Georgia Municipal Association , published December, 1967, shows there are 108 cities in Georgia with less than 5,000 population.

9. The mail survey of 528 Georgia law enforcement agencies conducted by the Governor's Commission on Crime and Justice.
10. Eighty-one cities in Georgia have 4 or less full -time police officers. Of these 81, thirty have only one policeman, and twenty have only two.
11. Ga. Code Ann. , Chapter 32-12, allows merger of independent school systems.
12. Ga. Code Ann., Chapter 58.
13. This figure represents 28 wet counties since Coffee County did not vote wet until July , 1967, and Crawford , November , 1967 . These Counties had a combined population of 29 ,700. Figures from Georgia Department of Industry and Trade.
14. Figures from Alcohol Tax and Control Unit, Department of Revenue, State of Georgia.
15. Non-tax paid and tax -paid whiskey violations.

24

CHAPTER III
LAW ENFORCEMENT

Part I
Part I of this chapter presents an analysis of a law enforcement questionnaire circulated by the Commission. The analysis was made by the Institute of Government, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
From the preceding chapters the reader can see that law enforcement is not a simple operation. The functions of a law enforcement agency and its officers cover a wide range of duties varying from those requiring highly complex processes, such as investigation of organized crime, to those involving such simple processes as directing traffic. Not only do these duties range from complex to simple but objects of police activity cover a wide gamut from severe to less serious social, behavioral, and political problems as well. Furthermore, law enforcement agencies frequently intervene in situations which are not interpreted as immediately or potentially criminal.
" It is hard to overstate the intimacy of the contact between the police and th community." 1 The average citizen welcomes protection and detests official intervention. The law enforcement officer must judiciously assess any action he might take in terms of its potential effects.

and officers been required to make more decisions regarding so many varied activities. To insure a sound basis for these decisions, the administrators in the system must be aware of appropriate procedures in the administration of criminal justice, they must design guidelines for exercising law enforcement conduct and they must communicate these policies to their personnel. Such prerequisites are necessary for an effective law enforcement agency.
Elements Contributing to Effective Law Enforcement
In any law enforcement system there are several elements critical to an effective system. Among these elements are personnel, administration, staff services, facilities and equipment, budgetary and legislative support, and public approval. The relative strengths of each of these elements affect rationales basic to efficient decision-making processes on every level in law enforcement work. Several criteria for evaluating these strengths are :
1. Sufficient salaries, promotional scales, employee benefits, and working conditions.

" . . . the way any policeman exercises the personal discretion that is an inescapable part of his job can, and occasionally does, have an immediate bearing on the peace and safety of an entire community, and a long range bearing on the work of policemen everywhere ." 2
This behavior affects the community, the law enforcement system, and apprehended offenders. "Implementation of a punitive reaction by the police undoubtedly will have important effects on the success of any subsequent attempts at treatment."3
Not only is the work of each enforcement agency significant in terms of apprehension, prosecution, and conviction, but also in terms of crime prevention. In presenting anti-criminal behavior patterns to non-criminals and apprehended offenders, the law enforcement officer is in a strategic position to foster respect for the law and prestige for the field. Thus, as modern law enforcement techniques in such areas as crime prevention, community relations, riot control, juvenile delinquency , and administration are joined with more traditional functions, the need for qualified , professional law enforcement personnel is even more crucial.
As the sphere oflaw enforcement activities has increased to meet continually changing dimensions of criminal activity, the restrictions on these activities have also increased. At no other time have law enforcement agencies

2. Trained employees with a continuous training program and utilization of extra-departmental programs.
3. Standard employment requirements.
4. Adequate recruitment program and retention of personnel.
5. Sufficient budget coupled with proper program planning.
6. Adequate quantity and quality of personnel.
7. Standard reporting system.
8. Coordination of law enforcement system efforts.
9. Informed administration and open communication between personnel levels.
To assess the capabilities of any law enforcement agency or system of agencies, such factors as the above must be carefully considered in relatiqnship to the geographicalpopulation characteristics of the area served by the agency or system. A complete survey would consist of this analysis, as well as an evaluation of the political and public climate as it relates to law enforcement activities.

25

Is the public supportive of efficient law enforcement? Is the agency or system free of political control?
Significance of Improved Law Enforcement in Georgia
Obviously, crime and related disorders are becoming increasingly critical. Equally crucial is the need for improved law enforcement techniques and more effective law enforcement operations. The documentation of the growth of crime and the need for efficient law enforcement are not regionally isolated but have significance for all modern societies. The problems faced by law enforcement agencies in Georgia are neither unique nor insurmountable. However, to achieve improved law enforcement, existing problems must be identified, analyzed, and remedied . Prior to this report, Georgia's law enforcement agencies have been relatively unknown quantities, and the nature of their problems has been a topic of speculation. The following sections of this report are designed to give these dimensions to law enforcement programs in the State.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Recognizing the need for the most effective law enforcement agencies possible, the Committee on Law Enforcement of the Governor's Crime Commission authorized the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia to analyze the State's law enforcement capabilities and most pressing needs .
Intermediate Objectives The study has three intermediate objectives. First, the
strength of Georgia's law enforcement system is to be assessed in terms of quality of personnel, adequacies of budget, equipment and facilities , existence and effectiveness of training programs, and entrance requirements for employment. Second , after surveying the agencies , this report identifies important considerations and necessary steps needed to upgrade the system. Third, the needs of Georgia's law enforcement agencies, as seen by the officials of the agencies, are reviewed .
Primary Objective
The ultimate objective of the law enforcement survey is an overall increase in the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies to meet the challenge of crime in Georgia. Recommendations were developed by the Crime Commission to effect this increase. The following sections provide the principal bases for these recommendations.
STUDY DESIGN
Designation of Areas For lnvest.igation
As noted previously , effective law enforcement activities are contingent upon numerous criteria. For the purposes of

this study, investigation was limited to eight areas most indicative of law enforcement strengths and weaknesses. These categories are :
1. characteristics of responding departments
2. characteristics of personnel
3. salary levels and working conditions
4. fringe benefit programs
5. staffing needs and personnel turnover rates
6. training programs
7. entrance requirements
8. facilities and equipment
Specific questions which the Law Enforcement Committee wished answered were developed under each of these eight categories. In addition, the staff of the Governor's Crime Commission was particularly concerned with several suspected stress points in the law enforcement system. These points were incorporated into the list of questions.
Preparation of Survey Instrument In December, 1967, a questionnaire on these eight areas
was devised by staff members of the Governor's Crime Commission. A total of 27 questions was placed on the form, many having several sections.
Identification of Target Groups The decision regarding categories of law enforcement
agencies to be included in the survey and the number to be surveyed was reached late in December by the Commission staff and the Law Enforcement Committee members. It was decided to survey all municipal police departments, sheriff departments, county police departments, and the Georgia State Patrol. A list of each department in these categories was prepared for the Commission by the State Department of Public Safety. 'fhese departments were subsequently placed into population groupings by Crime Commission personnel.
Mail-Out of Questionnaire Because of time and travel considerations, a mailing
technique was employed to disseminate the questionnaire to the various departments. Included in the original mailing were 354 municipal police departments, 19 county police departments, 159 sheriff departments, and the Georgia State Patrol. Because of limited response to the initial mail-out, a second mailing was sent in February.
In April, a final follow-up was made by State Patrol officers who delivered the questionnaires to non-responding

26

departments . The decision to terminate attempts to increase the percentage of respondents was reached in mid-April. At that time , all returned questionnaires were delivered to the Institute of Government for tabulation and
analysis.
Tabulation of Results
It was decided that responses to all questions would be tabulated according to two constants : population of the area served by the department and the type of department. 1n those cases involving categories of personnel, these designations would be added to population and jurisdiction. This decision was made so that the committee could distinguish problems related to the size of the department, problems related to the type of department and problems related to particular levels of personnel.
Once these constants were designated, analytical charts and graphs were prepared. Since there was a large number of questions , the tables were extensive. Therefore, summary tables were designed in those categories adaptable to this form of reporting. Several categories, such as those regarding training, were considered sufficiently crucial to be included, in full , in the body of the report.
The final step in the survey was the analysis of data and the completion of recommendations. The following sections of this report summarize the major findings of the study and outline basic recommendations for strengthening any areas of stress indicated by these findings .

RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Limitations of the Data
Because of the limited return of questionnaires and the systematically incomplete responses on individual questionnaires, any analysis of data has to be evaluated in terms of these limitations. Because of the limitations of the data, any conclusions about particular items have to be prefaced by "of the departments responding to this question, . . . percentage indicated that . .. ." Obviously the sporadic response affected the uniformity of results.
For example, in those questions regarding personnel, the number of personnel listed varies from question to question since some departments responded with the numbers falling in certain age groups but omitted the numbers falling in particular educational groups. Or, some departments replied with one number of personnel on one question and a different number on another. Therefore, since responses were neither consistent nor, in some cases, accurate , no conclusions could be reached regarding the actual number of personnel.
Characteristics of Departments Responding
Percentages of Departments Responding
Table 9 which follows indicates the numbers of questionnaires sent to departments in specific population

Table 9 QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS BY JURISDICTION AND POPULATION*

0-499 500-999 1,000-1 ,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL

Inquiries
65 71 88 55 29 19
5 6 5 5 2 1 3
354

POLICE Responses
8 14 25 36 25 9 9 2 7 7 3 1 4

Per Cent
12.30 19.71 28.40 65.45 86.20 47.36 180. 33.33 140. 140. 150. 100. 133.

150

42.37

Inquiries
1 7 27 45 19 21 10 11 10 1 7
159
27

SHERIFF Responses

Per Cent

CO. POLICE Inquiries Responses Per Cent

0

2

28.57

4

14.31

11

24.44

6

31.62

6

28.57

3

30.00

5

45.45

4

40.00

2

200.

2

28.57

45

28.30

2

0

2

0

3

1

I 33.33

I

5

3

I 60.00

1

3

I
1

300.

6

2

33.33

19

9

47 .36

ranges, according to the United States Census. The columns marked "responses" give the numbers of questionnaires that were returned according to the population interval in which the respondents placed their areas. In some cases, the population the census gave and the one given by the department were not the same. This accounts for some answers being in excess of 100 percent. A complete list of departments responding to the questionnaire is attached as Appendix B.
The responses in none of the three categories, city police, county police, or sheriff departments, exceed 50 percent. Excluding the State Patrol, the largest percentage of response was recorded in the smallest group of departments: county police agencies. Nine of the 19 county police departments, or 47.4 percent, responded to the questionnaire. Forty-two percent of the 354 city police departments and only 28 percent of the sheriffs' departments responded for a total response in all three categories of 38 percent. As the size of the department increased, the rate of response increased. Thus, the highest percentages of responses represent departments in the largest population areas. However, since responses were tabulated by size and by jurisdiction, the analysis is not affected by the disproportionate response in the larger populations.
Number of Arrests in Responding Departments
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of arrests made by their departments in 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966. These figures were to distinguish between traffic arrests and all others. Table 10 on the next page lists the average number of arrests made by the total group of departments responding in each population interval. The column following this average gives the number of departments whose figures were totalled to determine the number of arrests per department. Since the number of departments responding to this question was small, few conclusions can be reached regarding any trends in the "crime rate" in Georgia over the four-year period. However, in almost all cases, there were increases in both the traffic and "other" categories. The large percentage of departments which indicated that no records were kept on arrests, and the equally high percentage who simply failed to give any response to the question, point to the widespread inadequacies of record-keeping in Georgia's law enforcement agencies.
Departments Reporting to FBI Uniform Crime Reports
Again emphasing the inadequacies of the reporting system in the state is the low percentage of agencies which contribute to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Only 46 percent of those municipal police departments responding indicated they submitted reports. Although there was a marked increase in reports submitted in the larger municipal police agencies, this trend was not significantly

present in sheriff departments where only slightly over half submit reports. All County police agencies reporting indicated reports were submitted to the FBI. The response by agency is given below.

Table 11
AGENCIES WHICH SUBMIT FBI CRIME REPORTS:

Agency Municipal County Sheriff State
TOTAL

Responses

Dept.

%

140 93.33

Yes

No.

%

65 46.42

No

No.

%

75 53.57

9 100. 9 100.

44 97.77 24 54.54 20 45.45

1 100.

1 100.

194 94.60 98 50.77 96 49.22

Annual Budget for Area Served and for the Department
Each department was asked to indicate the total budget for its city or county and the total budget for its department. These figures were compiled for the five-year, period (1963-67). Tables 12 and 13 which follow give the average budgets by type of department, population, and year. The figures in parentheses give the numbers of departmental budgets from which the average budgets were computed.
As was expected, the five-year trend indicates a slight year-to-year increase. A visual comparison of the two figures shows a departmental percentage of the total area budget ranging from twenty-five to fifty percent. As the size of the population group increases, the ratio of department budget to area budget decreases. This results from increases in services as area sizes increase. In less populated areas, the number of services is limited, with law enforcement agencies requiring a large percentage of the total revenue .
Table 14 illustrates the average number of employees per department listed by responding agencies. These figures indicate a gradual increase in total manpower over the fouryear period ( 1963-66) but reflect a surprising drop in 1967 for city and county police departments.

Characteristics of Law Enforcement Personnel in Georgia
Tables 15, 16 and 17 which follow summarize responses to a series of questions regarding characteristics of law enforcement personnel in Georgia. Based on responses to the questionnaire, data averages for municipal policeman, sher-

28

Table 10 NUMBER OF ARRESTS MADE BY DEPARTMENT:

1963.

1964

1965

1966

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000-1 ,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999

Traffic 39
140 2752 5459 4473

Other Res. 71 (3)
366 (7) 1690 (19) 2912 (21) 4938 (16)

Traffic 29
244 2650 4374 4445

Other

Res.

48 (3)

324 (9)

1520 (19)

3340 (21)

5321 ( 17)

Traffic 74
244 2498 5160 4650

Other Res. 68 (4)
407 (10) 1525 (19) 3880 (23) 5174 (17)

Traffic 169 330
2651 6869 6637

Other Res. 66 (4)
438 (10) 1987 (20) 4236 (23) 5779 (18)

7,000-11 ,999

3650

2748 (6)

3714

2317 (6)

4364

3233 (7)

4549

4207 (8)

12,000-14,999

4901

3204 (6)

5596

4762 (6)

7390

5622 (6)

7299

5408 (6)

15,000-19,999

1104 1153 (1)

1582

1711 (2)

1735 2603 (2)

1716 2137 (2)

20,000-24,999 19,042 11,415 (7) 21,250 12,251 (7) 23,741 11,445 (7) 23,717 13,304 (7)

25,000-39,999

9336 10,316 (5) 13,513 14,825 (6) 12,230 13,729 (6) 13,381 15,508 (6)

40,000-69,999

3285

6069 (2) 12,378

8856 (3) 14,100

9182 (3) 13,125

7871 (3)

70,000-99,999 14,115 17,271 (1) 16,314 16,912 (1) 15,164 16,460 (1) 13,252 14,223 (1)

100 000 t

227 726 108 514 (4) 231 983 110 076 (4) 227 654 119,251 (4) 213 638 113470 (4)

1963

1964

1965

1966

-

Sheriff Dept. Traffic

Other Res. Traffic

Other Res. Traffic Other Res. Traffic

Other

Res.

2,000-3,999

365

104 ( 1)

191

102 ( 1)

333

65 ( 1)

86

82 (1)

4,000.0,999

459

41 ( 1)

165

46 (1)

1282

332 (3)

1022

328 (3)

7,000-11 ,999

2109

1136 (6)

1734 1091 (6)

1636 1445 (7)

1688 1427 (7)

12,000-14,999

905

213 (2)

915

222 (2)

1055

650 (3)

1000

621 (3)

15,000-19,999

878

694 (2)

872

768 (2)

1410 1037 (3)

1292

868 (3)

20,000-24,999

299

837 ( 1)

392

877 (1)

1515 2807 (3)

1627 2408 (3)

25,000-39,999

950

1245 (1)

1025 1305 (1)

1062

1913 (2)

1103 1414 ( 1)

40,000-69,999

181

987 (2)

103 1169 (2)

117 1211 (2)

147

938 (2)

70,000-99,999

501 ( 1)

786 (1)

1120 (1)

1180 ( 1)

100,000 t

1055 4459 (1)

1086 4638 (1)

1132 6027 (1)

2931

3450 (1)

County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

1963

Traffic 985 892
2353 14,415

Other Res. 293 (1)
1610 (1) 1380 (3) 4036 (1)

Traffic 785
1432 2432 12,317

1964

1965

1966

Other Res. Traffic

435 (1)

899

1885 (1) 10,362

1136 (3)

4362

8336 (1) 14,381

Other Res. 457 (1)
3169 (3) 1607 (3) 9220 (2)

Traffic 748
9953 5815 16,861

Other Res. 392 ( 1)
2909 (3) 1978 (3) 7945 (2)

1963

1964

1965

1966

State Patrol

Traffic Other Res.

77,026 3205 (1)

*Number of departments responding.

Traffic 88,473

Other Res. Traffic

Other Res. Traffic Other

Res.

3300 (1) 90,536

2883 ( 1) 98,981

2840 (1)

29

Table 12 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR AREA:

Local Police 0-499

1963

No.*

$644.00 (1)

1964

No.

$2,208.00 (2)

1965

No.

$2,665.50 (2

1966

No.

$2,546.50 (2)

1967

No.

$3,500.00 (1)

500-999

$19,868.25 (4)

$16,455.66 (6)

$17,944.50 (6)

$18,247 .71 (7)

$21,412.71 (7)

1,000-1,999

$37,557.42 (7)

$53,288.50 (8)

$42,923.12 (8)

$30,507.50 (8)

$33,447 .00 (6)

2,000-3,999

$103,164.75 (12) $110,956.00 (14) $135,749.71 14) $165,991.35 (17) $209,802.83 (18)

4,000-6,999

$331 ,923.20 (5) $298,237.00 (6) $375,707.00 (6) $392,646.50 (6) $536,931.14 (7)

7,000-11,999

$654,893.00 (4) $675,802.25 (4) $698,279.40 (5) $695,263,50 (6) $751,995.66 (6)

12,000-14,999 $1,505,712.50 (2) $1,295,653.33 (3) $1 ,462,007,66 (3) $1,728,883.66 (3) $1,543,753.25 (4)

15,000-19,999 $886,947.00 (1) $911,288.50 (2) $851,699.50 (2) $999,652 .00 (2) $1 ,091 ,850.00 (2)

20,000-24,999 $837,600.85 (7) $1,295,003.28 (7) $1,646,012.42 (7) $1 ,548,867.14 (7) $1,733,206.85 (7)

25,000-39,999 $1,507,594.75 (4) $1 ,677,647.80 (5) $,773,350.40 (5) $2,118,831.20 (5) $2,317,207.80 (5)

40,000-69,999 $1 '723,053.66 (3) $1,916,925.00 (3) $2,188,316.66 (3) $2,316,053.53 (3) $2,714,090.00 (3)

70,000-99,999

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(01

100,000 t

$12,954,632.25 (4) $13,855,222.00 (4) $15,192,268.25 (4) $14,737,358.25 (4) $16,189,717.50 (4)

Sheriff Dept.

1963

No.

1964

No.

1965

No.

1966

No.

1967

No.

2,000-3,999

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

4,000-6,999

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0) $28,000.00 (1)

7,000-11,999

$507,000.00 (1) $578,000.00 (1) $672,000.00 (1) $881,000.00 (1)

(0)

12,000-14,999

(0)

(0) $150,000.00 (1)

(0)

(0)

15,000-19,999

(0)

(0) $385,394.50 (2) $449,977.50 (2) $366,383.00 (3)

20,000-24,999

(0)

(0)

$90,000.00 (1)

$95,000.00 (1) $267' 128.00 (2)

25,000-39,999

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

40,000-69,999

(0) $1,556,363,00 (1) $1,583,010.00 (1) $1,892,577.00 (1) $2,156,600,00 (1)

70,000-99,999 $1 ,571,466.00 (2) $1,200,226.00 (2) $1,281,626.50 (2) $1 ,637,310.00 (2) $936,208.00 (1)

100,00 t

$2,977,989.73 (1) $3,937,079.00 (1) $4,756,396.41 (1) $5,060,942.09 (1) $5,616,654.86 (1)

County Police

1963

No.

1964

No.

1965

No.

1966

No.

1967

No.

25,000-39,999 $1,556,363.00 (1) $1,502,154.00 (1) $1,583,010.00 (1) $1,892,577.00 (1) $2,156,600.00 (1)

40,000-69.999 $2,747,681.25 (1) $4,431,648.50 (2) $4,831,564.00 (2) $5,532,060.00 (2) $6,029,157.00 (2)

70,000-99,999 $1,322,000.00 (1) $1,570,000.00 (1) $1 ,667,000.00 (1) $2,241 ,294.50 (2) $2,635,546.00 (2)

100,000 t

$13,135,965.00 (2) $14,527,419.00 (2) $16,004,716.00 (2) $18,080,168.00 (2) 24,153,937.00 (2)

State Patrol

1963

No.

1964

No.

1965

No.

1966

No.

1967

No.

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

* Number of departments responding.
30

p

Table 13 ANNUAL BUDGET OF DEPARTMENT:

Local Police

1963

No.*

1964

No.

1965

No.

1966

No. 1967

No.

0-499 500-999

$2,066.66 (3) $3,718.50 (6)

$2,066.66 (3) $4,832.37 (8)

$2,066.66 (3) $4.499.75 (8)

$2,573.00 (4) $4,886.20 (10)

$2,723.00 (4) $5,587.66 (9)

1,000-1 ,999

$10,583.28 (7) $10,604.00 (8) $11,699.12 (8) $12,007.75 (8) $13.493.12 (8)

2,000-3,999

$22,276.50 (14) $22.478.53 (15) $26,350.05 (17) $29,021.30 (20) $29,815.15 (20)

4,0006,999

$34,232.00 (6) $39,005.71 (7) $44,653.14 (7) $44,990.12 (8) $52,099.77 (9)

7,000-11 ,999

$67.439.60 (5) $73,016.40 (7) $80,656.60 (5) $87,392.57 (7) $91,875.85 (7)

12,000-14,99 $78,662.80 (5) $83,244.80 (5) $93,630.16 (6) $1 07.798.66 (8) $117,181.20 (5)

15,000-19,99 $151,596.00 (1) $138,550.00 (2) $146,833.50 (2) $214,882.00 (2) $170,345.00 (2)

20,000-24,99 $165,193.00 (7) $172,643.14 (7) $192.726.42 (7) $215,379.14 (7) $242,127.57 (7)

25,000-39,999 $207,929.20 (5) $248,646.00 (6) $268.453.00 (6) $289,659.50 (6) $316,022.66 (6)

40,000-69,999 $255,956.33 (3) $277,364,00 (3) $292.764.66 (3) $315,020.00 (3) $345.414.33 (3)

70,000-99,999 $752,726.00 (1) $771 ,644.00 (1) $818,045.00 (1) $912,028.00 (1) $952,991 .00 (1)

100,000 t

$2,019,132.00 (4) $2,048,025.50 (4) $2,315,894.25 (4) $2,539,211.00 (4) $3,048,284.75 (4)

Sheriff Dept.
~
2, 000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,00-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

1963

No.

(0)

(0)

$13.750.50 (2)

(0)

$25,850.00 (1)

(0)

(0)

$88,305.00 (1)

$94,078.00 (1)

$382,634.36 (1)

1964

No.

(0)

(0)

$13,154.50 (2)

(0)

$15,850.00 (2)

(0)

(0)

$72.736.00 (2)

$117,645.00 (1)

$473,506.85 (1)

1965

No.

$5,000.00 (1)

$16,500.00 (1)

$17,500.00 (3)

$19,250.00 (2)

$25,000.00 (3)

$32,500.00 (2)

$54,000.00 (1)

$83,098.50 (2)

$121,343.00 (1)

$523,825.90 (1)

1966

No.

$5,000.00 (1)

$25,250.00 (2)

$16,175.00 (4)

$18,500.00 (1)

$27,796.66 (3)

$40,500.00 (2)

$43,624.25 (4)

$98,638.66 (3)

$159,015.00 (1)

$572,189.17 (1)

1967

No.

$5,000.00 (1)

$25.750.00 (2)

$16.783.80 (5)

$18,500.00 (1)

$28,560.00 (3)

$40,500.00 (2)

$36.421.33 (3)

$92,236.66 (3)

$150,042,50 (2)

$658,609.20 (1)

County Police 25,000-39,999

1963

No.

$153,198.00 (1)

1964

No.

$159,138.00 (1)

40,000-69,999 $155,246.00 (1) $188,609.00 (2)

70,000-99,999 $91,280.15 (1) $92,558.12 (1)

100,000 t

$1 ,281.487.00 (1) $1.419.742.00 (1)

1965

No.

$167,024.00 (1)

1966

No.

$187,306.00 (1)

1967

No.

$202,040.00 (1)

$187,920.00 (3) $269,267 .00 (3) $260,919.33 (3)

$142,278.00 (2) $155,719.33 (3) $180,171.00 (2)

$954,317 .00 (2) $1,005,255.00 (2) $1 ,295,060.50 (2)

State Patrol

1963

No.

1964

No.

1965

No.

1966

No.

1967

No.

$5,225,000.00 (1) $5,775,000.00 (1) $6.460,000.00 (1) $7,551,548.00 (1) $8,142,341 .00 (1)

*Number of departments responding.

31

Table 15

CHARACTERISTICS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS: SUMMARY BY POPULATION, AGENCY, AND LEVEL OF PERSONNEL.

PATROLMEN ONLY

ALL EMPLOYEES

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,0001 ,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Age

No.
2 7 37 125 126 85 114 36 145 212 76 0 1218

X*
51.50 53.92 48.37 40.54 41.05 30.85 33.17 32.12 34.11 31.94 27 .8 5
0 35.18

Years In Department
No. X
2 5.7 7 3.5 46 3.8 92 3.2 82 3.5 72 3.3 94 3.4 36 3.6 166 4.0 199 4.6 31 4.0 0 0 257 4.8

Years In Field
No. X
2 5.7 7 3.5 46 3.8 92 3.2 82 3.5 68 3.2 95 3.4 36 3.6 166 4.0 199 4.6 31 4.0 0 0 257 4.8

Education

No. X

2 8.0

8 6.9

40 8.8

64 10.3

105 10.3

89 10.8

118 10.8

35 10.7

144 11.6

211 11.5

111 11.8

0

0

430 11.3

Non-White

No. %

0

0

0

0

3 4.10

9 5.35

20 10.92

13 11 .60

19 21.59

4 6.34

23 9.42

21 6.14 19 8~ 44

15 9.74

153 10.9.1

Married

No.

%

4 100.

12 70.58

67 94.36

154 92.77

169 94.41

125 94.69

157 94.01

48 90.56

228 93.44

256 93.93

216 95.1 5

0

0

412 91.96

Employees

No.

X

4 1.0

17 1.4

71

2 .9

166 5.1

179 8.5

132 14.6

167 20.8

53 26.5

244 34.8

274 54.8

227 75 .6

0

0

448 149.3

TOTAL

2183 35.12 1084 4.1 1081 4.1 1357 11.1 299 10.65 1848 93.23 1982 15.2

Sheriff Dept. 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Age

No.

X

1 65.00

6 34.50

12 36.79

10 46.65

16 43.43

9 37.77

20 40.62

38 43.96

30 43.06

88 32.74

Years In Department
No. X
0 0 5 5.0 10 3.8 7 6.5 14 3.7 8 4.6 19 4.5 33 4.3 29 6.7 83 4.1

Years In Field
No. X
0 0 4 2.2 11 3.1 7 7.0 14 3.7 8 4.6 19 4.5 33 4.3 29 6.7 88 5.0

Education

No. X

0

0

6 10.9

14 11.0

7 11.2

12 9.0

9 11 .7

20 11.2

29 11.1

31 12.4

0

0

Non-White

Married

No. %

No.

%

0

0 1 100.

0

0 7 100.

0

0 13 86.66

0

0 10 100.

1 4.76 20 95.23

0

0 8 72 .72

5 15.62 32 100.

0

0 27 90.00

0

0 15 88.23

8 5.92 130 96.29

Employees

No.
1 7 15 10 21 11 32 30 17 135

X
1.0 1.7 1.8 2.0 4.2 3 .6 6.4 7.5 8.5 67 .5

TOTAL

230 38.57 208 4.7 213 4.9 128 11.2 14 9.30 263 94.26 279 7.1

County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Age

No.

X

28 37.69

86 32.44

42 31.82

155 27.02

Years In Department
No. X
27 3.3 80 4.0 43 3.2 154 3.8

Years In Field
No. X
27 3.3 80 4.0 43 3.2 154 3.8

Education

No.

X

30 8.9

72 12.0

47 12.0

154 12.0

Non-White

Married

No. %

No.

%

0

0 29 90.62

2 1.75 109 95.61

4 3.47 108 93.91

0

0 109 97.32

Employees

No.

X

32 32.0

114 38.0

115 38.3

112 112.0

TOTAL

311 30.13 304 3.7 304 3.7 303 11 .7

6 2.90 355 95.17 373 46.6

State Patrol
*X=Mean

Age

No.

X

379 35.64

Years In Department
No. X
299 5.1

Years In Field
No. X
299 5.1

Education No. X
379 12.1

Non-White

No.

%

5

Married

No.

%

32

Employees

No.

X

1001

SUMMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS:

Table 16

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000-1,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL
Sheriff Dept. 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL
I
County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL

Age

No.

x

0

0

0

0

2

45.25

14

39.00

21

44.78

27

46.27

34

43.64

14

43.78

56

43.26

53

42.90

49

47.25

0

0

183

45.82

453

44.85

Age

No.

X

0

0

0

0

1

55.00

0

0

0

0

1

55.00

2

51.50

0

0

3

50.33

0

0

7

52.00

Age

No.

X

3

51.83

24 18

46.16 40.55

-

45

42.55

90

43.41

Years in Department

No.

X

0

0

0

0

4

10.6

18

4.5

20

7.4

28

7.6

24

7.3

14

7.0

50

9.1

48

7.6

21

11.6

0

0

70

8.5

299

7.9

Years in Department

No.

X

0

0

0

0

1

13.0

0

0

6

6.2

1

13.0

2

3.5

0

0

3

8.7

0

0

13

8.0

Years in Department

No.

X

4

10.8

7

8.6

18

8.2

36

10.1

65

9.4

State Patrol
*X=Mean

Age

No.

X

195

45.97

Years in Department

No.

X

120

33

SUPERIOR OFFICERS

Years in Field

No.

X

0

0

0

0

4

10.6

15

4.5

20

7.4

28

7.6

24

7.6

14

7.0

50

9.1

52

8.0

21

11.6

0

0

70

8.5

298

7 .9

Education

No.

X

0

0

0

0

4

9.5

6

10.7

16

9.6

26

10.3

24

11.2

14

10.8

54

12.0

58

11.5

58

11.6

0

0

97

11.5

357

11.3

Years in Field

No.

X

0

0

0

0

1

13.0

0

0

6

6.2

1

13.0

2

3.5

0

0

3

8.7

0

0

13

9 .8

Education

No.

X

0

0

0

0

1

12.0

0

0

6

14.0

1

4.0

3

12.1

0

0

3

12.0

0

0

14

12.3

Years in Field

No.

X

4

10.8

21

8.3

18

8.2

36

10.1

79

9.4

Education

No.

X

1

14.0

24

11.5

13

11.8

46

12.0

84

11.8

Years in Field

No.

X

120

Education

___I',(_Q,
200

X
12.2

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000-1,999 2 000-3 999 4 000-6 999 7,000-11,999 12 000-14 999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t TOTAL
Sheriff Dept. 2,000-3,999 4 000-6 999 7,000-11,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL
County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL
State Patrol
*X=Mean

Table 17 SUMMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS: CHIEFS

Age

No.

X*

4

52.37

9

43.55

23

46.30

33

45.27

21

45.45

6

53.00

9

45.11

2

55.00

7

53.64

6

57.91

3

56.00

0

0

7

60.71

130

48.17

Age

No.

X

0

0

1

55.00

3

54.16

1

48.00

4

44.25

1

55.00

4

48.37

2

44.50

2

48.75

0

0

18

48.75

Age

No.

X

1

65.00

3

50.83

3

49.00

1

27 .5 0

8

49.00

Age

No.

X

1

55.00

Years in Department

No.

X

4

8 .0

10

4.3

25

6.2

31

7.6

17

9.5

9

8.3

9

12.3

2

2.5

7

13.0

6

6.5

1

4.0

0

0

5

4.2

126

7.6

Years

Department

No.

X

0

0

1

0

3

3.0

2

9.7

5

9.3

0

0

5

7.0

3

1.5

2

11.0

0

0

21

7.1

Years

Department

No.

X

1

0

3

0

3

13.0

1

13.0

8

13.0

Years

Department

No.

X

Years In Field

No.

X

4

8 .0

14

4.3

25

6.2

31

7.6

17

9.5

9

8.3

9

12.3

2

2.5

1

0

6

6.5

1

0

0

0

5

0

134

7.5

Years

In Field

No.

X

0

0

0

0

3

3.0

2

9.7

5

9.3

0

0

4

3.5

3

1.5

2

11.0

0

0

19

7.5

Years

In Field

No.

X

0

0

3

13.0

3

0

1

13.0

7

13.0

Years

In Field

No.

X

Education

No.

X

4

11.2

10

9.3

23

9.1

32

10.9

23

10.8

9

10.9

8

12.7

2

10.7

8

11.6

3

12.6

2

11.2

0

0

7

10.8

131

10.6

Education

No.

X

0

0

1

18.0

3

9.6

1

8.5

8

10.8

1

11.7

4

11.6

2

12.0

0

0

0

0

20

10.8

Education

No.

X

1

10.5

4

12.1

3

12. 1

1

12.0

9

11.9

Education

No.

X

1

16.0

34

.......

Table 14 AVERAGE TOTAL EMPLOYEES PER DEPARTMENT:

Age ncy
Municipal County Sheriff State TOTAL *

1963

(81) 15.21

(7) 51.29

(21)

2.53

( 1)

799

(109) 15.08

*Excluding State Patrol.

1964

(82) 15.91

(7) 56.14

(19)

3.16

( 1)

839

(108) 16.28

1965

(85) 16.16

(8) 55.75

(27)

3.74

( 1)

901

(120) 16.01

1966

(87) 16.94

(8) 65 .00

(28)

4.04

( 1)

926

(123) 17.13

1967

(96)

15.2

(8)

46.6

(29)

7.1

( 1)

1001

(133)

14.8

iff, county policeman, and state patrolman were collected. Although responses were limited and often incomplete, these figures do give some indication of the characterisitcs of Georgia's law enforcement officers.
The average law enforcement officer in Georgia is white, married, and 37.3 years old. He has been employed in his present department for 5.0 years, and in the field for 5.1 years, with 11.3 years in school. Although this study considered the figures for specific population intervals and jurisdictions, a surprisingly narrow range exists between the various groupings. Table 18 shows a summary of this characteristic, by .the type of agency.
Age
As one might expect, the average ages in the bottom levels of personnel were lower in the larger departments. Also, the average ages for chiefs and superior officers increased as the population group increased. Ages in all population and jurisdictional groups were well distributed, with an even balance between the younger officers in the 20-34 years brackets and the more mature officers in the higherage groups.

Length of Experience
Responding departments indicated that most law enforcement officers were new to the field when joining their departments. Higher positions were indicative of longer terms of service, with an average increase of three years' experience as the officer advanced his career. The average length of experience was surprisingly high, considering the generally briefer periods of service in allied fields , such as corrections, characterized by low salaries and limited inservice training.
Education
No jurisdictional groupings recorded an average educational achievement in excess of or equal to high school graduation. The larger the population group, the higher the educational achievement. Also, the highest position in career achievement recorded the lowest educational attainment. There was almost a three-year range between the lower-level officers and the top positions. However, even though the average educational attainment was less than high school, there is a high percentage of high school graduates in all jurisdictions. Table 19 on page 36 shows a summary of educational levels, by agency.

Table 18 CHARACTERISTICS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL: SUMMARY BY AGENCY

Agency
Municipal County Sheriff State TOTAL

Age

No.

X**

2766 37.32

409 33.42

255 39.65

379 35.64

4005 37.33

Years In Department

No.

X

1509 5.1

377 4.8

242 5.0

299 5.1

2427 5.0

Years In Field

No.

X

1513 5.1

390 5.0

245 5.3

299 5.1

2447 5.1

Education

Non-White

No.

X No.

%

1845 11 .1 299 9.72

396 11.7 6 2.90

162 11.2 14 4.48

379 12.1

5 2.90

2983 11.3 324 9.45

Married

No.

%

1848 93 .23

335 95.17

263 94.26

2446 93.61

Employees

No.

X

1982 15.2

373 46 .6

279 7.1

1001

2634* 14.8*

*Excluding State Patrol ** X=Mean
35

Table 19 EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF TOTAL PERSONNEL, BY AGENCY

Agency Mun icipal County Sheriff State TOTAL

1-7

No. 94

%
5.09

10 2.32

9 5.52

0

113 3.78

8-9

No.

%

210 11.38

9

2.27

22 13.49

0

241

8.07

10-11

No.

%

280 15.17

29

7.32

12

7 .3 6

0

321 10.75

Hi School

No. 1116

%
60.48

319 80.55

95 58.89

535 92.24

2065 69.23

Beyond Hi School

No.

%

145

7.85

29

7 .32

24 14.72

45

7.75

243 8.14

Total

No.

X*

1845 11.1

396 11.7

162 11 .2

379 12.1

2983 11 .3

*X=M ean
It was discovered that the newer employees were betterqualified in terms of age, as well as education. This would indicate a trend toward higher entrance standards regarding educationa and age.

Salaries and Additional Compensation for Overtime- Working Conditions

Racial Composition and Marital Status of the Force
As stated earlier, the average law enforcement officer in Georgia is a married, white male. In responding departments, none of the four jurisdictional categories had more than ten percent non-white personnel. Also, each of the four categories showed at least ninety-three percent of their force are married. The following charts show these distributions by agency.
Table 20
MARITAL STATUS OF FORCE:

Responses Married

Single Divorced

Agency Dept. % No. % No. % No %

Municipal 130 86.66 1848 93.23 84 4.23 50 2.52

County

8 88.88 355 95.17 11 2.94 7 1.87

Sheriff 39 86.66 263 94.26 14 5.01 2 .71

State

-

-

TOTAL 177 86.76 2466 93.62 109 4.13 59 2.23

Table 21 RACE OF FORCE:

Agency Municipal

Responses

No.

%

139 92.66

White No. % 2777 90.27

Non-White No. % 299 9.72

County

9 100. 568 98.85 6 1.04

Sheriff

41 91 .1 1 298 95.51 14 4.48

State

1

996

5

TOTAL* 189 92.64 3643 91.94 319 8.05

*Not including the State Patrol.

Salaries
Law enforcement agencies were asked to give their minimum-maximum salaries for the three levels of personnel. These salaries are indicated on the tables on the following pages. The mode (the most frequently listed figure) was selected as the most appropriate measure of central tendency, since these salaries do not represent actual salaries but minimum and maximum ranges.
There is a narrow range between salaries in the various population groupings. As was anticipated, the minimummaximum salaries increase as the population size increases. However, the rate of increase is not as rapid as expected. The differences in salaries between the population groupings in the two higher levels of personnel are more pronounced. As the tables indicate, when the population increases, the differences in minimum-maximum salaries for superior officers and chiefs increase .
There is a large number of low minimum salaries in law enforcement agencies in Georgia. The average minimum salary of $300-339 is even more serious when one considers the high percentage of married men in law enforcement agencies responding to the questionnaire. Compounding the problems of low starting salaries are the almost equally low maximum salaries. In many cases, departments responding indicated the same figure for minimum and maximum salaries. Furthermore, even in those departments listing different minimum and maximum salaries, the range between them was extremely narrow, indicating a very limited promotional scale in law enforcement. Not only is this situation obvious within salaries in the patrolmen level, but it is also true between the three personnel levels. If police service in Georgia is to attract and maintain the best men available, it must offer salaries that are comparable with other occupations or professions that seek men of equal education and ability. As the survey shows, most communities do not presently offer competitive salaries.

36
0

Table 22 SALARIES, COMPENSATION AND WORK WEEKS: SUMMARY BY POPULATION,
AGENCY AND LEVEL OF PERSONNEL.

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000-1,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100 00 t

SALARIES*

COMPENSATION

WORK WEEK

Minimum

Maximum

Overtime

Court Time

No.

Mode

1

-$200

%

No.

100.

1

Mode
-$200

%

No.

100. 0

%

No.

0 0

%

No.

X

0

5 55.10

6 300-399 66.66 10 300-399 80.00 1 9.09 3 27 .27 10 53.70

15 200-299 46.66 10 300-399 70.00 2 9.52 4 18.18 22 54.68

26 300-399 53.84 26 300-399 69.23 17 53.12 6 20.00 32 51.90

22 300-399 18.18 18 300-399 55.55 8 34.78 6 25.00 25 50.94

9 300-399 66.66

8 300-399 50.00 2 28.57 4 50.00

9 47.38

8 300,399 100. 2 300-399 50.00 7 300-399 57.14 6 300-399 50.00 3 300-399 66.66 1 400-499 100. 4 400-499 100.

8 300-399 50.00 2 200-299 50.00 6 300-399 50.00 6 300-399 50.00 3 400-499 100. 1 400-499 100. 4 500-599 75.00

5 62.50

0

0

6 85.71

3 42.85

2 66 .66

0

0

2 50.00

0

0

0

0

3 42.85

1 20.00

2 66.66

1 100.

0

0

9 47.44 2 48.20 7 45.42 7 46.00 3 43.66 1 40.00 4 46.00

TOTAL

110 300-399 80.90 103 300-399 89.32 48 36.92 30 23.43 136 50.69

Sheriff Dept. 2 ,0 0 0 - 3 , 9 9 9 4, 000-6,999 7,000-11,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Minimum

SALARIES

No.

Mode

%

No.

0 300-399

0

0

3 300-399 66.66

3

6 300-399 66.66

6

3 400-499 66.66

3

5 300-399 60.00

4

3 300-399 66.66

2

3 300-399 66.66

4

2 300-399 50.00

2

3 400-499 66.66

3

3 400-499 66.66

3

Maximum
Mode
400-499 400-499 400-499 300-399 400-499 500-599 400-499 500-599 400-499

%
0 6 6 .6 6 50.00 66.66 50.00
100. 5 0 .0 0
100. 66.66 33.33

COMPENSATION

Overtime

Court Time

No.

%

No.

%

0

0 0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0 1 11.11

0

0 0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0 1 33.33

0

0 1 20.00

0

0 0

0

1 50.00 1 50.00

0

0 1 50.00

WORK WEEK

No.

X

0

0

2 60.00

4 54.00

2 51.50

4 60.00

2 57.75

5 58.20

4 55.50

2 48.00

2 48.00

TOTAL

31 300-399 70,96 30 400-499 50.00 1 50.00 5 12.82 27 55.53

County Police 25, 0 0 0-3 9 , 9 9 9 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

SALARIES

Minimum

Maximum

No.

Mode

%

No.

Mode

%

3 300-399 100.

1 400-499 100.

3 400-499 66.66

3 400-499 33.33

3 400-499 66.66

3 400-499 100.

2 400-499 100.

2 400-499 50.00

COMPENSATION

Overtime

Court Time

No.

%

0

0

3 100.

2 66.66

1 50.00

No.

%

1 100.

2 66.66

2 66.66

1 50.00

WORK WEEK

No.

X

1 48.00

3 46.33

3 44.66

2 40.00

TOTA L

11 400-499 72.72

9 400-499 100. 6 75.00 6 66.66

9 44.55

State Patrol

SALARIES

Minimum

Maximum

No.

Mode

%

1 400-499

No.

Mode

%

1 900-999

COMPENSATION

Overtime

Court Time

No.

%

No.

%

0

0

WORK WEEK

No.

X

50

* The department responding to this question often listed only maximum or only minimum salaries. Therefore, the minimum and maximum salary columns are to be considered independently and not as a range.
37

Table 23

SUMMARY, CONTINUED:

SUPERIOR OFFICERS

SALARIES

Minimum

Maximum

Local Police No. Mode

% No. Mode

%

0-499

0

0

500-999

0

0

1,000-1,999

0

0

2,000-3,999 9 300-399 55.55 9 300-399 44.44

4,000-6,999 4 300-399 100. 4 300-399 50.00

7,000-11,999 0

2 300-399 50.00

12,000-14,999 0

1 300-399 100.

15,000-19,999 1 200-299 100. 2 200-299 50.00

20,000-24,999 4 400-499 75.00 4 400-499 50.00

25,000-39,999 6 400-499 50.00 6 400-499 33.33

40,000-69,999 2 400-499 100. 3 500-599 33.33

70,000-99,999 1 500-599 100. 1 500-599 100.

100,000 t

4 400-499 50.00 4 500-599 50.00

TOTAL

31 400-499 51.61 36 300-399 44.44

SALARIES

Minimum

Maximum

Sheriff Dept. No. Mode % No. Mode

%

2,000-3,999

0

0

4,000-6,999

0

0

7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999

1 600-699 100. 2 600-999 50.00 1 800-899 100.

1 600-699 100. 2 700-799 50.00 1 800-899 100.

20,000-24,999 0

0

25,000-39,999 0

1 800-899 100.

40,000-69,999 0

0

70,000-99,999 0

0

100,000 t

1 600-699 100. 1 1,000 t 100.

TOTAL

5 600-699 80.00 6 800-899 33.33

Table 24 SUMMARY, CONTINUED:

CHIEFS

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000-1,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

SALARIES

Minimum

Maximum

No. Mode

%

2 -$200 50.00

6 300-399 83.33

18 300-399 66.66

25 400-499 40.00

22 400-499 54.54

12 400-499 50.00

5 400-499 40.00

2 200-299 50.00

7 600-699 50.00

12 600-699 41 .66

4 500-599 50.00

1 900-999 100.

6 700-799 33.33

No. Mode

%

2 -$20C 50.00

9 300-399 77.77

18 300-399 44.44

24 400-499 50.00

23 400-499 76.92

9 500-599 44.44

10 400-499 40.00

4 200-299 25.00

8 500-599 37.50

12 600-699 25.00

6 600-699 33.33

1 900-999 100.

7 900-999 42.85

TOTAL

125 400-499 51.20 33 400-499 42.85

Sheriff Dept. 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

SALARIES

Minimum

Maximum

No. Mode

%

No. Mode

%

1 600-699 100. 0

4 600-699 50.00 0

0

3 500-599 33.33

0

0

1 800-899 100. 2 600-699 50.00 1 400-499 100. 0

2 400-499 50.00 1 600-699 100. 1 1,000 t 100. 0

2 400-499 50.00 1 400-499 100. 1 1,000 t 100. 0

TOTAL

11 600-699 54.54 9 500-599 33.33

County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

SALARIES

Minimum

Maximum

No. Mode

%

No. Mode

%

2 400-499 50.00 2 400-499 50.00

6 400-499 66.66 5 500-599 60.00

7 400-499 100. 7 500-599 71.42

5 400-499 80.00 5 500-599 80.00

TOTAL

20 400-499 100. 19 500-599 89.47

County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

SALARIES

Minimum

Maximum

No. Mode

%

1 700-799 100.

4 600-699 50.00

7 500-599 57.14

6 500-599 33.33

No. Mode

%

0

3 800-899 66.66

7 500-599 42.85

6 700-799 50.00

TOTAL

18 500-599 33.33 16 500-599 43.74

State Patrol

SALARIES

Minimum

Maximum

No. Mode
1 400-499

% No. Mode

%

1 800-899

State Patrol

SALARIES

Minimum

Maximum

No. Mode

% No. Mode

%

1 1,000 t

0

38

Agency Municipal County Sheriff State
TOTAL

Total

Dept.
136

X
50.69

9 44.55

27 55.53

1

100

173 84.31

Table 25 NUMBERS OF HOURS WORKED PER WEEK:

40

No.

%

13

9.55

2 22.22

15

8 .72

41 -45

No.

%

13

9.55

3 33.33

1

3.70

17

9.88

46-50

No.

%

56 41 .17

4 44.44

6 22.22

1

100.

67 38.37

51-60

No.

%

25 18.38

7 25.92

32 18.60

60t

No.

%

29 21 .32

13 48.1 4

42 24.41

The Commission recommends that:
Local and county governments make provisions to increase salaries and fringe benefits for law enforcement officers in their communities to a level comparable with those in private enterprise.
The Governor and Legislature consider additional State grants to the local law enforcement agencies specifically to increase police salaries.
Compensation for Additional Work Hours
Few law enforcement agencies in Georgia give compensatory time for additional work hours or give extra pay to compensate for overtime. Although the percentage of departments awarding compensation does increase as the population increases, the percentage still is less than half in most categories. The county police reported the highest percentage of departments allowing compensatory pay or time off for excess hours. These figures can be observed in the preceding tables.
Work Week
The preceding table reflects a relatively high average work week in responding departments. The lowest average, 44.6 hours, for any of the four categories of departments for county police is still in excess of the "traditional" forty-hour week. Average work weeks decreased as the

population size increased, with a range in total hours of almost twenty hours a week. Table 25 above gives a summary of figures , by agency
Promotional Procedure
The two criteria for promotion listed most often were time employed and job performance. A smaller percentage listed test performance as a criteria. The most frequently listed criteria was job performance, although there were a number of departments listing more than one criteria for promotion. No trends were apparent between the four types of agencies, or within population ranges. These figures appear in Table 26 which gives a summary by agency.
Fringe Benefits
Departments were asked a series of questions regarding the fringe benefits available to their forces. A summary of responses to these questions is on the following page. This table shows the percentages of departments having some program in each of the seven benefit categories.
The percentages in each of the seven categories increase as the size of the population increases. The percentages of departments offering specific benefits is fairly constant from one category of agencies to the next. As the summary table indicates, the majority of departments responding provide for social security, uniforms , vacations, sick leave, and group insurance.

Agency Municipal County Sheriff State
TOTAL

Responses

Dept.

%

125 83.33

9

100.

31 68.88

1

100.

166 80.88

Table 26 PROMOTIONAL PROCEDURE

Time Employ No. %
61 48.80 5 55.55 7 22.58
73 44.24

Tests

No.

%

20 16.00

5 55.55

1

3.22

26 15.75

Merit

No.

%

66 52.80

8 88.88

11 35.48

1

100.

86 51.51

More than 1

No.

%

38 30.40

6 66 .66

2

6.45

46 27 .87

None

No.

%

23 18.40

14 45.16

37 22.42

39

Table 27 FRINGE BENEFITS PROGRAMS: SUMMARY BY POPULATION AND BY AGENCY.

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000-1,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Retirement

No.

%

6 16.66

9

0

15 6.66

22 9.09

18 22.22

5 20.00

9 66.66

2 50.00

7 71.42

6 50.00

3 100.

1 100.

4 100.

Social Security

No, %

5

0

9 33.33

17 29.41

29 75.86

17 47 .05

6 50.00

7 85.71

2 50.00

6 66.66

6 83.33

3 66.66

1 100.

4 33.33

Credit Union

No. %

6

0

8

0

12

0

22 4.54

14

0

8

0

9 11.11

2

0

7 42.85

6 33.33

3 66.66

1

0

4 100.

Uniforms

No.

%

6 12.50 10 57.14 19 64.00 36 91 .66 20 72.00 8 66.66 9 100. 2 100. 7 71.42 7 71.42 3 66.66 1 100. 4 100.

Vacation
No, %
5 25.00 11 78.57 19 60.00 33 33.33 19 72.00 9 100. 9 100. 2 100. 7 100. 6 85.71 3 100. 1 100. 4 100.

Sick Leave

No.

%

4 12.50 11 28.57 18 52.00 31 69.44 21 72.00 9 77 .77 8 66.66 2 100. 7 100. 6 71.42 3 100. 1 100. 4 100.

Insurance
No. %
6 22.22 9 14.81 18 50.00 26 58.33 23 78.04 8 87 .50 9 100. 2 100. 7 100. 6 92.30 3 100. 1 100. 4 100.

TOTAL

107 29.90 112 54.46 102 12.74 131 73.33 114 76.00 125 64.66 121 67 .23

Sheriff Dept. 2,000-3 ,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Retirement

No.

%

0

0

1

0

7 28.57

3

0

5 20.00

1

0

2 100.

3 33.33

0

0

2 100.

Social Security

No. %

0

0

1 100.

6 50.00

3 66.66

5 80.00

2 100.

2 100.

4 66.66

2 100.

1 100.

Credit Union

No.

%

0

0

1

0

5

0

3

0

5

0

1

0

1

0

3

0

2

0

2

0

Uniforms

No, %

0

0

1

0

7 18.18

4

0

5 16.66

3 100.

2 40.00

4 75.00

2 50.00

2 100.

Vacation
No. %
0 50.00 1 25.00 7 27 .27 4 16.66 5 50.00 3 100. 4 80.00 4 100. 2 100. 2 100.

Sick Leave

No. %

0

0

1 25.00

7 18.18

4

0

4 16.66

3 66.66

3 60.00

4 80.00

2 75.00

1 50.00

Insurance

No,

%

0

0

1 25.00

8 27.27

4

0

5 50.00

2 50.00

3 71.42

3 40.00

2 100.

2 100.

TOTAL

24 33.33 26 76.92 23

0 30 31.11 32 51.11 29 31 .11 30 45.45

County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Retirement
No, %
1 100. 2 100. 3 33.33 2 50.00

Social Security
No. %
1 100. 3 100. 3 100. 2 100.

Credit Union

No.

%

1

0

3 33.33

3

0

2

0

Uniforms
No. %
1 100. 3 100. 3 66.66 2 100.

Vacation
No. %
1 100. 3 100. 3 100. 2 100.

Sick Leave
No. %
1 100. 3 100. 3 100. 2 100.

Insurance

No

%

1 100.

3 100.

3 100.

2 100.

TOTAL

8 62 .50

9 100.

9 11.11

9 88.88

9 100. 9 100. 9 100.

State Patrol

Retirement
No. %
yes

Social Security

No.

%

yes

Credit Union
No, %

Uniforms No. %

40

Vacation
No. %
yes

Sick Leave
No. %
yes

Insurance

No.

%

yes

The lowest percentages were recorded for credit unions and retirement programs. Although most larger departments do offer these benefits, they are rarely available in the smaller agencies. In responding sheriff agencies, with their smaller work forces, the percentages offering these two benefits do not increase appreciably even in the larger population areas.
Personnel Needs and Turnover Rates
Law enforcement agencies were asked a series of questions regarding their personnel needs and turnover rates. Table 29 on the next page summarizes the responses to several of these questions.
Sufficiency of Supporting Personnel
Over 30 percent of the municipal police departments responding to this question indicated they were understaffed in the clerical and supportive areas. Over half of the sheriff departments and slightly over 10 percent of the county police departments noted a lack of sufficient supportive personnel. The trend was toward greater unmet personnel needs in the larger departments in all four categories of agencies.

Table 28 ADEQUACY OF SUPPORTING AND CLERICAL HELP

Responses

Agency

Dept.

%

Municipal 136 90.66

County

9 100.

Sheriff

39 86.66

State

1 100.

TOTAL 185 90.19

Yes

No.

%

92 67.65

8 88.84

17 43.58

117 63.58

No No. %
44 32.35 1 11.11
22 56.41
67 36.41

The two most frequently mentioned reasons for inadequate supportive personnel were a lack of available employees for hiring and a lack of funds for employee salaries. The

Table 30 REASONS FOR INADEQUACIES

Agency
Municipal County Sheriff State
TOTAL

Lack Employ No. %
20 45.45 1 100. 5 22.72
26 38.80

Lack Fund

Other

No.

%

No.

%

8 18.18 16 36.36

7 31.81 10 45.45 1 100. 16 22.38 26 38.80

distribution of the two responses was directly related to the size of population groupings. In the larger areas, the lack of available manpower was listed almost exclusively. However, the response in the less-populated areas was almost exclusively directed toward a lack of funds . Table 30 summarizes the figures by agency.
Recruitment Program
The only agencies using newspaper advertisements for recruitments were the municipal police departments. In these departments, the practice was limited largely to greater population categories. In all other departments, "word of mouth" was the most frequently listed recruitment procedure .
Turnover Rates
Departments were asked a series of questions regarding employee turnover rates for the five-year period (1963-67). Respondents were to indicate total numbers of personnel in a given year, the numbers of new employees included in this total, and the numbers of employees leaving the department during the same period. The results of these questions are recorded in Tables 31-37 on the following pages.
The tables indicate a year-to-year increase in total numbers of employees and numbers of new employees. However, the rate of resignations also increased at a slightly higher percentage than the numbers of new personnel, substantiating the earlier fmding about lacking available manpower for employment.
The increase in new employees is illustrated best in the municipal police departments. The percentages of the new employees to total employees increased during the five-year period in the following manner: in 1963, 13 percent ; in 1965, 16 percent; and in 1967 ; 23 percent.
These percentage increases represent an average for all municipal police departments which responded to the series of questions. However, these percentages are reflected in the figures on individual departments as well. No significant differences in percentages were noted within the various population groupings. Similarly, the figures recorded by respondents in the other agency categories indicate equally high percentages of new personnel.
Because of limited data, any attempts to compute a trend in the turnover rate would be meaningless. As explained earlier, many departments were inconsistent or incomplete in their responses to parts of questions. The response group relating to turnover rates was no exception. However, taking the data one year at a time, the trend toward increased percentages of resignations in relationship to new employees can be documented.
Thus, total numbers of employees are increasing at a low rate with attendant high percentages of resignations and low percentages of new employees in relationship to resignations and retirements.

41

Table 29 PERSONNEL NEEDS AND POLICIES: SUMMARY BY POPULATION AND AGENCY

Local Police 0499 500-999 1,0001 ,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,00011 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20 000-24 999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Sufficient Supporting
Personnel

No.

No,

%

2 40.00

4 36.36

5 21.73

9 28.12

7 29.16

3 33.33

4 44.44

2

100.

4 57.14

2 33.33

1 33.33

1

100.

0

0

If Not Sufficient
Why

Lack Emp.

No. %

2

100.

0

3 60.00

1 11.11

3 42.85

1 33.33

2 50.00

1 50.00

3 75.000

2

100.

1

100.

1

100.

0

0

Lack Funds

No.

%

0

0

3 75.00

1 20.00

2 22.22

0

0

0 66.66

1 25.00

1 50.00

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Have

Promotion Procedure

No.

%

1 12.50

5 35.71

15 60.00

27 75.00

19 76.00

8 88.88

8 88.88

2

100.

7

100.

5 71.42

2 66.66

1

100.

4

100.

Recruiting

Word of Mouth

No.

%

3 60.00

7 77 .77

15 88.23

26 81 .25

18 85.74

7 88.88

6

100.

2

100.

5 83.33

5 83.33

2 66.66

0

0

2 50.00

Permit Moonlighting

Yes

No.

%

3 50.00

1 16.66

13 61.90

19 59.37

15 65.21

9

100.

9

100.

2

100.

6

100.

6

100. I

3

100.

1

100.

4

100.

TOTAL
Sheriff Dept. 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12 000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

44 32.35
Sufficient Supporting Personnel

Np.

No.

%

1

100.

1 33.33

5 55.55 3 60.00

3 60.00 2 66.66

1 20.00

3 75.00

1 50.00

2

100.

20 45.45

8 18.18

If Not
Sufficient Why

Lack Emp.

No. %

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 33.33

2 66.66

1 50.00

0

0

1 33.33

0

0

0

0

Lack Funds

No.

%

0

0

1

100.

3 60.00

1 33.33

1 33.33

1 50.00

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

104

Have
Promotion Procedure

No.

%

0

0

0

0

4 36.36

1 16.66

1 66.66

2 66.66

5

100.

0

0

0

0

1 50.00

98 80.99

Recruitilljl
Word of Mouth

No

%

0

0

3

100.

4 57.14

4 66.66

5

100.

2 66.66

4 80.00

4

100.

2

100.

1 50.00

91 71.65

Permit Moonlighting

Yes

No

%

0

0

3 75.00

1 33.33

1 50.00

2 66.66

0

0

1 33.33

0

0

1 50.00

2

100.

TOTAL
County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100 000 t

22 56.41
Sufficient Supporting Personnel

No.

No.

%

0

0

0

0

1 33.33

0

0

5 22.72

7 31 .82

If Not
Sufficient Why

Lack Emp.

No

%

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

100.

Lack Funds

No.

%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14 31.11

Have

Promotion Procedure

No,

%

1

100.

3

100.

3

100.

1 50.00

29 78.37

Recruiting

Word of Mouth

---'lk!..

_%_

0

0

1 33.33

2 66.66

2

100.

11 52.38

Permit Moonlighting

Yes

No. %

1

100.

3

100.

1

100.

2

100.

TOTAL State Patrol

1 12.50
Sufficient Supporting
Personnel

No.

No,

%

X

1

100.

0

0

If Not
Sufficient Why

Lack Emp.

No,

%

Lack Funds

No.

%

X

8 88.88

Have

Promotion Procedure

No.

%

X

5 55.55
Recruiting Word of
Mouth No. %

7

100.

Permit Moonlighting

Yes No. % X

42

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000-1,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Table 31 EMPLOYEE TURNOVER: SUMMARY BY POPULATION AND AGENCY. 1963

Employed
3 16 41 82 72 40 83 38 203 212 196
246

New

N/G*

Employees

N/G

5

8

6

14

14

13

21

18

13

31

13

9

22

4

4

8

5

12

5

6

1

21

2

1

23

2

16

1

1

1

2

45

2

Retirees
1
1 3 1 15

N/G

Resignations

8

14

2

25

1

36

13

24

3

9

5

9

13

2

7

6

21

4

22

2

14

1

1

28

N/G
8 13 24 32 23
7 5
2 2 1 1 2

TOTAL

1232

69

162

118

21

141

129

120

New

Sheriff Dept.

Employed

N/G

Employees

N/G

Retirees

N/G

Resignations N/G

2,000-3,999

2

2

2

2

4,000-6,999

4

4

4

4

7,000-11 ,999

6

7

11

11

1

10

12,000-14,999

6

3

6

6

6

15,000-19,999

10

3

6

6

6

20,000-24,999

7

1

3

3

3

25,000-39,999

17

1

1

4

5

1

4

40,000-69,999

7

3

1

3

4

7

3

70,000-99,999

2

2

2

2

100,000 t

2

2

2

2

TOTAL

53

24

2

39

0

41

9

38

New

County Police

Employed

N/G

Employees

N/G

Retirees

N/G

Resignations N/G

25,000-39,999

8

1

1

6

40,000-69,999

59

1

13

2

3

11

2

70,000-99,999

51

3

2

3

4

1

100,000 t

261

1

49

1

1

1

49

1

TOTAL

379

2

66

5

1

8

70

4

State Patrol
l
*NG=Not Given

Employed
799

New

N/G

Employees

N/G

Retirees

N/G

Resignations N/G

48

8

10

43

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,0001 ,999 2,0003,999 4,0006,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000 14,999 15,00019,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,00099,999 100,000 t
TOTAL

Table 32 EMPLOYEE TURNOVER: SUMMARY BY POPULATION AND AGENCY. 1964

Employed 4
15 37 89 81 42 85 47 210 238 199
258
1305

N/G* 4 7
13 17 13 4 5
2
1 2

Employees
8 17 8 5 11 14 29 38 12
62

68

204

N/G 8 14 22 30 22 4 5
3 1 1 2
112

Retirees
1 1 4 22 28

N/G 8
14 25 36 25
8 9 2 6 4 3 1 1
142

Resignations
2 11 14
7 2 17 12 25 32 16
46

N/G 8
12 22 31 22
7 4
3 1 1 2

184

113

Sherriff Dept. 2,000-3,999 4,0006,999 7,00011,999 12,00014,999 15,000 19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,00069,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL

Employed

N/G

Employees

N/G

2

2

3

3

1

3

8

6

11

6

3

6

11

3

6

8

1

17

1

1

2

5

7

3

2

3

2

2

2

2

60

26

4

42

Retirees 0

N/G

Resignations N/G

2

2

4

4

11

11

6

6

6

6

3

3

5

1

4

4

2

3

2

2

2

2

45

3

43

County Police 25,00039,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL

Employed

N/G

Employees

N/G

7

1

65

1

6

2

58

4

1

263

1

56

2

393

2

66

6

Retirees 1 2 3

N/G

Resignations N/G

1

1

2

5

2

3

5

1

52

1

7

62

4

State Patrol

Employed

N/G

Employees

N/G

f!93

40

* N/G=Not Given
44

Retirees 2

N/G

Resignations N/G

15

Local Pol ice 0-499 500 -999 1,000-1,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Table 33 EMPLOYEE TURNOVER: SUMMARY BY POPULATION AND AGENCY. 1965

Employed 4
18 42 91 89 55 88 48 226 245 205
263

N/G * 4 6
12 17 12 4
5
2
1 2

New Employees
2 4 20 13 2 12 9 50 23 26
68

N/G

Retirees

8

12

1

23

27

19

7

5

1

1

3

3

5

1

2

1

1

21

N/G 8
13 25 36 25
9 8 2 4 5 1 1 2

Resignations
1 12 17 19
7 16 10 33 29 14
43

N/G 8
13 23 28 19
6 5
2 3 1 1 1

TOTAL

1374

65

229

108

33

139

201

110

Sheriff Dept.

Employed

N/G

2,000-3,999

2

4, 000-6,999

7

7,000-11 ,999

9

5

12,000-14,999

6

3

15,000-19,999

19

1

20,000-24,999

8

1

25,000-39,999

19

1

40,000-69,999

10

2

70,000-99,999

23

1

100,000 t

2

.,

TO T A L

101

18

New

Employees

N/G

2

4

11

6

5

3

3

3

4

5

1

2

13

36

County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000 -69 ,999 70,000 -99 ,999 100,000 t
TOTAL

Employed 5
102 67
272
446

New

N/G

Employees

N/G

1

13

1

9

1

65

1

1

87

3

Retirees
1 1

N/G 2 4
11 6 6 3 5 4 1 2
44

Resignations 1 1 1 1 6

N/G 2 3
10 6 5 3 4 4 1 2

10

40

Retirees
2 2

N/G 1 3 3 1
8

Resignations 7 3 5
83

N/G
2 1

98

3

State Patrol

I I Employed

N/G

l

1
* N/G=Not Given

1

901

I I New

Employees

N/G

62 T

45

I Retirees
I

N/G

I I Resianations N/G

I 20 I

Table 34 EMPLOYEE TURNOVER: SUMMARY BY POPULATION AND AGENCY 1966

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000-1 ,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Employed
3 22 44 104 120 59 90 50 223 259 216
284

New

N/G

Employees

5

4

4

13

7

15

21

13

16

3

6

5

14

9

31

2

58

26

1

2

72

N/G

Retirees

8

10

18

27

2

18

6

2

5

1

3

2

4

1

1

1

2

22

N/G

Resignations N/G

8

8

14

4

11

25

7

20

34

26

27

25

28

16

8

7

6

9

16

4

2

10

4

27

1

4

62

1

1

27

1

1

1

59

1

TOTAL

1474

63

264

99

34

135

273

97

Sheriff Dept. 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL

Employed
6 9 7 21 12 19 12 27
113

New

N/G

Employees

2

5

2

3

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

4

2

17

11

N/G

Retirees

2

4

9

6

4

2

4

4

1

1

2

38

1

N/G

Resignations N/G

2

2

4

4

11

1

10

6

6

6

1

5

3

1

2

5

3

4

4

4

1

4

1

2

2

44

10

40

New

County Police

Employed

N/G

Employees

N/G

Retirees

N/G

Resignations N/G

25,000-39,999

15

1

1

13

40,000-69,999

107

18

2

1

2

18

1

70,000-99,999

72

13

3

7

100,000 t

326

1

84

1

4

1

61

(

TOTAL

520

1

115

4

5

7

99

1

State Patrol
I

New

Employed

N/G

Employees

N/G

Retirees

N/G

Resignations N/G

926

25

1

25

46

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000-1 ,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Table 35 EMPLOYEE TURNOVER: SUMMARY BY POPULATION AND AGENCY.

New

Employed

N/G

Employees

N/G

Retirees

N/G

5

4

8

8

19

6

1

13

14

61

9

23

17

25

121

15

35

23

1

35

143

8

29

15

2

23

65

3

13

4

2

8

137

3

24

4

3

6

53

10

2

237

42

5

5

214

3

62

2

7

222

23

1

2

1

1

1

1

268

2

94

1

21

1

1967
Resignations
20 27 24
8 25
9 30 10
8
143

N/G 8
14 17 26 17 5 4
2 2 1 1

TOTAL

1545

54

356

89

36

136

304

97

Sheriff Dept. 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL

Employed

N/G

2

7

10

5

7

3

23

1

12

20

1

18

2

48

2

145

16

New

Employees

N/G

2

3

2

1

10

6

2

4

3

5

5

3

11

2

22

37

Retirees 3
0

N/G

Resignations N/G

2

2

4

2

3

11

11

6

1

5

6

6

3

3

5

5

4

4

2

1

6

2

2

44

13

39

County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL

New

Employed

N/G

Employees

N/G

6

1

113

21

1

79

13

350

1

90

1

548

1

124

3

Retirees

N/G

Resignations N/G

1

2

1

2

15

1

3

8

2

77

3

6

102

1

State Patrol
I

New

Employed

N/G

Employees

N/G

976

50

47

Retirees 2

N/G

Resignations N/G

30

Municipal County Sheriff State TOTAL
Municipal -
County Sheriff State TOTAL

Table 36 AVERAGE NUMBER OF NEW EMPLOYEES PER DEPARTMENT

1963 (32) 5.07 ( 4) 16.50 ( 6) .33
48 (42) 5.48

1964 (38) 5.37 ( 3) 22.00 ( 3) 1.33
40 (44) 6.23

1965 (42) 5.45 ( 6) 14.50 ( 9) 1.44
62 (57) 5.77

1966 (51) 5.18 ( 4) 28.75 ( 7) 1.57
25 (62) 6.29

1967 (61) 5.84 ( 6) 20.66 ( 8) 2.75
50 (75) 6.69

Table 37 AVERAGE NUMBER OF RESIGNATIONS PER DEPARTMENT

1963 (30) 4.30 ( 5) 14.00 ( 7) 1.29
10 (42) 5.48

1964 (37) 4.97 ( 5) 12.40 ( 2) 1.50
15 (44) 5.66

1965 (40) 5.03 ( 6) 16.33 ( 5) 2.00
20 (51) 6.06

1966 (53) 5.15 ( 8) 12.38 ( 5) 2.00
25 (66) 5.79

1967 (53) 5.74 ( 8) 12.75 ( 6) 2.17
30 (67) 6.25

Reasons for Resignations
The majority of the departments indicated poor pay as the most prevalent basis for personnel resignations. Dislike of law enforcement work was listed much less frequently , with dismissal ranking the second most significant source of employee loss.
A summary of reasons given for resignations follows in Table 38. This table illustrates that eighty percent of the total number of departments which responded to the question indicated poor pay as the most important reason for resignations.

Table 38 REASONS FOR RESIGNATIONS

Not Responses Poor Pay Like Work Requested

Agency

ICapt % No % No % No %

Municipal 72 48.00 58 80.55 6 8.33 8 11.11

County

8 88.88 6 75.00

2 25.00

Sheriff

10 22.22 8 80.00

2 20.00

State

1 100. 1 100.

1 100.

TOTAL 91 44.11 73 80.00 6 8.33 13 13.33

Attracting and Keeping Competent Personnel
It is apparent that many of Georgia's law enforcement agencies encounter difficulty in maintaining their forces at authorized strength. This problem is not peculiar to Georgia but extends over the nation. This difficulty in hiring new officers is not necessarily owing to a dearth of applicants, but to a lack of qualified applicants. Perhaps foremost as a reason that qualified applicants for police service are scarce is the critical matter of compensation. Salaries in law enforcement, particularly those of patrolmen and among the lower ranks, are simply not competitive with industry and other occupations that also seek men of education and ability comparable to those required of a police officer.
Inadequate salaries often cause moonlighting, an undesirable practice for law officers. The apparent need to hold down two jobs, when police work is one, probably causes many qualified persons to decline a career in law enforcement.
Some law enforcement agencies in Georgia do not have, or do not make known , policies for promotions of their sworn personnel. This is something a potential applicant needs to know. Similarly, the current salary schedule for the various ranks should be readily available.
Another need that some police agencies have is a personnel record system. A file for each employee should be maintained. .This is the most efficient way to record the progress of an officer. His performance ratings, commendations,

48

admonitions, training record, attendance and health records, all have a place in the employee's personnel me. Knowing that his work is closely scrutinized and recorded tends to increase an officer's pride, encourage initiative, and promote a desire to do a good job.
It is recommended that:
In an effort to attract and keep better qualified personnel, law enforcement agencies throughout Georgia should, where none exists, set up a promotional system and policy, and make same known to all employees and to those interested in seeking employment with that agency. This system should include a salary schedule reflecting the salaries for the various ranks, and the increases possible within a rank. A personnel file should be maintained on each employee. Each agency should also adopt a standard efficiency or performance rating system and periodically, at least once a year, rate each employee and discuss in detail with each employee, his past performance and progress.
Moonlighting
The majority of departments responding to the questions regarding moonlighting indicated a policy permitting the practice. As indicated in Table 39 which follows, well in excess of fifty percent of the departments allow moonlighting. However, an analysis of the total responses to questions concerned with the actual incidences of moonlighting reflect a surprisingly low frequency of the practice.
The large percentage of departments indicating their permission of moonlighting reflects implicit approval. Therefore, one explanation of the low frequency of moonlighting is that the departments are not aware of its extent since very few require prior approval. Thus, no definite statements can be advanced regarding the actual incidences of moonlighting.

Reasons for Moonlighting Again substantiating earlier indications of low salary levels, poor pay was listed most frequently as the reason for moonlighting. The figures can be observed by agency in Table 40 below.
Table 40 REASONS FOR MOONLIGHTING

Responses Poor Pay

Part-Time Had Job

Agency Dept % No. %

No % No. %

Municipal 82 54.66 72 87.80 8 9.75 2 2.43

County

6 66.66 6 100.

Sheriff

8 17.77 7 87.50 1 12.50

State

-

-

TOTAL 96 47.05 85 88.54 9 10.05 2 2.43

Training Programs
Departments Offering Special Training
As the table on page 000, indicates, only a small percentage of Georgia's law enforcement personnel have received any extra-departmental training. The highest percentages were recorded in personnel participating in FBI courses. The sources of training mentioned with the second greatest frequency were the University of Georgia law enforcement programs and the Georgia Police Academy Programs.
The distribution of personnel participation in special programs are heavily weighted in favor of larger population areas. However, even in the large departments, regardless of the type of agency, the numbers of personnel in training programs is very low. Table 41 indicates participation by agency.

Agency Municipal County Sheriff State TOTAL

Table 39 MOONLIGHTING POLICIES:

Responses

Dept.

%

127 84.66

7 77.77

21

46.66

1

100.

156

75.98

None

No.

%

22

17.32

4

19.04

26

16.77

With Job

No.

%

3 2.36

Dept. Encouraging

No.

%

2

1.57

3

2.36

2

1.57

49

Dept. Permitting

No.

%

91

71.65

7

100.

11

52 .38

109

70 .32

Require Permission

No.

%

9

7.08

6

28 .57

1

100.

16

9.67

Agency Municipal County Sheriff State TOTAL*

Responses Dept. % 90 60.0
9 100. 19 42.2
1 118 57.8

*Not including State Patrol

Table 41 TRAINING EXPERIENCE OF THE DEPARTMENT:

Spe~i~l1ized
School

No.

%

1001 77.7

198 15.4

Ga. Police Academy

No.

%

219 13.7

90 36.6

Southern Police Academy
No. % 45 2.7
5 2.0

FBI National Academy No. %
58 2.6
4 1.6

90

7.0

28 17.8

3 1.9

6 3.8

470

18

20

1289 59.5 337 16.9 71 2.6 88 2.6

Northyvestern Traffic
Academy No. % 19 1.2

~3~~~~~~~ 9a t
Univ. of Ga.

No.

%

271 17.0

13 5.3

36 14.6

30 19.1

10

10

32 1.6 337 16.9

Local Training Offered by the Department
Even though the departments indicated that low percentages of personnel participate in special training programs, there was also little indication of departmental training sessions. Of these departments which responded positively to the question regarding training programs, the majority offered programs in excess of two weeks. The smallest percentage offered one-week training sessions. Tables 42 and 43 on the following pages illustrate these distributions.
Reasons for no Training Programs
To determine the incidence of training programs, the writers included a question to learn the reasons for the departments not offering training. Lack of funds was most frequently listed, with the lack of adequate training facilities ranking as the second most listed reason . A large number referred to "lack of personnel" as a reason for not offering training programs. These figures are reported in full Table 44 on page 53 .
As indicated, most agencies gave multiple reasons for not being able to provide personnel training suggesting that police training needs in Georgia are not being met. While the training and re-training of experienced law enforcement personnel is necessary and important, the most dire and immediate training need involves the recruit or rookie police officer. In the interest of safety, and the administration of justice, each recruit-officer should receive basic training prior to being assigned duties to perform alone.
The Commission recommends: That legislation be enacted requiring that the minimum training standard for law enforcement in Georgia require that any newly-employed officer shall serve a six months probationary period and that during said period he shall be required to complete the basic police course given by the Georgia Police Academy, or the equivalent ofsame.

Departmental Participation in Educational Television
The responses to the preceding questions indicate that training is not available primarily because of the lack of funds and facilities . These reasons suggest a need for much more participation in the law enforcement training series on educational television , a medium requiring a minimum of expenditures, facilities and personnel. However, the percentages of officers now participating is very low.4
These television programs can be valuable to the smaller departments which do not have adequate facilities or personnel to train law enforcement officers properly. These programs allow the departments to have greater coverage of subjects for both experienced and new personnel. The individual departments would fmd it impossible to provide this type of educational training on an individual or group basis because of the cost and time away from duty.
This training originates at the Law Enforcement Television Training Center at the University of Georgia. The programs have materially aided the training officers in motivating the men. It gives them a broad basis for group discussion which provides greater individual interest and benefits. Many local agencies have reported much improvement in raising the level of professionalism in their law enforcement groups.
In departments responding to this question, the agencies citing lack of funds and facilities as reasons for not offering training programs were the ones which indicated the lowest usage of educational television. As the size of population increased, the incidence of usage increased. The full distribution is recorded in Table 45 on page 54.
The training series has created real public interest in law enforcement and could be helpful in promoting better citizen understanding of the problems in law enforcement.
These programs were televised under a federal grant which expired July 31 , 1968. There are 80 television tapes already made, and for only a small fraction of the original cost they could be re-run.

50

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000-1 ,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL
Sheriff Dept. 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ;999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL
County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL
State Patrol
l
*N/G=Not Given

Table 42 LOCAL TRAINING OFFERED BY DEPARTMENTS:

Local Training

1 week

2 weeks

Over 2

1

1

4

6

6

2

6

1

5

2

2

4

36

4

Local Training
1

1 week

1 2 2 1 2 3
1 12
2 weeks

2 4 4 1 3 2 3 19
Over 2
1

1

1

2

1

5

1

Local Training
2 2 2
6

1 week
0

1 1 2
2 weeks
1 1

Local Training
X

1 week

2 weeks

51

1
2
Over 2
2 2 1 5
Over 2
X

N/G* 8
14 24 32 19
3 7 2 1 2 1 1
114
N/G 2 3
11 6 6 3 4 4 1
40
N/G 1 1 1
3
N/G

Table 43 NUMBER OF PERSONNEL WHO HAVE ATTENDED SPECIAL TRAINING PROGRAMS:

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000-1 ,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

FBI Specialized
School

Georgia Police Academy

1

7

4

30

13

60

8

58

5

40

16

5

2

173

34

188

35

79

35

154

206

67

Southern Police Academy

FBI National Academy

1

1

2

1

1

5

1

1

7

6

5

7

7

5

2

17

34

Northwestern Traffic
Academy

Continuing Education at
U. of Ga.

1 1

1

8

19

1

14

34

10

4

43

2

25

5

49

20

6

47

N/G*
7 12 14 18
6 3

TOTAL
Sheriff Dept. 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

1001

219

45

58

19

271

60

FBI

Georgia

Southern

FBI

Northwestern Continuing

Specialized

Police

Police

National

Traffic

Education at

School

Academy

Academy

Academy

Academy

U. of Ga.

N/G

1

1

1

5

2

4

4

6

5

1

23

9

2

1

1

1

50

6

2

2

2

4

8

6

1

3

2

1

3

1

10

1

14

TOTAL
County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

90
FBI Specialized
School
22 89 57 30

28
Georgia Police Academy
17 22 51

3
Southern Police
Academy
3 1 1

6

0

30

FBI National Academy
1 1 2

Northwestern Traffic Academy

Continuing Education at U. of Ga.

4

5

15

13

8

4

26 N/G

TOTAL State Patrol
*N/G=Not Given

198

90

5

4

13

36

0

FBI

Georgia

Southern

FBI

Northwestern Continuing

Specialized

Police

Police

National

Traffic

Education at

School

Academy

Academy

Academy

Academy

U. of Ga.

N/G

470

18

20

10

10

52

Local Police 0-4999 500-999 1,000-1 ,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL
Sheriff Dept. 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL
County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL
State Patrol

Table 44 REASONS GIVEN FOR OFFERING NO SPECIAL TRAINING:

Lack Of Funds
6 9 11 13 11 2 5
2

No Facilities
4 4 12 12 10 1 3 1
1

No Instructors
4 4 9 9 7 1 2

Too Few Personnel
4 5 9 9 8
3

1

Cannot Afford Time
3 3
8 10
12
1
3

Over 1 Response
4 7 ts 14 14 1 4
1

59
Lack Of Funds
1 3 1 3 3 2 2 1

48
No Facilities

36

39

No Instructors

Too Few Personnel

3

4

2

1

2

4

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

40
Cannot Afford Time
2 2 3 5 5 3 1 3 1

53
Over 1
D.
4 2 4 3
1 1

16
Lack Of Funds
1 1
1
3
Lack Of Funds

12
No Facilities
1 1
1
3
No Facilities

10

8

No Instructors
1

Too Few Personnel

1

0

No Instructors

Too Few Personnel

25
Cannot Afford Time
1
1
2
Cannot Afford
Time

15
Over 1 Response
1 1
1
3
Over 1 Response

N/G 2 3 8 8 6 6
4 1 5 7 2 1 4
57
N/G
1 7 1
1
1 2
13
N/G
2 3 1
6
N/G X

53

Table 45 DEPARTMENTS WHICH PARTICIPATE
IN EDUCATIONAL T.V.:

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000-1,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

- Yes

No 5

N/G 3

1

11

2

1

20

4

6

26

4

3

20

2

6

2

1

4

5

1

1

4

3

3

3

1

2

1

1

3

1

TOTAL

35

98

17

Sheriff Dept. 2,000-3,999 4,000-6,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL

Yes

No

N/G

1

1

4

6

5

6

6

3

5

1

2

1

2

1

1

2

36

7

County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t
TOTAL
State Patrol

Yes

No

N/G

1

2

1

1

2

2

4

4

1

Yes

No

N/G

X

The City of Gainesville, Georgia, attributes the lives of two of their officers to the Law Enforcement Television Training. On the night of December 15, 1967, two officers were trapped in their patrol car for about twenty-five minutes with "hot" lines on and around their car. The department believes that their ability to cope with the situation was a direct result of the training they received from a television training program entitled, " Investigation of Traffic Accidents." This program gave specific instructions on what to do in such a hazardous situation.
The Commission highly commends the Institute of Government, University of Georgia, for having made these television tapes and for having so successfully aired these ptograms.

The Commission recommends that:
The Georgia Police Academy, working in cooperation with the Georgia Center for Continuing Education, University of Georgia, Athens, continue the police training television by re-running the films which have been made by the Institute of Government.

Pay Incentives for Participation in Educational Programs
A high percentage of departments noted that they have no incentives for participation in educational programs. Although a slight increase can be observed as the population sizes increase, figures show that the greatest percentage offering incentives is at the fifty percent level in the 25,000-39,999 population group of municipal police departments. In the sheriff and county police agencies, there is no incidence of incentive programs offered to personnel. The distribution by agency follows in Table 46.

Table 46 PAY INCENTIVE FOR COLLEGES

Agency

Responses

Dept.

%

Yes No. %

No

No.

%

Municipal 135 90.00 8 5.92 127 94.07

County

9

100. 1 11.11

8 88.88

Sheriff

39 86.66

39 100.

State

1 100. 1 100.

TOTAL 184 89.70 10 4.91 174 95.08

Entrance Requirements
A series of questions was asked regarding departmental requirements for employment. Where departments were to give minimum and maximum requirements, most gave only minimums. Also, numerous departments stated that they do not require a minimum or maximum height or weight,

54

but did require that height and weight be proportionate. The category of agencies having the highest employment qualifications were the county police departments. Municipal police departments indicated the second highest requirements for employment. The results of these questions are summarized in Table 47 on the following page.
Age Requirements
The majority of departments responding to this question had a minimum-age requirement. Only slightly fewer had maximum age requirements. The range in minimum-age requirements was from eighteen to twenty-five and the range in maximum-age requirements was from thirty-five to fiftyfive. More departments had minimum-maximum age requirements than any other qualifications.
Educational Requirements
The requirement for employment listed second most often was education. The range in requirements was from grade school to high school with no department requiring education beyond high school for entrance. Over 60 percent of those departments responding to this question indicated some education qualification with the majority (57.3 percent) listing completion of high school as a specific requirement for employment. Therefore, 42.7 percent of the agencies participating do not require a high school education as a prerequisite to employment.
The need to upgrade the educational standards of law enforcement personnel in Georgia is obvious. The best way to accomplish this without disrupting the operation of any agency or interfering with those already employed as swor.1 officers, is to require that any applicant seeking emplr,yment as a law enforcement officer for the first time :nust have completed high school or be certified to have :attained the equivalent of a high school diploma.

Residence Requirements
Forty-nine percent responding to this item required some residence qualification for employment. The majority of departments requiring local residence stipulated that employees live within the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.
Tests
Tests were listed least often as requirement for employment. Only twelve percent of those departments responding to this question administered a testing program for the selection of new personnel.
Screening of Police Applicants
In law enforcement an ill-chosen recruit can cause irreparable damage. To preclude, or at least minimize this possibility, all applicants for employement should be thoroughly screened. No person should be admitted into the police service until the screening process has been completed and the results evaluated. Even an immediate and dire need for additional personnel is by no means a premise for lessening the intensity of this screening process.
This process, particularly the character and background investigation, is costly and should not be instigated until the applicant has otherwise qualified. That is, not until the applicant has successfully passed the oral, written, and medical examinations. Only trained investigators should conduct these investigations. They should include an examination of applicant's school and credit records, a check for any criminal convictions, and interviews with references, neighbors, past and present employers. The inquiries should be extended to all communities where applicant has lived, and cover his entire adult life.

Accordingly, the Commission recommends: That legislation be enacted to make it mandatory that every law enforcement agency in Georgia have, as the minimum educational requirement for any officerapplicant, the receipt of a high school diploma or a GED certificate.
Height Requirement About 55 percent of the departments responding to this question indicated minimum height requirements ranging from five feet, six inches to six feet . Slightly less than 36 percent listed maximum height requirements from six feet to six feet, five inches.
Weight Requirement Fifty-one percent listed minimum weight requirements and 38 percent required a maximum. The minimum figures ranged from 140 to 165 pounds. Maximum weights were distributed between 200 and 240 pounds.

The Commission recommends that:
All applicants for employment as a law enforcement officer in Georgia should be thoroughly screened before being accepted. This process should include a very thorough character investigation, and a check of applicant's fingerprints against the criminal identification records at the local, state, and federal levels. Care should be exercised to approve only duly qaulified applicants for employment, and only those concerning whom no derogatory information was developed during the screening process.
Adequacy of Facilities and Equipment
A series of questions was asked regarding the adequacy of departmental facilities, including offices and jails. Also included in this section were questions related to the number and condition of vehicles and firearms and access to firing ranges. The responses to these questions follow.

55

Table 47 ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS: SUMMARY BY POPULATION AND AGENCY.*

Local Police 0-499 500-999 1,000 1,999 2,0003,999 4,0006,999 7,000-11 ,999 12,00014,999 15,00019,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,00099,999 100,000 t

Age

Height

Weight

Education Residence

Tests

Minimum

Maximum Minimum Maximum

Minimum Maximum

No. % No. % No % No. %

No. %

No. % No. %

No. %

No.

%

5 80.00 5 80.00 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 4 J: 4 50.00 5

0

9 44.44 9 44.44 633.33 6 16.66 6 33.33 5 20.00 7 14.2E 9 33.33 6

0

16 54.54 7

0 10 30.00 7

0 11 18.18 7

0 13 23.33 16 37 .50 13 23.07

32 93.54 27 66.66 17 29.41 16 18.75 18 27 .77 16 18.75 27 37 .03 29 41 .37 21 14.28

22 90.90 18 77.77 15 53.33 14 38.46 17 47 .05 13 46.15 21 57 .14 18 50.00 17 17.64

8 100. 7 71.42 887.50 6 66.66 8 62 .50 6 33.33 8 100. 7 85.71 7

0

9 100 9 88.88 560.00 4 25.00 5 40.00 3 33.33 8 75.00 7 28.57 8

0

2 100. 2 100. 1 100. 1

0 2 100. 1 100. 2 100. 2 100. 2

0

7 100. 7 100. 7 100. 5 40.00 7 100. 4 75.00 7 100. 6 33.33 7 14.28

6 100. 6 100. 5 100. 6 83.33 6 66.66 6 66.66 6 83.33 6 50.00 6 16.66

3 100. 3 100. 3 100. 2 50.00 3 100 2 50.00 3 100. 3 33.33 3 66.66

1 100. 1 100. 1 100. 1

0 1 100. 1

0 1 100. 1 100. 1

0

4 100. 4 100. 3 100. 1 100. 3 66.66 1

0 4 75.00 4 66.66 3

0

TOTAL

n11 124 87.09 . 05. 72.38 81 59.25 69 33.33 86 47.67 65 33.84

54.95 112 46.42 99 13.13

Sheriff Dept. 2,0003,999 4,000-6,999 7,00().11 ,999 12,000-14,999 15,00019,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,000-99,999 100,000 t

Age

Height

Weight

Education Residence

Tests

Minimum

Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

No. %

No. %

No % No.

1

0 1

01 01

3 66.66 3 66.66 3 0 2

6 100. 6 66.66 4j25.00 3

4 50.00 4 25.00 3 0 3

5 80.00 5 80.00 4 0 4

1 100. 1 100. 0 0 0

4 100. 4 100. 2 100. 1

3 100. 1 100. 0 0 0

2 50.00 2 50.00 2 0 2

2 100. 2 100. 2~0.00 2

%

No. %

No.

0 0

0 1

0 0

0 2

0 1 20.00 4

0 0

0 3

0 0

0 4

0 0

0 0

100. 2 100. 2

0 0

0 1

0 0

0 2

0 1 50.00 2

% No. % No. %

No. %

0 2

0 2 50.00 2

0

0 3 66.66 3 33.33 3

0

0 5 60.00 8 50.00 5

0

0 2

0 2

0 3

0

0 5 80.00 5 60.00 4

0

0 3 33.33 3 100. 3

0

100. 4 100. 3 100. 3 33.33

0 2 50.00 2 100. 3 33.33

0 2 100. 2 50.00 2 50.00

0 2

0 2 100. 2

0

TOTAL

31 80.64 29 68.96 21 19.04 18 5.55 4 17.39 20 10.00 30 56.66 32 62.50 30 10.00

County Police 25,000-39,999 40,000-69,999 70,00099,999 100,000 t

Age

Height

Weight

Education Residence

Minimum

Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

No. %

No. % ~0. % No. %

No. %

No. %

No. % No.

%

1 100. 1 100. 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

0 1

0

-3 100. 2 100. 366.66 2 50.00 3 66.66 2 50.00 3 100. 3 66.66

3 100. 3 100. 3 100. 3 66.66 3 100. 3 66.66 3 100. 3 33.33

2 100. 2 100. 2 100. 2 100. 2 100. 2 100. 2 100. 1

0

Tests

No. %

1

0

3 33.33

3

0

1

0

TOTAL

9 100. 8 100. 887.50 7 71.42 8 87.50 7 71.42 9 88 .88 8 37 .50 8 12 50

State Patrol

Age

Minimum

Maximum

No. % No. %

X

X

Height

Minimum Maximum

No % No. %

X

X

Weight

Education

Minimum

Maximum

No. % No.

% No. %

X

X

X

* No.: number of departments responding to these questions %: percentage having some requirement in the categories listed

Residence No. %

Tests
No. %
X

56

Adequacy of Facilities

More than 60 percent of the departments responding to

a question regarding the adequacy of agency facilities indi-

cated they are adequate. However, only 22 percent of the

1-

county police department facilities were termed adequate.

As Table 48 illustrates, all nine of the county police depart-

ments returning a questionnaire responded to this question.

Only two of the nine indicated adequate facilities. On the

other hand 63 percent of the sheriffs' departments indi-

i-

cated adequate facilities . The figures showed little relation-

I.

ship between size of jurisdiction and adequacy of facilities.

Table 48 ADEQUACY OF FACILITIES:

Agency Municipal County Sheriff State TOTAL

Responses Dept. %
134 89.33 9 100.
40 88.88 1 100.
184 89.70

Adequate Not Adequate

No. %

No. %

84 62.68 50 37.31

2 22.22 7 77.77

25 62.50 15 37 .50

1 100.

111 60.65 73 39.34

Although the county police agencies listed a high percentage of inadequate facilities , only 38 percent listed plans for new facilities . Of the total departments responding to this question, 31 percent had plans for new facilities. This figure compares favorably with the 39 percent who indicated their facilities were inadequate.
As the table below indicates, most law enforcement facilities of responding departments are over ten years old. About 40 percent are twenty-five years old or over. The study indicates that the majority of the older facilities are in the smaller jurisdictions and that the sheriffs' departments have a greater percentage of older facilities than the other agencies.

Table 49 PLANS FOR NEW FACILITIES

Agency Municipal County Sheriff State TOTAL

Responses Dept. %
81 54.00 8 88.88
24 53.33 1 100.
114 55.39

Yes

No

No.

%

No. %

28 34.56 53 65.43

3 37.50 5 62.50

4 16.66 20 83.33

1 100.

36 30.97 78 69.02

Adequacy of Jail Facilities
Fifty-nine percent of all departments responding to a question regarding the adequacy of jail facilities indicated they were adequate. As Table 51 illustrates, county police departments again list the highest percentage of inadequate facilities . There appears to be a relationship between size of jurisdiction and inadequacy of facilities. As the population size of the jurisdiction increases, the adequacy of the jail facilities decrease.
Table 51 ADEQUACY OF JAIL FACILITIES:

Agency Municipal County Sheriff State TOTAL

Responses

Dept.

%

131 87.33

7 77.77

41 91.11

179 87.74

Adequate Not Adequate

No.

% No. %

87 66.41 44 33.58

1 14.28 6 85.71

18 43.90 23 56.09

106 59.21 73 40.78

Agencies indicating inadequate jail facilities were asked the reasons for their inadequacy. Of the four categories of responses - size, age, equipment, and location - age was listed by the majority of departments (41 percent). Size

Agency Municipal County Sheriff State TOTAL

Responses

Dept.
77

%
51.33

3

33.33

22

48.88

1

100.

103

50.00

Table 50 AGE OF FACILITIES:

1-10 yrs.

No.

%

30

38.96

1

33.33

4

18.18

1

100.

36

34.31

11-25 yrs.

No.

%

23

29.87

2

66.66

2

9.09

27

26.47

57

25-50 yrs.

No.

%

21

27.27

6

27.27

27

26.47

Over 50

No.

%

3

3.87

10

45.45

13

12.74

was given next most often, with 25 percent. Fifteen percent listed lack of equipment as the primary reason. Location was not listed as a reason for inadequate facilities. County police and sheriff departments listed age most frequently , and municipal police agencies listed size most often.
Eighty percent of the departments indicating inadequate jail facilities had no plans for new facilities. Table 52 gives the distribution of these figures by agency.

Table 52 PLANS FOR NEW JAIL

Agency
Municipal County Sheriff State TOTAL

Responses Dept. %
103 68.66 5 55.55
32 71.11
140 68.62

Yes No. %
21 20.38

No

No.

%

82 79.61

2 40.00 3 60.00

5 15.62 27 84.37

28 20.00 112 80.00

Access to Firing Range
Only 47 percent of the law enforcement agencies responding to a series of questions regarding firing ranges indicated they had access to one. County police departments showed the greatest percentage, with eight of the nine departments having use of firing range facilities . Sheriff departments indicated 38 percent with access to ranges. There was a direct relationship between size of population of the jurisdiction and access to a fuing range.
Of the responding departments with access to a firing range, only 25 percent required their personnel to practice a specific number of days. The county police again showed the greatest frequency of response, with 44 percent requir-
ing firing-range practice. Table 53 gives the distribution of these figures by agency.

Table 53 ACCESS TO FIRING RANGE

Responses

Yes

Aaencv

I Dent.

%

Nn.

%

Municipal 142 94.66 67 47.18

County

9 100. 8 88.88

Sheriff

45 100. 17 37.77

State

1 100. 1

TOTAL 197 96.07 93 46.93

No

Nn.

%

75 52.81

1 11 .11

28 62.22

104 53.06

Age of Vehicles
As the chart below illustrates, more than 56 percent of agency automobiles counted in the survey were purchased in 1967 or 1968. Only 17 percent were purchased before 1966. The responses showed that the departments in the smaller jurisdictions are more likely to have older vehicles than those serving the larger population areas.

Other Vehicles Operated by Law Enforcement Agencies
Only 27 percent of the law enforcement agencies reported owning vehicles other than automobiles. These departments were almost exclusively limited to the larger population jurisdictions. Sixty-seven percent of the coutny police agencies had additional vehicles.
Table 55 on page 59 shows that motorcycles were listed most often (77 percent), while the other categories account for only 23 percent.
Leasing of Vehicles
There is no incidence of leasing vehicles in any type of agency or any population grouping. These figures are summarized in Table 56 on the next page.

Agency
Municipal County Sheriff State TOTAL*

Responses

Dept.

%

138

92.00

9

100.

44

97.77

1

191

93.62

*Not including State Patrol.

Table 54 AGE OF VEHICLES

1968 No.
69

%
9.69

7

4.76

22

14.19

80

98

9 .6 6

1967 No.
313 96 65
218 474

%
43.96 65.30 41.93
46.74

1966

No.

%

189

26.54

34

23.12

48

30.96

151

271

26.72

Before 1966 No.
141

%
19.78

10

6.80

20

12.89

68

171

16.84

58

Table 55 OTHER VEHICLES THAT DEPARTMENT OPERATES:

Agency Municipal County Sheriff State TOTAL

Responses Dept. % 41 27.33
6 66.66 9 20.00

Motorcycles No. % 209 80.69 19 61 .29
3 33.33

Paddywagon No. %
31 11.96 3 9.67

Boats

No. %

3

1. 15

3

9.67

3 33.33

Other

No.

%

16 6.17

6 19.35

3 33.33

56 27.45

231 77.25

34 11.37

9

3.01

25 8.36

Table 56 DEPTS. WHICH LEASE VEHICLES

Agency Municipal

Responses Dept. % 124 82.86

Yes

No.

%

2 1.61

No

No.

%

122 93.38

County

9 100.

9 100.

These suggestions reflect the needs indicated in responses to other questions in the survey. Lack of funds and the need for more training are prime problems faced by Georgia's law enforcement agencies. This final item further substantiates the extent of these problems.

Sheriff

42 93.33

42 100.

State TOTAL

1 100.

1 100.

176 85.78 2 1.61 174 98.85

CONCLUSIONS*

Guns and Weapons

Conclusion 1.

In response to a series of questions regarding whether they furnish weapons to their employees, agencies largely indicated they do not furnish such weapons as hand guns, rifles and shotguns. Less than half of the responding municipal police departments furnish hand guns.

Areas in Which the State Can Help Law Enforcement Agencies
The final question on the questionnaire was, "How can the State of Georgia strengthen its program designed to assist the state, county, and local communities in improving their programs for law enforcement and law enforcement officials?" Answers from the 54 percent of the agencies responding to this question were:
Table 57 AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR STATE ASSISTANCE

Area of Assistance

Percentage

Records Keeping
A very small percentage of Georgia law enforcement agencies reported maintenance of adequate records, and few submit statistics on arrests to the FBI.
There is no standard, simplified record depository available for use by all law enforcement agencies in Georgia which would give essential data on criminal operations in the State.
Conclusion 2.
Budgets
Lack of funds was reported as a primary problem in all enforcement agencies in Georgia. More than anything else this was cited as a deterrent to the development of new facilities, better training programs and the employment of new personnel.

Better Pay

68

Better Training

37

Coordination

26

Better Legislation

17

Better Equipment

9

Better Support

9

Better Officers

8

Shorter Hours

5

*The percentages do not equal 100% since some departments gave more than one response.

Conclusion 3.
Personnel
Respondents indicate that law enforcement personnel in Georgia have an average of five years of service and an average educational achievement of 11.3 years. The average age of 37.3 years, in relationship to the average length of service, reflects a mature, relatively well-experienced force. However, corollary conclusions could be made.
59

Conclusion 3.a.: Responses indicated that the majority of personnel currently employed as police officers have had no prior experience in law enforcement. Only ten percent of the departments indicated previous experience as a qualification for employment.
Conclusion 3.b.: The average age of law enforcement officers is 37.3 years. In relationship to the average length of service of five years, this indicates a relatively high age at employment.
Conclusion 3.c.: Although the average educational achievement approached the twelth-grade level, a high percentage of officers had achievements significantly below this level.
Responses indicate the complete absence of any statewide physical, educational, psychological, or character employment standard.
Conclusion 4.
Salaries Law enforcement salaries do not meet the levels of sala-
ries in comparable fields and do not reflect the cost of living in the areas served by the departments. The salaries start low regardless of the population of the area and the level of authority. Even more significant, the salaries do not rise appreciably with education, previous experience and length of experience. There is a lack of multiple entry levels in Georgia's law enforcement agencies, with minimummaximum scales almost coinciding.
Conclusion 5.
Compensation and Work Week
All departments indicated occasions when their officers work overtime and appear in court on their days off. Few indicate compensation for this effort. Also, over 91 percent of the departments indicate work weeks in excess of forty hours.

not offer such varied programs as those in the larger areas, a large percentage do give vacations, sick leave, and group insurance.
Only a small percentage of sheriff departments offer their officers fringe benefits of any kind .
Conclusion 8.
Training Programs
In response to the question, "If you do not provide special training, what is the reason? " most responding departments indicated "lack of funds." Only a small percentage of law enforcement agencies participate in any training. Even though many listed lack of funds and insufficient facilities as reasons for offering no training, a large number did not participate in the University of Georgia's free law enforcement television series. Responses indicate the complete absence of any state-wide minimum training standard.
Conclusion 9.
Employee Turnover
Response to the questionnaire indicated that a high percentage of law enforcement personnel in Georgia leave their departments for various reasons. The response also indicated that personnel were entering the department at a rate only slightly exceeding those who left. Responses further indicated that law enforcement agencies have not increased the size of their forces significantly over the past five years.
Conclusion 9b. On the basis of the questionnaire, most police officer resignations can be directly attributed to insufficient salaries and fringe benefits, lack of compensation for additional working hours, inadequate or nonexistent promotional procedures, and poor community attitudes toward law enforcement activities.

Conclusion 6.
Promotional Procedure Few responding agencies have indicated formal criteria
for promotions of officers.

Conclusion 7.

Fringe Benefits
The majority of the municipal police and county police agencies and the State Patrol have some type of fringe benefit program. Although many of the smaller departments do

*Conclusions are made by the Institute of Government on the basis of their analysis. A summary of recommendations made by the Commission wi ll be found in Chapter I .

60 \

LAW ENFORCEMENT
Part II
Other findings and recommendations made by the Commission to better law enforcement in Georgia include:
Police Public Relations
One absolute necessity and responsibility of any successful law enforcement agency is a continuously productive public relations program. This applies both to the very small and the very large agency. The primary target for a public relations system is to improve the image of and elevate the public's esteem for the police officer. Accomplishing this calls for diligence, experimentation, an open mind, and the willingness to accept criticism.
Some people categorically dislike law enforcement officers. This unwholesome attitude, sometimes based on fear inspired by authority, and sometimes caused by a previous unpleasant involvement with an officer, must be erased or at least minimized. Police public relations begin by opening and keeping open two-way channels of communication between the public and the police.
Some suggestions for establishing a productive police public relations program are:

This can dispel some of the awe many young people attach to a police officer. The school program could include forums on auto driving instructions, traffic ordinances, pedestrian safety, police policies and procedures, firearms safety, finger-printing, etc. These forums, whether in classrooms or outside, should be given to groups segmented by age , with the courses structured to fit particular age groups. Well qualified officers could lecture in the civic or government classes. Small groups of students could tour a police station and observe the officers performing their duties.
Officers should develop the employability of problem youths by watching for job vacancies for all youngsters in part-time, after-school work, or full-time vacation jobs. Officers could also assist community leaders in obtaining recreationitl facilities for young people and appear at civic club meetings or before business groups.
The departmental rules should be available to the public. The citizens have the right to know the regulations by which their police are governed. This can cause a decrease even in the minor violations by police personnel.
A system whereby all complaints are recorded in writing should be operational. This system must also include the recording of the disposition or outcome of the complaint. Any citizen making a complaint, no matter how trivial it may appear, should be able to determine the consequences of his information.

Indoctrination and continual training of personnel:

POLICE PERSONNEL SECURITY

Impress upon new employees and often remind regular personnel that they need to adopt and maintain a friendly and helpful attitude toward the public, the people who pay their salaries. Remind them that attitude is a mental function that only they can control. Their attitude, or frame of mind, can go far in making their day's work less difficult. Admonish them to forget any hate or prejudice that they tend to hold for any particular class or group of people, such as drunks, teenagers, and minorfty groups. Instill in all employees the need for continued enthusiasm, motivation, and respect. Remind them that they work in a "fish bowl" and are under the constant scrutiny of the public. Accordingly, officers must always be immaculately attired and groomed. They must avoid frequenting places of ill repute, and refrain from associating with persons of known or suspected bad character, except insofar as their official duties may require. They should be courteous at all times, except when the necessity for firm action dictates otherwise. When giving information, such as directions, they should do so explicitly and intelligently. They should also avoid gossip and criticisms of a fellow officer before an outsider.
Liaison with the citizenry:
Emphasis on contacts with the youth of a community is vital. Through school programs students can meet officers as friends and fellow human beings, not just as officers.

Law enforcement officers are exposed to more illegal and unethical opportunities for obtaining money or favors than members of most other professions. These opportunities arise because many people want to operate an illegal business or break laws in one way or another and are willing to pay a policeman for allowing them to do so. While the temptations are great, policemen, as public servants sworn to uphold and enforce the laws, are expected to conduct themselves with more honor and more restraint than most other citizens.
Although it is a common practice in many business fields to accept presents and expensive entertainment from business connections, a policeman must not obligate himself in this manner. Even. a :!mall amount of police misconduct can
undermine the morale and discipline of a department, and a small number of dishonest officers can destroy more confidence in the police than a hard working, honest and capable chief can rebuild in many years. A police department with a reputation for dishonesty cannot combat crime effectively~
This Commission feels quite sure that most departments are headed and staffed by honorable officials. However, it is a matter of recent public record in some cities and counties of Georgia and other states that policemen and law enforcement officials have engaged in illegal activities. Some have gone so far as to burglarize business establishments they were supposed to be protecting.6
Examples from public disclosures and studies indicate that in some localities a significant percentage of policemen

61

have treated citizens with disrespect and have .sometimes abused them physically, accepted bribes from motorists and storekeepers, stolen from burglarized premises or from drunks, and have received kickbacks from tow-truck operators. And it is a matter of public record in some cities that policemen and police officials (and other public officials) have protected bootleggers, gamblers, prostitutes, narcotics peddlers; they have also operated burglary rings, favored dishonest politicians and other unprincipled people with political influence, and acted in concert with leaders of organized crime?
All available data indicate that organized crime flourishes only where it has corrupted local officials.8 The public's job now is to keep Organized Crime out of Georgia.
Better screening and training of police recruits would help assure that only men of high character are selected. Some police departments have organized strong internal investigation units to enforce honest performance by police personnel.9 The Atlanta Police Department formed an Internal Security Squad in 1966 to:

ment achieves greater respect from the community when dishonest officers are openly and vigorously prosecuted.
"Similarly, private citizens and businessmen who offer bribes should also be prosecuted to discourage people who presently feel that only the most serious corruption is considered important enough to investigate or prosecute."
The Commission recommends that: Every medium-sized and large police department should have internal investigation units and in small departments the chief should be responsible for a planned program to investigate reported cases of police misconduct and to insure integrity.
The State should provide the necessary trained investigators to assist local authorities in those cities which do not have the resources to maintain adequate internal investigation units.

Investigate and ascertain the honesty and integrity of all police personnel.
Investigate all rumors and complaints of police brutality or other police misconduct.
Investigate and approve or reject, all applications for extra police jobs and investigate all bad debts complaints.
Investigate and certify all new employees and all former employees requesting re-employment.
Establish a systematic ftle on complaints and report immediately to the Chief of Police any case that might require disciplinary action and to furnish a summary report of all activities to the Chief of Police.
"The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics" has been adopted by all major police associations and agencies throughout the nation.10 In California, for example, state law requires that police ethics be taught and that the Code be administered as an oath to all police recruits training in the certified police academies.1 1
Ways must be found to root out the persistent police custom which has somehow developed whereby many officers consider an allegation of misconduct against one officer to be an attack upon the whole police force . This attitude often influences many officers to remain silent when they learn of some misconduct or dishonesty on the part of fellow officers. By raising standards or pay or both, the public must develop police organizations directed and manned by men with enough pride in their profession to report any dishonesty or misconduct they .nay discover .1 2
According to the "President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967)," police officials have sometimes argued that instances of police misconduct should be quietly resolved within a department itself. Evidence seems to indicate, however, that a depart-

State Crime Laboratory
The recent court decisions and the corresponding increase in Georgia's crime menace emphasize the need for law enforcement agencies to rely more than ever on the assistance of scientific crime detection in carrying out a sound program of criminal justice. It has become almost mandatory that the peace officers have scientific evidence to support them in making their cases. This calls for more frequent use of the State Crime Laboratory.
A survey of the Laboratory's work performed during recent months reflects that it is being put to excellent use. There is no substitute for the expertise of a scientifically trained laboratory examiner. Therefore, it is expedient for law enforcement agencies in Georgia which are not fully utilizing the services of the State Crime Laboratory to begin including them as part of their overall practices. The examination of physical evidence and the subsequent testimony of an expert witness is particularly productive in cases involving rape , homicides, burglaries, arson , forgery , safe robberies, autopsies, toxicology , pathology, drugs, narcotics, and blood alcohols and blood analyses of those persons suspected of driving under the influence of dangerous drugs.
The State Crime Laboratory, Atlanta, has a staff of nineteen, including twelve examiners. The smaller branch laboratory at Savannah has two examiners and a clerk.
The volume of work performed by the State Laboratory is impressive. During the six-month period from November, 1967, to April, 1968, 25,707 examinations were made, an average of 1,836 per examiner. These grew out of 5,212 cases, 4,514 at Atlanta, 698 in Savannah. 13
During this same six months, laboratory examiners traveled 64,787 miles. They made 139 time-consuming court appearances. They must frequently collect and preserve evidence and make on-the-spot examinations at far distant

62

crime scenes. This necessary time away from the laboratory spreads their sparse number even thinner.
The anticipated increase in the demands by Georgia law enforcement agencies upon the Crime Laboratory, all of which are encouraged, is clearly reflected by statistics. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, the laboratory handled 8,655 cases. Projections based on the cases handled during the past six months suggest that by October 31, 1968, 10,424 cases will have been handled during the preceding twelve months, a 20.4 percent caseload increase.
During fiscal 1968, the laboratory's cost per case was $27.23. This is taxpayers' money well spent.
The Director of the State Crime Laboratory, who has markedly increased the esteem of this Division in the Department of Public Safety, has indicated that his retirement may be imminent. A specially trained individual, preferably with a Ph.D. degree in either anatomy, biochemistry, pathology, pharmacology, or physiology, is needed at the Laboratory, to be trained to become Assistant Director. A man with this formal graduate training should be approved with a competitive salary. In addition, the Atlanta Laboratory needs two more staff members : a criminalist, and a toxicologist. Similarly, in the Savannah Laboratory a criminalist and toxicologist are needed.
Today college graduates with B. A. degrees in the sciences are receiving from $700-$1,100 a month with no experience. Salary adjustments by the State Merit Board are needed to compete with industry and other potential employers of science-trained graduates. Since so very few colleges or universities offer training in the forensic (pertaining to courts of judicature) sciences, it is necessary to give on-the-job training to the college graduate before he can competently testify as an expert. This important aspect of efficient law enforcement, scientific crime detection, should not go wanting because of unduly low minimum starting salaries.
The operation of a branch laboratory is not as costly to the State as might be expected. For example, in the Savannah Branch Laboratory the State furnishes the manpower, equipment, laundry, and telephone. The building, janitorial service, and all other expenses are provided locally. Under the present territorial assignment system the Savannah Branch renders service to the twenty-seven counties in the six judicial circuits nearest that city. This leaves an unwieldly 132 counties that are served by the Crime Laboratory in Atlanta.
The State of Alabama, with significantly fewer cases being handled by their Crime Laboratories, has established a main laboratory at Auburn, and four branches at Birmingham, Huntsville, Mobile, and Montgomery, with still another branch laboratory at Dothan contemplated.
Planning should consider setting up two more branch laboratories, strategically located for future needs. This would speed up the service, a vital need, for the law enforcement agencies now located great distances from Atlanta and Savannah. These branches would also effect a tremendous saving in travel expenses and travel time. This

latter saving would also enable laboratory examiners to utilize their time more productively in the laboratories instead of on the road. The necessary qualified personnel must first be made available, however.
The personnel needed for any one branch laboratory is a criminalist, a toxicologist, and a secretary.
The Commission recommends:
That a starting salary be approved which will attract a Ph.D. graduate, to be trained as the potential ultimate Assistant Director of the State Crime Laboratory. This is to fulfill a contemplated replacement need.
That funds be approved for the hiring of two collegetrained toxicologists and two such crimina/sits, one of each being now needed at the crime Laboratories in Atlanta and Savannah. That salary adjustments be made to successfully compete with other potential employers of college graduates trained in the chemical and physical sciences.
That future planning include the establishment of two more branches of the State Crime Laboratory. These branch laboratories, to be Located at intelligentLy chosen sites, as to geography and anticipated volume of services to be rendered, should become operational within the next three or four years, and qualified personnel should be made available.
Communications
There is a need for a vast improvement in the communications facilities of law enforcement agencies in Georgia. This improvement can best begin with fulfilling the immediate needs of the State Department of Public Safety. A complete, well coordinated communications system is absolutely essential to efficient law enforcement and criminal justice.
In a survey of the existing communications facilities of the Department of Public Safety, as of April23, 1968, the Commission found:
Teletype
A terminal interchange tied into the computerized teletype network system of the FBI National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is located at the Georgia State Patrol Headquarters. The NCIC contains records of stolen vehicles, vehicles used in commission of felonies, stolen engines and transmissions, stolen or missing license plates when all plates issued for a specific vehicle are missing, st::>len guns, other items of stolen property which are serially identifiable, and wanted persons. The terminal at the G.S.P. Headquarters is a 100 word-per-minute, automatic send-receive, 8-level teletypewriter. This is one of fifty-three such remote terminals located in the United States and Canada, costing the Department of Public Safety $365.50 a month.

63

Also located at the Georgia State Patrol Headquarters is a 100 word-per-minute 5-level, automatic send-receive teletypewriter which is the Georgia terminal of a nationwide circuit (LETS) for law enforcement communications, with a net control and switching center located in Phoenix, Arizon.a. Through the Georgia terminal messages from points throughout the United States are channeled to and from all law enforcement agencies in Georgia. The monthly cost to the Department of Public Safety is $163.25.
There is also a teletype circuit primarily used for the purpose of conducting Department of Public Safety communications. This circuit consists of eight teletype terminals located in the following State Patrol Posts:

Atlanta (Headquarters) Albany Dalton Manchester

Perry Reidsville Thomson Toccoa

Forest Park Police Department Georgia State Patrol Headquarters Gwinnett County Police Department
and Sheriffs Office Hapeville Police Department Marietta Police Department Smyrna Police Department
All of these agencies communicate with the NCIC, other law enforcement agencies throughout Georgia and the nation, by preparing a message addressed to the desired agency for forwarding to the G.S.P. Headquarters, where it is switched to the proper circuit. The control device is located at the Atlanta Police Department. All terminals in this system are automatic send-receive teletypewriters, permitting off-line preparation of messages. Transmission is at the rate of 75 words per minute . The Department of Public Safety's monthly rental is $708.40.

Through this circuit are transmitted all communications requested by any law enforcement agency in Georgia. All out-of-state messages for the LETS circuit and all transactions directed to the NCIC are transmitted from all Georgia law enforcement agencies located too far distant from Atlanta to permit direct radio contact.
The only automatic send-receive terminal on the circuit is in the G.S.P. Headquarters, Atlanta. All other terminals are manually operated, keyboard send-receive teletypewriters. An automatic send-receive teletypewriter is equipped with a tape perforator and tape reader attachment which enables the operator at State Patrol Headquarters to transfer messages to or from other circuits by placing the tape into the tape reader of that terminal. There are seven manually operated keyboard send-receive teletypewriters on the circuit; consequently, only one message may be prepared on the circuit at any time. Some operators are not skillful typists, and time consuming lengthy messages demand that all other terminals remain inactive during transmission. Any transmission by another terminal causes a garbled message by the terminal sending at that time. Transmission speed is limited to the typing ability of the operator. The cost of this circuit to the Department of Public Safety is a monthly rental of $1,392.35. Teletype terminals making up the Georgia State Patrol teletype network are located only in eight of the forty-two State Patrol Posts.
In the metropolitan Atlanta area a useful communications system is the METROPOL teletype circuit. The following agencies have terminals on this circuit:
Atlanta Police Department Clayton County Police Department Cobb County Police Department College Park Police Department Decatur Police Department DeKalb County Police Department Douglas County Sheriffs Office East Point Police Department

In July , 1968, the Georgia State Patrol teletype network was merged with the Atlanta METROPOL teletype system. This gives a double circuit accessible to each automatically, on a controlled polling device with all terminals equipped with automatic send-receive teletypewriters. As a result, the State Patrol communicates directly with any agency in the METROPOL system, provides the capability for adding other agencies, assures that messages transmitted are free of typographical errors, minimizes the possibility of garbled messages, and eliminates the delays incurred by waiting for a clear circuit before preparing messages. This will effect the removal of one teletypewriter from State Patrol Headquarters.
Also in July, 1968, computerized data processing equipment was delivered to the Department of Public Safety. This allows the automatic message switching from the teletype circuit to the LETS or NCIC systems, described above. This equipment will also make the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Driver's License Division, Accident Reporting Section, the Revocation Section, and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation available to authorized law enforcement agencies.
Radio
A 42.02 me (low band) radio is the facility which handles most of this type of communication. It carries traffic of the Georgia State Patrol, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, some units of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Georgia Revenue Enforcement Agents, rural police departments, rural sheriffs offices, county public works camps, and state prison units. According to a 1967 survey of the Federal Communications Commission the traffic on this band has increased to more than 1506 units, creating an overcrowded condition during peak activity periods. The State Patrol must use this band to transmit messages between stations. The increase in transmissions on this band in 1961 necessitated the addition of another radio band for State Patrol use only so that State Patrol units could communicate with

64

their base stations more efficiently. The Georgia State Patrol stations act as base stations for all their units, all State Revenue Enforcement units, Georgia Bureau of Investigation units, most rural sheriffs' units, and many police de-
~eartments. Most communications from agencies directed to National Crime Information Center, the nationwide circuit for law enforcement communications (LETS), distant Georgia law enforcement agencies, the Georgia Department of Motor Vehicles, and others originate over this band.
The radio system installed in 1961 is on 154.68 me and 154.80 me (high band). The former frequency is for station-to-car traffic, the latter for station-to-station messages. Because of the higher power of the stations over that of the units, transmissions from station to station block out transmissions from unit to station. Accordingly, a station transmitting to another will create a potential hazard to troopers patrolling alone in rural areas in adjoining districts within a wide radius of the station transmitting. This makes it necessary for stations to use the already crowded 42.02 me (low band) to communicate with other stations.
It is apparent that there is a need to adopt a radio band for the exclusive use of State Patrol station-to-station traffic. This would free the unit-to-station band completely and improve the safety of troopers. It would also alleviate the overcrowded conditions on the low band, making it more efficient for the many agencies using it.
The Georgia State Patrol does not have a mobile communications vehicle equipped with the radio frequencies used by the military or the many law enforcement agencies not on the State Patrol frequencies . Such units have tremendous utility in handling situations involving disasters, emergencies, riots, widespread fugitive hunts, and potential civil unrest. Equipment of this type is urgently needed so that the operations of the Department of Public Safety, the military, and law enforcement agencies throughout Georgia can be coordinated in emergency situations.
The Commission recommends that:
After the Department of Public Safety's computerized data processing equipment has been installed and becomes completely operational, consideration should be given to ~quipping every State Patrol Station with a teletypewriter. This would enable all forty-two, not just eight, to communicate with the data processing division and have the capacity of remote input and the retrieval of data at will.
The Georgia State Patrol obtain an additional frequency and adopt a radio band for the handling of station to station traffic exclusively.

Department of Public Safety of Georgia
The Georgia Department of Public Safety was created in 1937 by the General Assembly of Georgia. The original force consisted of one hundred troopers. The field battalion now numbers about six hundred. The three main divisions of the Department are : I) the Georgia State Patrol (Uniform Division), 2) the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and 3) the Driver's License Division. Other important sections of the Department of Public Safety are the State Crime Laboratory, Safety Education, Accident Reporting, Safety Responsibility, Motor Vehicle Inspection, and the Georgia Police Academy.
The Department of Public Safety is governed by a seven-man Board of Public Safety, composed of the Governor as its chairman, the Attorney General, the Comptroller General, the Adjutant General, the chairman or executive officer of the State Highway Department, and two members appointed by the Governor from among the sheriffs and peace officers and the State.
This Public Safety Board is the policy-making body of the Department of Public Safety and passes its policies on to its appointee , the Director of Public Safety, for execution.
Georgia State Patrol
This Uniformed Division includes a headquarters staff for the administration and supervision of the various functions of the Department of Public Safety and one battalion, or field force, composed of six troops (some 600 men) under the command of a major who is an ex-officio member of the general headquarters staff. Each troop is commanded by a captain, who has two first lieutenants as assistant troop commanders.
The battalion is further divided into 42 patrol posts, and each post is commanded by a sergeant who has a corporal as assistant post commander. Some posts have more personnel assigned to them than others because of traffic conditions, terrain, and population variances.
All personnel entering on duty with the Georgia Department of Public Safety do so only through the State Merit Board of Personnel Administration.
Each uniformed member of the Georgia State Patrol, of whatever rank, is required to be available for 24-hour duty during emergencies, and normally works ten hours a day, five days a week.

Funds be made available to permit the Department of Public Safety to purchase four mobile communications vehicles equipped with radio equipment capable of monitoring all law enforcement radio frequencies, and capable of handling traffic with the military, and all law enforcement agencies in Georgia.

Georgia Bureau of Investigation This investigative branch of the Department of Public
Safety began functioning on April 1, 193 8. The legislative
65

act creating the Georgia Bureau of Investigation provides that the primary function of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation is to render assistance to municipal officers, sheriffs, superior court judges, and prosecutors in the scientific investigation of criminal cases. This assistance is given only when requested by the governing authorities of any municipality, a sheriff, a superior court judge, or the Governor.
As of June 18, 1968, there were eighty GBI Agents deployed throughout the State . These men are assigned by judicial circuits in eleven Georgia districts, each headed by a lieutenant. The Director of the GBI, a Major, is headquartered in Atlanta.
The necessary qualifications to become an Agent of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation are :
Age 21-35 , high school graduate or equivalent, a legal resident of Georgia at least one year, at least one year of service as a member of the Uniform Division, Georgia State Patrol, or services as a law enforcement officer for at least three years and passing score on a written State Merit Board examination.
The Identification Division of the GBI maintains a fingerprint file of more than 300,000 sets of criminal cards. The results of the searches made in this file are forwarded to the law enforcement agency contributing the current fmgerprint card of a subject. This Division also maintains a name index card file , a file of criminal history sheets, a latent fmgerprint laboratory and file, a "modus operandi" file, a stolen property file, a file on stolen automobiles, and a file on wanted persons.
Each week the Identification Division of the GBI prepares a bulletin listing all wanted and missing persons, stolen property and automobiles, prison releasees, and any items of current interest. Some nine hundred copies of these weekly bulletins are furnished to law enforcement agencies in Georgia and other states.
The State Crime Laboratory, a unit of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, is the subject of a separate write-up in this report.
The Driver's License Division of the Department of Public Safety performs the important function of administering the State's driver licensing laws to insure, in-so-far as is possible, that only safe drivers are permitted on the highways. This includes the recording in the licensee's master ftle of all traffic accidents, violations, and convictions. Revoking, cancelling, suspending, and re-validating of licenses are also the responsibilities of this Division.
The State Department of Public Safety meets its responsibility as a law enforcement agency in a commendable fashion. But, as is true in many areas of the nation, the Department of Public Safety finds it increasingly difficult to attract and keep well-qualified personnel because the salary scales are not competitive with those in industry and business. Although the need for effective law enforcement in accident prevention and traffic control and for the curtailment of major crimes is greater today than ever before, the money required to meet this need has not been available .

To show how Georgia has lagged in up-grading the salaries of the sworn officers of the Department of Public Safety, the following comparison is made :

Starting Salaries of State Police (or Patrolmen) in Georgia and some other states:

States

Starting Salary

Georgia . . . .. . .... . . .. ... . .. ... ...... . . .....$452 Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 North Carolina . . . .. . . .. ... . . .. . ... . .. .. . . .. . 486 Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507 Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558 New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570 Indiana .. . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . ..... ....... . .. ... 575 Ohio . ...... . . . . . . ... . ..... .. ... ... .. . ... .. 598* Michigan ... . .... . ... . . ... .. .. . .. ... ... . .. . 635 California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676
*Based on 40 hours

These disparities between the starting salaries of the sworn personnel of the Georgia Department of Public Safety and personnel of equal rank in other states seem unreasonably great. At the same time, consideration should be given to raising the educational qualifications of new troopers and investigators to high school, plus two years of college. Provision should also be made in the salary scale for a higher entrance salary to attract some college graduates with degrees in Police Science, Administration or Criminology .

The Commission recommends that: To attract and keep qualified personnel, the salary scales of the Department of Public Safety personnel be substantially in.creased and a"anged for entry of new troopers and G.B.I agents on three salary levels:

High school graudates with three (3) years law enforcement experience should receive the base salary.

High school graduates with two (2) years of college preferably in police science, administration or criminology should receive the base salary plus $50 per month. No experience required.

College graduates, preferably in police science administration or criminology should receive base salary plus $100 per month. No experience required.

And that all officers presently on the force having the above qualifications be entitled to the above increases.

66

BETTER LAW ENFORCEMENT THROUGH A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Georgia needs a law enforcement agency with full statewide criminal jurisdiction and supervisory responsibility to coordinate the state's 528 separate police agencies. The State has 159 Sheriffs' Offices, 15 County Police Departments and about 354 City Police Departments. With few notable exceptions, such as Greater Atlanta's Metropol organization, there is no organized coordination between them, and the cooperation which exists is purely voluntary.
This highly fragmented condition of the state's law enforcement resources requires urgent attention and study by law enforcement officials, certain state government departments, the Governor, and the General Assembly. Enforcement and administration of the thousands of existing laws, ordinances and regulations is a job for qualified, trained and experienced professionals. Yet no effective statewide standards have been set for the selection and training of the necessary officers. No state machinery exists to require coordination and cooperation between our 528 independent agencies. Each one has its own policy and plan and idea of how laws should be enforced. Every week thousands of citizens travel through Georgia, subject to the law enforcement policies and practices of numerous jurisdictions. Thus, it is a matter which should concern the State's lawmakers and all interested citizens.
Our system of statewide criminal justice administration is in a similar situation. The Solicitor-general in each of Georgia's 40 judicial circuits is the center of the law enforcement body. He is elected and is answerable, for all practical purposes, only to the voters of his circuit. He has great power and discretion in the cases which he does or does not present to the Grand Jury, in the postponement or speedy trial of an offender, in plea-bargaining recommendations, in decisions to prosecute on a lesser charge, etc. If he does not use this discretionary power in the best interests of the people, no one except the Superior Court Judge can do much about it, and the Judge has no particular supervisory obligation in this connection.
Under present law, unless specifically required to do so by the Governor, the Attorney General has no obligation or authority to assist the Solicitor-General except in handling appeals before the Supreme Court in capital cases. With the proposed Department of Justice, the Attorney General would have an obligation to assist the Solicitor-General anytime one requested his help. The Solicitors could agree upon uniform prosecution policies and procedures for the numerous circuits, thus assuring more uniform justice for all Georgia citizens.
The Department of Public Safety is a credit and a great asset to our citizens. It is difficult to imagine the chaos and confusion and slaughter which would engulf our highways if we had no Georgia State Patrol. This division and the Drivers License Division, plus Safety Education, Accident Reporting, Safety Responsibility and Motor Vehicle Inspection sections are directly connected with highway safety,

enforcement and administration. On the other hand, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the State Crime Laboratory are also part of the Department of Public Safety but work primarily on the detection, investigation, and prosecution of criminals. Logically, they would complement a state department primarily concerned with general law enforcement and the administration of justice.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is handicapped by lack of statewide investigative authority . The "governing authorities of any municipality or the sheriff of any county or the Judges of the Superior Court of any County" may request the G.B.I. to render assistance in criminal cases. The law provides that "in unusual circumstances" the Director of Public Safety may, and in the case of an order from the Governor, shall direct the G.B.I. to render assistance.
With statewide investigative jurisdiction, increased funds to employ and train more well-qualified investigators and a closer working relationship with the Solicitor-General in each judical circuit, the G.B.I. could do much to fill the serious gap in Georgia law enforcement.
The sheriff in Georgia is an independently elected county official with definite duties to serve courts' warrants orders, processes and subpoenas, and to operate the count; jails, but he has less clearly defined responsibility to prevent or investigate crimes. Under the constitutional provisions and statutes governing his office, the time and effort he spends patrolling and investigating is largely his decision, which depends both on how much he wants to do and on how much he can do with the limited financial resources at his disposal. Until recently Georgia sheriffs have been primarily dependent for their support on fees from cases involving arrests, fines , bond forfeitures , etc. They had a strong fmancial incentive to look for violations and to make cases. Presently, however, every Georgia sheriff is on a salary basis. General legislation to this effect in 1964 required local legislative bills by each county to set the sheriffs' salaries. By the end of the 1967 Legislature, all 159 of the . special acts had been passed. The sheriffs' salaries range between $3600 per year in Union County from which the sheriff must pay his deputies, and $21 ,000 in Worth County where the sheriff is also required to pay the duputies' salaries. The average salary is around $8766, but in at least 25 counties the sheriff must furnish his own car or pay the deputy's salary from his own or both.
Abolishing the fee system makes the sheriff somewhat less independent of, and in some counties almost subordinate to, the county commissioners. While the lack of the fee basis incentive may have reduced abuses such as "speedtraps" to some extent, it appears that the law enforcement functions of the office of sheriff have not been strengthened by the change.
The increased urban development in Georgia is rapidly producing larger, better trained , better equipped and more efficient law enforcement agencies in our cities and a few counties, but many of the towns and counties are too small to maintain an effective police department, and their citi-

67

zens are more dependent upon the sheriffs office. But the sheriffs' offices, particularly the ones in the smaller counties, are handicapped by low pay. Candidates for the office are not required to have any law enforcement training or experience, and when elected, there is usually no fmancial provision or time for training.
These observations are made to emphasize the need for organization of an efficient and effective law enforcement and criminal justice agency with statewide jurisdiction. Such a state agency could render valuable assistance to every sheriffs office, city and county police department, and Solicitor-General in every judicial district in Georgia.
In California, the elected Attorney General directs the Department of Justice. He is the chief law officer of the State and has direct supervision over every district attorney and sheriff and other law enforcement officers in all matters pertaining to the duties of their respective offices. He may "assist any district attorney in the discharge of his duties and may, where he deems it necessary, take full charge of any investigation or prosecution of violations of law of which the superior court has jurisdiction." Similar powers are granted to him as are granted sheriffs.
The Commission recommends:
That the Governor and the General A ssembly consider whatever legislation or constitutional Amendment procedure or executive action necessary to create a Georgia Department of Justice headed by an Attorney General with the authority and responsibility to assist any Solicitor-General, Sheriff or law enforcement officer in the discharge of their duties and, where he deems it necessary, to take full charge of any investigation or prosecution of violations of law of which the superior Courts have jurisdiction.
It is recommended that the proposed Department of Justice assist in handling appeals for the State in the Appellate Courts, and provide legal advisory services to the Solicitors-General on a regular basis.
It is recommended that the Georgia Bureau ofInvestigation and the State Crime Laboratory be transfe"ed to the Department of Justice as elements of an enforcement division: that funds be provided to employ well qualified men and train them as skilled investigators and organize them into specialized squads to assist all law enforcement agencies in the state.
State Fire Marshal
The Office of the State Fire Marshal, which is closely aligned with law enforcement, was created by the Georgia General Assembly in 1947. The records of this Agency indicate that apparently the investigation of arson or suspected arson was not emphasized until March, 1963. During the ten-month period, March 1 through December 31, 1963, more arson investigations and more convictions were made than during the previous 16-year period.
68

As of April 23 , 1968, the arson squad of the State Fire Marshal's Office consisted of nine investigators and one chief investigator. They work about 15 counties each, while stationed at Albany, Atlanta, Augusta, Cedartown, Gainesville , Macon, Rome , Statesboro, and Waycross. From February, 1963 through March 31 , 1968, the arson squad investigated 2,656 cases. Of these , 2,034 were structures, 476 were burned vehicles, and 146 were other fires . During this same period 407 subjects were convicted, and 110 others were indicted and are awaiting trial.
The insurance coverage involved in these 2 ,656 cases totals $53 ,449 ,833.22. The insurance involved for the first three months of 1968 totals $4,343,826 .00. If this rate continues for the next three quarters, the insurance involved in 1968 will be well above 1965's record $15 million. From 1963 to 1967, fifty-seven percent of suspected arson cases investigated were adjudged deliberate arson , and these criminal fues represented more than $24.5 million in involved insurance coverage.
Arson is a heinous crime and one of mankind's costliest. With Georgia's continuing growth, criminal fires can be expected to increase , not to mention the unpredictable possibilities any riotous civil unrest could precipitate. Arson investigations are difficult and time consuming; they call for specially trained personnel.
The State Fire Marshall has advised that with his limited staff a thorough investigation in all requested cases is an impossibility. He feels that the extent of the arson problem in Georgia is not fully known. The Marshal believes that the arson squad should be increased by ten men immediately and that ten more investigators should be added a year later. He concludes that with a staff of thirty well-trained arson investigators, the reduction in the number of counties assigned to each would permit a thorough investigation of every fue involving suspected arson or fraud. The staff could also be utilized more efficiently, deploying the personnel needed to handle emergency situations or reducing the case load in any given area, when needed.
The Fire Marshal estimates the average annual cost per investigator, including salary, equipment, travel and expenses, would be $10,000. The need to reduce Georgia's armual average arson loss of $5 million appears to justify an increase in the funds to be expended by the Office of the State Fire Marshal.
The Commission recommends: That the budget of the State Fire Marshal be increased in order that additional arson investigators can be employed.

Footnotes: 1. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. by the President 's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice , (hereinafter cited as Challenge of Crime) , Washington, D.
c.. 1967.
2. Ibid.. p. 92. 3. Sutherland, Edwin H. , Cressy, Donald R. , Principles of Crimi-
nology, p. 385. 4. Figures from the Law Enforcement Training Center at the Uni-
versity of Georgia indicate the programs were viewed on television by 3.462 law enforcement officers representing 136 departments all over the state. 5. Challenge of Crime, p. 115-116. 6. 1967 press accounts of burglary charges against members of Columbus, Georgia Police Department and 1968 indictment of Jackson County Georgia sheriff for liquor law violations and attempted bribery. 7. Challenge of Crime, p. 115-116. 8. lbid.,p.191 .
9. !.!2lQ.. p. 115-116.
10. Task Force Report : The Poljce. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice Washington, D. C., 1967, Appendix B-1. p. 213. (See Appendix C, this report) .
11 . Ibid ., p. 212. 12. Challenge of Crime, p. 115-116. 13. All figures on the State Crime Laboratory were taken fromthe
records.
69

70

CHAPTER IV JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Present Scope Of The Problem
Georgia's and the nation's best hope for reducing its ever-increasing crime rate is to reduce juvenile delinquency and youth crime. Juveniles are generally more amenable to treatment and counseling than adult criminals, since behavior patterns of youths have not crystalized with discourag-
ing fmality. The problem of juvenile delinquency can best be under-
stood in terms of statistics. Throughout the country one in every nine children will be referred to juvenile courts for an act of delinquency before his eighteenth birthday. Considering boys alone, the ratio rises to one in every six. Arrests of persons under 18 for serious crime increased 54 percent in 1966 over 1960, while the population increase in that age group for the same period was 19 percent. In 1953,8.4 percent of all arrests involved persons under 18 years of age. In 1966, it was over 20 percent. 1

History

The term "juvenile delinquency" is a little over a cen-

tury old. The first definite record of its use was in the

1820's, when the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency was formed in New York City.2 In 1703,

Pope Clement XI established the first institution specifical-

ly for the corrective treatment of wayward youths in

Rome. The motto over the door was "wicked" rather than "delinquent ." 3

Juvenile delinquency consists of crimes committed by

,

persons who are not considered subject to criminal law because of their young age. The defmition of juvenile delin-

quency has been broadened so recklessly in the last several

decades that it includes just about every transgression of

childhood. Delinquency is both a social and legal problem

and cannot be explained in terms of a single cause but can

be better explained by a host of causes. Therefore, no single

method is available to solve the problem but requires a host

of partial solutions.

In early England children over fourteen were subject to

adult criminal laws; children between seven and fourteen

were presumed incapable of criminal intent but the pre-

sumption was rebuttable. Those under seven could never be

guilty of crime because legally they were incapable of forming the necessary intent.4

The juvenile court movement grew out of a reasonable

conviction that child offenders should not be treated in the

same manner as adults. The best known source of the idea

\

of juvenile court is summed up in the Latin phrase parens patriae. From feudal days, the English Chancery Court has

exercised protective jurisdiction over all the children of the

realm on behalf of the pater patriae, the King. The Chan-

cery Court traditionally had broad power over the welfare

of children. Its jurisdiction was generally exercised almost exclusively on behalf of minors whose property rights were jeopardized, on the theory that it lacked the means with which to provide for neglected minors. The early colonies adopted the English legal system and expanded the Chancery Court's activities to include protection of minors in danger of personal as well as property rights.5
The first juvenile court in this country was established in 1899 in Chicago. Its underlying theme was that it is not a criminal court, and the child within its jurisdiction can not be charged with crime but is regarded as a ward of the state subject to its discipline and entitled to protection. The court's purpose is not to punish but to rehabilitate. The broad intent is to understand and meet the child's needs. By 1912, there were twenty-two states that followed the lead of Illinois. In 1915 , the first juvenile court appeared in the State of Georgia.6 Today there is a juvenile court act in every American jurisdiction, with about 2,700 courts hearing children's cases?
The structure of juvenile courts varies among the states. Relatively few are separate and independent. Generally they consist of a part of the regular circuit, district, superior, county, common pleas, family, or municipal courts. More recently some states have established family courts to deal with both children and domestic relations cases.
At present the upper-age jurisdiction of the juvenile court varies among the states from 16 to 21. Eighteen is the upper limit recommended by the Children's Bureau and has gained acceptance in about two-thirds of the states.
The Juvenile Court in Georgia
There is no uniform procedure for the identification, disposition, detention or treatment of juvenile offenders in Georgia. What might be considered one of the most crucial problems in the State is left largely to the discretion of individual counties or judicial circuits for solution. e result has been the growth of a .E_atchwork of courts, ~ver l;pping services, differential processin of offenders, and poor communication between agencies supposedly engaged in similar programs.
According to the Juvenile Court Act of 1951, juvenile courts were established with original jurisdiction in counties having a population of .50,000 or more.8 In those counties having less than 50,000, the law stipulated that juvenile courts could be established upon recommendation of two successive grand juries.9... In all those counties without juvenile courts, "~e judge of the Superior Court shall sit as the juvenile court judge and hear all cases comin within the provisioilOfthe Juvenile Court Ac_!."

71

As of August, 1968, there are thirty-four special juvenile courts in Georgia. This list is presented in Table 58 on the following page indicating the county, name of the juvenile court judge and the number of juvenile court probation officers employed by each county.

Juvenile courts in Geor a are given original but not ex-

clusive urisdiction in the disposition of children under

seventeen. )rhis condition has contributed to wi e vana-

tions in the relationships of the juvenile court to the superi-

or court and has prevented the creation of any standard

juvenile procedure A county may have a special juvenile cour~the superior court judge of the circuit may sit either

as a juvenile court judge or superior court judge when hear-

ing cases involving juveniles, or the superior court judge

may choose to sit as superior court judge in all cases

brought before him. Preliminary reviews are conducted by a

variety of court-appointed referees to determine the eventu-

al designation of appropriate court. These include, among

others, "citizens' panels, mayors' committees, and proba-

_t;~ionR.~eoc_fofgiecnei_drzsi.n"~.JMth.e-

~~ -
la~k of uJif~rrnlty in h;n&Lngjuveniles,

the study group from the Institute of Government, Univer-

sity of Georgia, designed an interview schedule tQ trace the

movement of the juvenile through the criminal justice sys~rticlollar emphasis was placed on the identification of any similarities in procedures. Because of the time limita-

tions of the study, no comprehensive investigation could be

conducted on a statewide basis. Therefore , four counties

were selected : Muscogee , Bibb, Richmond and Chatham.

These counties are all largely urban and densely populated.

Each county has a special juvenile court and a juvenile pro-

bation staff; three have detention centers. The four count-

ies were selected on the rationale that their similarities in

population size and composition,_judicial system, and de-

tention facilities should indicate similarities in methods of

handling juveniles. However, as will be pointed ou se __similarities were net er pronounce nor, in some cases,

existent. . In each of the four counties the following offices were

visited: police and/or sheriffs' departments, juvenile courts,

juvenile probation officers, court service workers, detention

centers and county welfare offices.

The juvenile judges in Bibb and Muscogee Counties re-

ported minimal referral of juveniles to the Superior Court,

withholding referral except in those cases where no progress

was being made by juvenile officers or where the case in-

volved a very serious offense However, in Richmond

County , under order of the Superior Court, all juveniles

fourteen and over charged with a felony and all juveniles

twelve and over charged with a capital offense are referred

to the state probation officer. The results of an investiga-

tion of the case are reported to the Judge of the Superior

Court, who decides whether the juvenile should be placed

under the jurisdiction o the_l

urt or trie m

Superior Cou t. n Chatham County, most decisions regard-

ing the appropriate court to ftle a police complaint are re~hed.Jl~ the Division of Yo"lltl:l and Women of the uolice department.
n most counties, there are several points where dispositions could be reached informally before a case reached a court hearing. First, the intake officer acted as a preliminary J;creening point for those complaints coming from sources other than the police department. (here possible, very minor complll.ints were dismissed with the-a.p. lf.Oval of the complainant without a petition being ftled. Second, the probation officers had the discretion to dismiss or reduce ~harg~_Lwi!!:_!he approval of the judge when the evidence indicated lack of involvement, appropriate restitution, very minor offenses, fust offen~es'~' a stable, responsible home and community environm~so , in cases involving serious offenses, multiple previous offenses and/or convictions, and lack of progress under unofficial supervision, the probation officers and the.judges might recommend binding the case over to Superior Court. J
In several of the counties, the practice of unofficial probation, though without legal basis, was common. The juvenile was re uested to come in for re lar meetings over an indefinite period. If the juvenile got into no ~ore difficulty' the case was dropped with no official decisions reached._In Muscogee .County it was estimated that 75 to
?O e ent of the complaints_ar.e never heard..in COUft. How-
ever, in all four counties, all felonies were heard in either the Juvenile or Su~rior Court\
Generally, a standard sequence occurs once a complaint is ftled with the Juvenile Court. The .probation officer assigned to the case reads the complaint and notifies the child and his parents as to the date for an initial interview. At the interview he uvenile is advised of his rights and is asked to sign a waiver of counsel. The probation o ficer gathers information ertinent to the case from a variety of sources, including the child and his parents, the school, neighbors, and friends of the child. This information is reviewed by the judge, usually immediately preceeding the hearing.
Once the hearing is completed, th~ judge ha.$ a variety of decisions available to him@ may decide that the juvenile
is no~ilty of the charges against ~Or, if convinced o!_
guilt~ay release the child to the c~1_9dy of his parent_Y Mace-the child on straight probatio~tence him to a
Youth Development Center to be served on probation
(after a thirty-to-sixty-day period in the detention ce~ter)-:)
!fie"" may sentence him to a Youth Development Cente~ ~may bind the case over to Superior Co~All courts
indicated that the majority of cases are adjusted before court h aring or, if a hearing is he , pro ation is generall ordered. Most JU ges mterviewe expressed reluctance to sentence a child to a Youth Development Center and expressed even greater reluctance to bind a juvenile over to Superior Court, preferring to rely on the resources of the juvenile probation staff and the community.\

72

County
Appling Bibb Burke Camden Carroll Chatham
- Clarke
Clayton Cobb Colquitt Columbia Coweta DeKalb Dougherty Emanuel Floyd Fulton Glynn Gordon Grady Hall Houston Lowndes Muscogee Newton Polk Richmond Sumter Thomas Toombs Troup
Ware -
Wayne Whitfield

Table 58 COUNTY JUVENILE COURTS, JUVENILE JUDGES AND NUMBERS OF PROBATION OFFICERS

City
Baxley Macon Waynesboro Woodbine Carrollton Savannah Athens Jonesboro Marietta Moultrie Appling Newnan Decatur Albany Swainsboro ; Rome Atlanta Brunswick Calhoun Cairo Gainesville Perry Valdosta Columbus Covington Cedartown ~ Augusta Americus Thomasville Lyons LaGrange Waycross Jesup Dalton

Juvenile Court Judge
Peyton Miles H. R. Casson John F. Hardin Benjamin R. Martin, Jr. R. J. Brown B. B. Heery
L. Olin Price
Edwin S. Kemp Norman Shipley Robert E. Cheshire John F. Hardin Bryon H. Mathews Curtis V. Tillman Hudson Malone Homer Durden ~ John Frazier John S. Langford, Jr. A. A. Nathan J. C. Maddox Clayton R. Baker Robert J. Cooper W. J. "Bill" Holloway H. T . Brice Aaron Cohn Jim Morgan Olin T. Flourney John F. Hardin James W. Smith James K. Harper William T. Dardy A. W. Birdsong Thomas A. Parker Warner B. Gibbs C. H. Dalton

No. of Juvenile Probation
Officers

-

None 9 None None None 9 1Y.
<
4 4 1 None 1 13 1 None 4 40 2 None None 2 2 1 8 1 None 4 None None 3 1/2 None None 1

73

New Juvenile Code
The need for a new juvenile code is urgent because (1) the juvenile court system in Georgia is a patchwork of ovglapping jurisdictions. Procedures and practices show wide variation by county and (2) the landmark decision of In Re Gault 378 U.S. 1 (1966) has created a new impetus to re-examine the Juvenile Court Act of 1951. Gault, however, does not signal an end to specialized courts for children or jiveniles characterized b a treatment-oriented philo o hy with emphasis upon justice for the i~ual j_:lvenile. The juvenile court must now provide procedural safeguards to withstand constitution attack. ~
Concerned about the rising rate of juvenile crime and the questionable constitutionality of many state Juvenile Court statutes and practices, the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws have submitted a new version of the Uniform Juvenile Court Act for consideration by state legislatures. This proposal has been carefully drawn to meet the mandates of the United States Supreme Court in its recent decisions on juvenile delinquency. There has also been effort by the draftsmen to anticipate the implication and trends suggested by the Court. Quite natural, too, is the attempt to obtain uniformity in approach as far as practicable in view of increased public mobility and the desire to assure fundamental fairness for all juveniles. Accordingly, the General Assembly would serve the needs of the people of Georgia well if it adopted the Uniform Act.
On the other hand, certain portions of the Uniform Act are not in harmony with long-established procedures and terminology well known in Georgia. Some modification of the Uniform Act would be essential. Furthermore, the General Assembly may conclude that the disposition of offenders is uniquely local and does not warrant interstate uniformity or cooperation at this time. If such is the case , this study suggests that the General Assembly review the draft Juvenile Court Act prepared by a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law and twelve students who participated with him in a seminar on "Juvenile Courts." 11
In preparing this draft, the existing provisions of the Georgia Code were reviewed, including the most recent amendments, and the constitutional mandates of the new cases were incorporated. So far as possible, consistent with the purpose of meeting present constitutional requirements, the language and format of existing law has not changed. Of the suggested changes, the most significant would provide for elevating the juvenile court judge to the level of a superior court judge with such a title ; conducting a bifurcated hearing so that issues of guilt or innocence are tried under standards generally required in criminal courts to meet those due process requirements required by present law, while issues of disposition will continue to be determined by arriving at the standard considered best for the child; permitting the use of legally qualified referees ; and assuring that juvenile court records are not used to stigmatize an offender long after the incident has taken place.

It is generally believed by this Commission that the study by the General Assembly of this draft Juvenile Court Act will enable that body to consider the present problem of bringing the juvenile courts of this state to the high level of efficiency deserved by our people and required by law. The draft in substance and procedure represents progress toward an effective Juvenile Code.
The Commission recommends that: The General Assembly enact the Uniform Juvenile Court Act. In the event that it is not deemed advisable to enact this act at this time, it is recommended that the General Assembly enact the Juvenile Court Act prepared at the University of Georgia School of Law (See Appendix D). Any future revisions to juvenile court statute should be reviewed in relation to the Youth Act of 1963 to insure clarity ofresponsibility between the Youth Division and the Court.
Juvenile Court judges should define criteria and procedures governing informal and unofficial dispositions by the Court.
Court Service Worker
In most counties which do not have a special juvenile court, Department of Family and Children Services court service workers are assigned at the request of the Superior Court Judge to perform the regular duties of a probation officer, as well as care for juveniles released from Youth Development Centers. In most counties where there is a juvenile court and county juvenile probation officers, court service workers are responsible only for the care of juveniles released from the Youth Development Centers. In the case of juvenile courts with no probation officers, the court service worker performs both probation and after care services at the request of the judge.
Table 59 on page 75 gives a distribution, by circuit and function of the court service workers. Several counties indicated they do not require the services of the court service workers. In the Augusta Circuit, for example, there is only one court service worker who is responsible for aftercare of Negroes released from the Youth Development Centers to the Circuit. In the four-county Griffm Circuit, where there is no juvenile court and where only one county has a juvenile probation officer, there are no court service workers. In the remaining counties in this Circuit, the state probation officers handle juvenile cases.
There is a surprising lack of clarity among ~he various agencies which serve juveniles as to the seFVices available from sources other than their own. For example, even though the State Department of Probation is best designed to meet the supervisory needs of Georgia's probationers, the State office was not aware of the number of juvenile probation officers on the county level. Likewise, the State

74

Table 59 NUMBERS AND FUNCTIONS OF STATE COURT SERVICE WORKERS
BY CIRCUIT AND COUNTY

Circuit
Alapha Atlanta Atlantic Augusta
Blue Ridge Brunswick
Chattahoochee
Cherokee Clayton Cobb Conasauga
Cordele Coweta
Dougherty Dublin Eastern Flint Griffin Gwinnett Lookout Mountam

Number Court Service Workers
1 1 1 1
1 1
2
1 1 1 1
1 2
2 1 1 1 None 1 1

Function
Probation & Aftercare Aftercare Only Probation & Aftercare Aftercare Only (Negroes) Probation & Aftercare Probation & Aftercare Aftercare Only Probation & Aftercare Aftercare Only Probation & Aftercare Aftercare Only Aftercare Only Probation & Aftercare Aftercare only Probation & Aftercare Probation & Aftercare Aftercare only Aftercare Only Probation & Aftercare Aftercare Only Probation & Aftercare
Probation & Aftercare Probation & Aftercare

Number Counties
5 1 6 3

5

4 1

5 1

2

1

1

1 1

4

3 2

1

. /
.....

4

'-

1

4

4

/

1 4

Macon

4

Probation & Aftercare

2

Aftercare Only

2

Middle

1

Probation & Aftercare

4

Aftercare Only

1

Mountain

1

Probation & Aftercare

5

Northeastern

1

Probation & Aftercare

3

Aftercare Only

1

Northern

1

Probation & Aftercare

5

Ocmulgee

2

Probation & Aftercare

8

Oconee

1

Probation & Aftercare

6

Ogeechee

2

Probation & Aftercare

4

Pataula

1

Probation & Aftercare

7

Piedmont

1

Probation & Aftercare

3

Rome

1

Aftercare Only

1

South Georgia

1

Probation & Aftercare

5

Southern

1

Probation & Aftercare

3

Aftercare Only

2

Southwestern

1

Probation & Aftercare

6

Stone Mountain

3

Probation & Aftercare

1

Aftercare Only

2

Tallapoosa

1

Probation & Aftercare

4

Tifton

1

Probation & Aftercare

4

Toombs

1

Probation & Aftercare

6

Waycross

1

Probation & Aftercare

6

Western

1

Probation & Aftercare

2

Aftercare Only

1

75

Department of Family and Children Services was not able to furnish this study with the number of juvenile probation officers employed in counties without juvenile courts. This information would seem vital to planning in both offices to insure adequate statewide probation service, if this is indeed the goal of these two departments.
Much variation exists in probationary services. In the county juvenile courts, the number of officers and size of caseloads vary. There are no uniform standards for salary or qualifications , and services are spotty and in some instances, non-existent. There is also wide variation in those counties where the superior court judge sits as juvenile judge. Even in counties where court service workers are assigned, the degree of service varies.
The Commission recommends that:
A State system of juvenile probation should be established by statute to guarantee uniform standards and strengthen services throughout the State. This should be placed in the division of Children and Youth which is now performing this function for most of the Superior Court Circuits. Probation services should be strengthened throughout the State. The relationship between State Court service workers and Juvenile Court workers should be clarified in all jurisdictions. This action should not await the legislation required to establish a state-wide juvenile probation system.
Apprehension and Handling by Law Enforcement Agencies
In each of the four counties visited for this study, all law enforcement agencies exercised the option of (1) releasing the juvenile after warning at the site of a minor offense ; (2) releasing the juvenile to his parents with a warning; or, (3) taking the juvenile into headquarters for official investigation. The basis for choosing one option rather than another was related to the seriousness of the offense, the attitude of the offender, and , where known , the previous offense record of the juvenile.
Although the procedure was similar, the frequency of utilization of each option varied considerably between the four counties. In one county, complaints were filed in Juvenile Court on all juveniles who were placed in custody by police officers. Also, complaints made by sources other than the police were always referred to the juvenile court. In the other counties, there was more screening on the police level. When complaints were filed , the police and sheriff departments decided between dismissing the charge, releasing the juvenile with a warning to his parents, or, depending on the nature of the offense and the record of the juvenile, referring the offender for official action.
A final decision point in the law enforcement process concerns the detention or release of the juvenile, once a formal complaint is made. In most counties the decision is made in consultation with either the Juvenile Court, juve-
76

nile division of the police department, or the state probation officer. However, there was evidence of unclear authority and procedure for ordering detention in some counties which placed children in city jails or "unofficial" foster homes.
In one of the counties a complaint is filed directly with the juvenile court. The officer takes the juvenile to the court intake officer, who makes out a petition informing the juvenile when he is to appear for a preliminary hearing. In another county the complaint is ftled with the recorder's court. The judge of the recorder's court hears the complaint and decides whether there is sufficient evidence to bind the juvenile over to the juvenile court. In a third county, the complaint is routed immediately to the Youth and Women's Division of the police department for investigation. In the fourth county, non-felony cases are referred to the juvenile court. Others are directed to the state probation officer who, with the Superior Court Judge , decides whether juvenile or adult court procedures should be ordered. In all counties complaints could be ftled directly to the juvenile court from sources other than the police. However, the police were listed as the major source of complaints, ranging from estimates of seventy-five to ninety-eight percent of total referrals filed with the juvenile courts.
It is apparent that the role of law enforcement agencies varies throughout the State. A wide range of methods is found in making unofficial dispositions, placing children in custody and reporting complaints to the juvenile courts. The authority of police for making alternate dispositions was often vaguely defined and official relationships with other agencies, unclear. Where specially selected and trained enforcement officers had been assigned to work with juveniles, procedures were more clear and much more coordinated with other agencies. In three of the cities visited, law enforcement agencies were taking the leadership in programs of prevention.
The Commission recommends that:
Law enforcement agencies should establish juvenile programs and assign appropriately trained personnel to work with juveniles on the programs.
The Authority and role of all law enforcement agencies in the matter of informal dispositions should be clearly delineated. Criteria and methods of handling such dispositions as well as procedures for filing complaints should be jointly agreed upon in writing between the law enforcement agencies and the courts.
The authority of law enforcement agencies in regard to the detention and custody of children should be clarified by law and procedures established in each jurisdiction.

Causes
Prevention and control of juvenile delinquency can come only with public discussion of its causes. An analysis of the causes of juvenile delinquency is important because of (1) the immediate problem and trouble to society and (2) the future general threat that it represents, since studies have shown that the majority of adult criminals began their anti-social behavior and careers as juvenile delinquents. 12 A Study by the Gluecks on 1,000 Boston juvenile cases found that 79.8 percent of this group became involved in further violations of law during the first five years after release. 13 There is no single cause of delinquency but a very large number of causative factors, different combinations of which may be responsible in any given case for delinquent behavior. Some of the more popular theories on the cause or causes of juvenile delinquency will be discussed.
The unstable family is one of the distressing phenomena of our times, and many authorities believe that it is the unstable family which has produced the rash of young offenders. It is a factor which has played an important role in almost every study of juvenile delinquency during the last century. More recent studies have laid a greater stress on this factor. In 1967, the Fulton County Juvenile Court heard the cases of 4,630 children for delinquent acts. Of these, only 1,732 or 37.41 percent came from homes where the parents were still living together. Figures from Richmond County Juvenile Court for the period 1964 through 1967, showed that about half of the delinquents came from broken homes. 14
The Atlanta Commission on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency states in its report:
The main cause of juvenile delinquency is the failure of parents to supervise and discipline their children and their failure to provide a stable and cohesive family life. While such failures can occur in any family - rich or poor, they are far more prevalent in the poverty areas of Atlanta.1 5
A study of 500 delinquents by the Gluecks showed that the parents of delinquents have greater incidence of emotional disturbance, mental retardation, alcoholism and criminalism. 16 It becomes apparent that parents communicate their standards, ideals and behavior patterns to their children .
Some children fmd their way into the courts even though their homes are apparently stable, but these ace few as compared to those from unstable homes. The Gluecks studies indicate that delinquents are generally to be found in what one might call second-class families - families which are haphazard about the routine of the home and about money affairs. The studies have shown that about 90 percent of the delinquent families had little or no self-respect and had poor standards of conduct in the home~ 7
Family backgrounds of the delinquent youngsters were less adequate to their proper rearing than those of the non-delinquents. The study showed there are other aspects

of family life in which the delinquents were more deprived, often markedly so. A somewhat higher proportion of their parents than those of the non-delinquent faced marital responsibilities without preparation. A far higher proportion of their marriages proved unhappy . More of the homes of the delinquents than of the non-delinquents were broken by desertion , separation, divorce or death of one or both parents, with a large number of such breaches occurring during early childhood among the boys. 18
Recent public surveys regarding belief about the causes of crime indicate a pronounced concern with the morals of the country and the moral training of the country's youths. Gallup polls showed that most persons who were asked the causes of crimes gave answers which could be categorized as poor parental guidance or inadequate home life and supervision of teenagers. A Harris poll showed that sixty-eight percent of the respondents believed that upbringing or bad environment were the main causes of the high crime rate.
Juvenile delinquents tend to come from poverty or slum areas; from past studies it is evident that the delinquent is often a child of the slums, from a neighborhood low on the social-economic scale of the community.1 9
The Atlanta Crime Commission concluded that it is inescapable that juvenile delinquency is directly related to conditions bred of poverty.20 If found that 57 percent of the juvenile delinquents during 1964 were residents of Fulton County area tracts located in the lowest of five categories ranked on the basis of economic and educational status of the residents, whereas only 24 percent of the population was located in these tracts. The highest of these five tracts produced only 4 percent of the delinquents during 1964.21 Other studies also showed a high correlation between low income and high crime rate but most authorities agree that poverty alone does not cause crime.22 They agree that many aspects of poverty must be closely related to crime rate - low educational levels, high population density , broken homes, truancy , poor use of leisure time, lack of respect for and trust in the law.
The Commission recommends that:
State and local governemtns and private organizations and employers cooperate to find methods of reducing unemployment in the poverty areas.
Welfare programs should be revised to give the unemployed an incentive to find employment and help keep their families together.
Employment For Youths
Between the years 1960 and 1970, the available labor force in the United States is expected to rise by more than 15 million persons. This figure is almost double that of the 1950's. Young workers, age 14 to 24, constitute about 45 percent of this increase. Since the 1960 census, the State of Georgia has already had an increase of about 90,000

77

persons in that age group.23 With this increase in the number of workers and a decreasing demand for unskilled workers, the State's juvenile employment problem will continue .
The availability of employment for a person depends largely upon the kind of life he leads. Studies have shown that unemployment may be counted among the principal causal factors in crime and recidivism of offenders, both juvenile and adults. It is difficult for juveniles with delinquent records to fmd jobs, since they are generally poor, less educated persons and members of a minority group.
An extensive study of 237 juveniles released from youth development centers showed that 99, or 41 percent, did not return to school after release and of the 138 who did return, over 50 percent remained in public school less than one year after release. 24 The stigma of being a delinquent combined with an inadequate level of education, makes fmding suitable employment more difficult.
These offenders may take advantage of the state employment service, but these agencies have not been too successful in placing them because many employers are reluctant to hire offenders for any position. The Georgia State Employment Service Industrial offices have been successful in placing only about half of the offenders with prison records. In addition, many unions oppose allowing these offenders to enter their ranks, thus making it even more difficult for these offenders to find employment.
Federal, state and local government have traditionally adopted policies making government employment difficult for offenders. This has set a poor example for private employers, although in 1966, the Federal Civil Service Commission modified its position to allow the different departments to hire former convicts who are judged to be good risks. No such modification has been made on the local or state level, except in larger cities where low wage scales make it harder to obtain any other type of labor.
A juvenile record places an economic burden on the offender, and this often seriously interferes with the prospects for effective rehabilitation.
At the time of the survey conducted by the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services, about 65 percent of the juveniles studied were unemployed. Increase in the number of jobs held are negatively associated with recidivism: the more jobs held, the less chance of recidivism. 25
The data indicated rather clearly that a continuity in employment and an adequate income can substantially reduce the amount of initial delinquency and recidivism.
The Commission recommends that:
1. Where conditions wa"ant, a job placement specialist be included on the staff of secondary schools with priority given to areas where the dropout and delinquency rate is high.
2. That a job placement specialist be included on the staff of every youth development center to provide

jobs for the youths upon release if they do not return to school.

3. That a plan be initiated where private industry, federal, state and local government would attempt to find suitable employment for these youths.

Summer And Part-time Employment for Youths

Many authorities on juvenile delinquency contend that

one sure way to reduce the growing problem is to occupy

our youths either with jobs or with more supervised

recreation. Under our present laws, state agencies are not

concerned with finding jobs for children under 16, since it

is against the law to employ children in many businesses.

Therefore, it is important that private organizations and church organizations become involved in fmding some

l

means to occupy youths' time .

~

One such effort to find jobs for youths has been

successful in the West End area of Atlanta. A program of

fmding many part-time jobs has become known as

Rent-A-Kid. It is a corporation of teenagers between the

ages of 14 through 18 dealing in personal services to the

community, such as mowing lawns, washing windows,

babysitting and many other odd jobs around a house. The

youths undertake any reasonable job.

The children involved in this initial Rent-A-Kid program

are generally underprivileged and are dependent on

themselves to provide money for clothing, transportation to

school, lunch money and some even for food.

The rent for an office and telephone service is the only

expense, and this has been paid for by a small grant from

the Southern Council on International and Public Affairs.

The clerical help has been voluntary, leaving no expense to

the children using the service of Rent-A-Kid. The television

stations and neighborhood newspapers have contributed

time and space in the form of public service announce-

ments.

The hourly wages earned by these youths vary according

to the type of work. The minimum salary is $1.35 per hour,

plus transportation. The only exception to this rate is

babysitting which pays $.75 for day hours and $1.00

hourly at night.

Because of the publicity on Rent-A-Kid, there have been

many job offers from all parts of the city. To fill the

requests, there are presently three offices operating in

Atlanta. It is too early to report how many children were

employed, how much they earned, etc., but it is not too

early to report that the service has kept many children off

the streets this summer and employed, making money for

their needs. There has been no expenditure of state or city

money to fmance this worthwhile project.

The Commission recommends that:
Civic and church organizations in all Georgia communities become involved in some like project which will find summer and part-time jobs for our youths.

78

Lack of Education As a
Factor in Delinquency
The educational status of juvenile delinquents is inferior on the whole to that of the general population, tending to be slightly inferior in regard to illiteracy, somewhat more in school retardation, decidedly inferior in school progress, and clearly inferior in educational ambition and achievement, with pronounced dislike of school. A study by the Division of Children and youth of the State Department of Family and Children Services shows that the average boy sent to the State Training School at Milledgeville is 3.4 years below the proper level of academic skill for boys his age.26
Delinquents tested by the Fulton County Juvenile Court during 1964 and 1965, indicated 80 percent were three or more years below their proper levels. Forty percent were five or more years below such levels.27 In the Youth Development Center at Augusta, 258 students were tested using standard tests used by the school system. Only 3 children scored above 90 IQ, 12 scored above 80 IQ, and 154 children, or 59.7 percent, scored 55 or below.
The beginning of school is one of the most important steps in a child's life. In his first group experience, he must be accepted, successful and secure. Kindergarten gives the child the fust foundations for learning and provides a bridge for the child between his sheltered home environment and structured school community. Studies have shown that children with kindergarten training tend to make relatively more rapid progress in the first five grades than those who have not attended kindergarten. In the first three grades, kindergarten-trained children show a marked advantage in both rate of reading and comprehension.
As a rule, those children without pre-school experience soon fall behind their classmates, and during their first year of formal education they may experience a sense of failure. Surveys of highschool dropouts show that many experience failure during their elementary education years.28 Children with kindergarten experience make better adjustment in school and are usually superior in achievement in all circumstances.

Records from the State Department of Family and Children Services revealed that of 1,007 juveniles on probation where educational information was adequate for reporting purposes, 305 were school dropouts. Of the 1,007, only 113 or 11.2 percent of the total number had attended kindergarten. Of the 702 probationers who are currently in school, only 90 are in their proper grade placement. The following chart indicates those who are behind in their grade placement and placement period.29

Behind 1 year

148

Behind 2 years

130

Behind 3 years

90

Behind 4 years

41

Behind 5 years

46

Behind more than 5 years

157

In Georgia each year more than I00,000 boys and girls enter the first grade, about half of whom have had some type of pre-school training. It follows that half of the children not receiving pre-school training accounted for 88.8 percent of the juveniles on probation in 1966.
Studies on the educational status of delinquent juveniles in Georgia's three State youth development centers suggest that a lack of educational achievement is a significant factor with children who get into trouble. At the Milledgeville Youth Development Center which studied 401 juveniles, only 5 of this number were in their proper grade placement, with a large percentage being school dropouts.
At the Augusta Youth Development Center fJ.I.es on 295 children were studied .A total of 101 were school dropouts, and only 30 of this 295 were in their proper grade placement. There were 22 who were one year behind in grade placement; 23 , two years behind; 17, three years behind; 19, four years behind ; 37, five years behind ; and 177, more than five years behind proper grade placement.30
A study of 91 girls at the Atlanta Youth Development Center showed 41 school dropouts, with 10 of the total being in their proper grade placements. There were I2 who were one year behind in grade placement ; 12, two years behind ; 30, three years behind; 11, four years behind ; 5, five years behind; and nine more than five years behind proper grade placements.
Witnesses appearing before the interim legislative study committee on care and training of pre-school children agreed that a public kindergarten system is essential to the success of education in Georgia. Figures from State Department of Family and Children Services tend to prove that the lack of educational achievement has been a large contributing factor in our growing juvenile delinquency problem.
The Commission recommends that: The General Assembly appropriate funds necessary to begin implementation of a public kindergarten program as proposed by the state superintendent of schools.
Reduction of Dropout Problem A study revealed that most delinquent subjects are
school dropouts (79.3 percent).31 Indications are that one of the main reasons for the dropout is his inability to achieve or keep up with others in his age group. He finds himself misplaced in a classroom situation and failing his work semester after semester without an opportunity to be re-scheduled into a course that would meet his achievement needs .32

79

The problem of the dropout in Georgia is appalling, since 60 percent of the children who enter the first grade do not fmish high school. Nationwide, the figure is somewhat better since only 40 percent who enter school do not finish high school, or only six children out of ten complete such school.33 There is ten times the incidence of delinquency among dropouts as there is among those who complete school.34
Under the present school system the summer school program is not sufficient to meet the needs of students. Presently about 25 percent of all high school students attend summer school, and 70 percent of these elect to take new or advanced work during the summer.35 These figures make it clear that summer school is not a make-up session for students who fail courses during the regular year. A twelve-month school will make a significant contribution to reducing the dropout problem by allowing slow learners to repeat unsuccessful grades more quickly. Also, occupying children in school all year would reduce theu chances for participating in acts of delinquency.
In an interview, Judge John S. Langford, stated that a twelve-month school would help reduce the delinquency problem in Fulton County.36 The four quarters could be made mandatory for the juvenile delinquent. Judge Elmo Holt37 agreed that a twelve-month school could be a partial answer to our present delinquency problem. He stated that a proftle of a Fulton County delinquent is an eighth-grade boy doing third-grade work. Because of this he doesn't attend school regularly, but is suspended and allowed to roam the streets, a condition often leading to delinquent acts. The extra three months of school could help the delinquent close the educational gap.
A twelve-month school could be divided into four quarters of approximate equal length and instructional quality. The state system could follow the lead of the eight-school system in the Metropolitan Atlanta area which has developed a quarter school plan. The program developed by the eight counties will provide a greater educational opportunity for the students. Initially, students will be required to attend school the first three quarters {180 days). If a student voluntarily attends the fourth quarter, he would have the option of attending three out of the next four quarters, or attending all four quarters. He would be required to attend three quarters out of each four-quarter term.
With a quarter system the curriculum could be revised and organized into quarter courses appropriate for students in a particular school. Pupils would select those courses needed to complete a desired course of study. With quarter courses, students would have an opportunity to progress at their own rate of speed, specialize in certain areas, and receive the general education needed for graduation. The dropout rate would be reduced greatly since each child would receive an education in keeping with his own individual ability. The academic deficiencies of children in

our development centers are obvious, since the average boy sent to the Youth Development Center at Milledgeville is 3.4 years below the proper level of academic skill for boys his age.38 In 1965, the Fulton County Juvenile Court tested many of its children: 80 percent of those tested were three or more years behind, and 40 percent were five or more years below their proper level.39
One good feature of the plan is that there would be very little extra cost to the school system. In fact, there is some possibility that the program could save t e State and counties money in years to come. Since school buildings could be used year-round, the children could be scheduled into a space-saving master schedule and exceptional stJ.ldents could be accelerated through high school. Or, the program could create a condition for a nongraded school for students who cannot endure pressure.
Another benefit to be gained under a quarter system is that students and teachers could choose to take their vacations in the fall, winter, or spring. Job hunting and student employment would not be confined to summer months , and employers could rotate students on a particular job throughout the year. By being gainfully employed, there is less opportunity for the juvenile to commit delinquent acts.
While there are many benefits to be gained by a four-quarter system, the strongest argument is the benefit to be gained by the pupils. Bright pupils could accelerate. Slow learners would repeat unsuccessful grades more quickly. Occupying children in school all year would reduce juvenile delinquency.
The Commission recommends that:
The State adopt a twelve-month school system with its increased curriculum which will help reduce the juvenile delinquency problem.
Education In Civic Responsibility
According to interviews with and letters from judges and law enforcement officers concerned with juveniles throughout the State, delinquency often results from lack of respect for law and order. One way to reduce this delinquency is to provide instruction about legal and law enforcement systems within our school system, since so often students fail to receive this training at home.
Under the present Georgia codes, schools are required to give instruction in the history of the United States and Georgia, including the study of and devotion to American institutions and ideals.40 The law is sufficiently broad to include these recommendations without any legislative enactments. All that is needed is an administrative order from the State School Board.
In the first few years of schooling, courses should be taught which would show children the need for respect of adults, other children, personal property, possessions of

80

others, laws and law enforcement officers. They should also be taught the need for law and order and civic

responsibility, especially in the domain of political,

economic and social behavior. Early training in these

..

subjects would appreciably reduce juvenile delinquency in

later years. Some authorities feel that part of today's problems

result because our youths are not prepared for the realities of present culture. Often they are taught physics, Spanish

and other subjects which have little value to them. Since the majority of high school students does not attend college, schools should include subjects which will help them become better citizens, such as their rights as debtors,

rights against garnishment, and liability for breach of

contract. Other needed courses include those on social security, income tax liability, etc.
The Commission does not advocate that the sole function is to advance desirable patterns of citizenship behavior to the detriment of its vital academic processes. It

does believe that developing civic behavior in youths in our schools is an objective as significant as developing their

minds.

Most older children recognize a violation of the criminal

law and right from wrong. They often fail to know the complete consequences of their acts in the future. Court

proceedings and results must be brought to their attention

and discussed. The use of probation by so many of the

courts for first offenders can be misleading to the average child. Youths do not know the full impact of being adjudicated as delinquent or criminal and what violations mean to them in the future.

Youths need to know that any conviction for a crime will follow them to the grave. The conviction will be a matter of record, and it cannot be erased even though pardoned in the future. They must understand that their

credibility will be forever questioned by their fellowmen, particularly if they are ever called as witnesses in a court of law.

A course could impress upon them that their chances of obtaining suitable employment could be greatly impaired. Most state and federal civil service applications, and many other job applications, ask, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" In a survey of thirty-four large employers in Georgia, all but one questioned applicants regarding criminal records. It is not only that criminal records cannot be concealed but an unsuccessful attempt to conceal one is disastrous since most employers state that failure of applicant to disclose his previous record results in his not being hired.41
A course program could inform students on the specific punishment for the various type of crimes. For instance, they could be taught that breaking and entering (burglary) carries imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than one year nor more than 20 years. Another example is that robbery is punishable by imprisonment for not less than two years nor more than 20 years. They should be taught the effect of commiting one of these felonies, since they

can be treated as adults because Georgia's Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction over felony cases in the Superior Courts of the State. As a matter of practice, many juvenile cases are handled in Juvenile Court even though the defendants are charged with a felony, but this is only because the Superior Court is concurring in the action of the Juvenile Court and because the higher court deems it best under some circumstances to consider the case in Juvenile Court. It must be impressed upon youths that conviction of a felony would probably prevent their receiving a passport to travel outside this country or to serve in its armed forces. Upon conviction of a felony a person becomes a kind of second-class citizen, and even though pardoned later with restored rights, he can do nothing to clear his record.
This instruction could be enriched if teachers utilize community expertise from policemen, judges, social workers, probation officers, lawyers and even criminals or ex -criminals.
The Commission recommends that:
The State School System courses on social studies include, starting with the first grade, the value of law and its effect upon citizens. Specifically, the high school curriculum should include a program to educate the students on crime and its punishment and the effect ofcommitting crimes.
Other Prevention Programs
Georgia is spending increasing funds each year to care for juveniles after they get into trouble with the law. The majority of these expenditures goes toward institutional care, which is the most expensive treatment program and, for many children, the least effective. Probation services throughout the State are segmented and, in some instances, are so minimal that they exist in name only. These services are often handicapped by insufficient personnel, untrained staffs, and, even more basically, lack of community resources.
Any program designed to promote the well-being of children is a program of delinquency prevention. Schools, health programs, public welfare, recreation, churches, and voluntary social agencies all share in this responsibility. However, there is a need to develop a broader base of programs designed specifically to meet the needs of the potentially and presently delinquent child.
The most energetic and effective delinquency prevention programs observed in the communities visited are being conducted by law enforcement agencies. The Bibb County Sheriffs Department sponsors a program for juveniles known as the Junior Deputy Sheriffs League. This crime prevention program is designed to reach boys before they come in conflict with the law. When the program began in 1962, monthly classroom discussions were conducted in sixth-grade classes in six schools located in high

81

delinquency areas. These discussions covered such topics as firearms safety, crime detection, civil defense , traffic safety and citizenship. The present program, which has retained these topics and added social and recreational activities, now reaches all forty-two grammar schools in Bibb County.
A recently developed program in Muscogee County is conducted by the Columbus Police Department. This program is limited to boys who have been placed on probation by the Juvenile Court. A boy is given the option of attending bi-monthly meetings at the police department or coming in to see his probation officer. The police program is designed to develop an interest in law enforcement procedures, thereby increasing the juvenile's respect for an trust in the law. Emphasis is placed on " physical, social, moral and spiritual growth ," with athletic participation and in-depth review of police activities.
The Augusta Police Department in Richmond County has a "public relations" program which was developed to improve the public's attitude toward law enforcement. The Augusta program includes a schedule of fllms involved with law enforcement activities and discussions related to law enforcement. In discussions with civic, church, school and other groups, the public is urged to communicate grievances regarding police actions to department officials. When speaking to school groups, the officers emphasize the importance of remaining in school.
The Savannah Police Department's Community Relations Section is designed to change the attitudes in high crime rate neighborhoods toward the law and law enforcement officers. The community relations officers sponsor social and recreational activities, conduct field trips, recommend sources of employment and welfare benefits, and work closely with schools to reach juveniles. These officers live in their assigned areas and often visit homes of neighborhood residents to improve communications between the department and the community.
Other community programs were observed in the four counties, including counseling and evaluation clinics, psychiatric services of local health departments, and programs sponsored by civic, professional and church groups .
The Commission recommends that:
Preventive programs now under way under the sponsorship of law enforcement departments should be strengthened and extended throughout the State. These should be cordinated with other program~ in the community which share in this responsibility.
Local citizens and community groups should be assisted with planning and implementing youth programs.

Community Service Officer.
A high delinquency rate in specific parts of the larger towns and cities in Georgia is quite common ; in fact the pattern is very similar throughout the United States. Therefore, in any plan to reduce delinquency these sections of the city provide natural starting places for preventive programs.
Authorities have found that while juveniles often resist lectures, appeals and even handouts , they respond to opportunities for responsible involvement. It was on this basis that the City of Atlanta adopted a pioneer program of a Community Service officer.
In May, 1968, with a $90,000 budget the Crime . Prevention Bureau of the Atlanta Police Department started a test program with fifty Community Service officers. These officers were hired to work in the neighborhoods in which they live. They are issued police uniforms but carry no guns and have no power of arrest. The pay is $13 .85 per day for eight hours of duty.
These officers were hired to help in the community in any way possible, such as help operate community centers, plan neighborhood organizations and improvement efforts, and develop programs that will attract other youths. The officers hope to improve communications between the generations. They perform a variety of duties short of exercising full law enforcement powers, with primary emphasis on Community Service work, and they assist the Crime Prevention officer in that area.
The Community Service officer in Atlanta is a young man between 17 and 25, with the aptitude, integrity and stability necessary to perform police work. There are no minimum educational requirements, and a young man might be accepted as a Community Service officer despite a minor offense record ; otherwise it might be difficult to recruit members of minority groups for this job.
It is hoped that in time many of these Community Service officers will be able to qualify for positions as regular police officers. Within the first twenty days after the announcement of such a program the Atlanta Police Department had over 300 applicants.
The test program for Community Service officers in Atlanta was to expire as of October 1, 1968. Chief Herbert Jenkins and other authorities in Atlanta have been so impressed with the initial results that funds for continuation of the program have been requested from the Board of Aldermen.
Under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, provisions allow communities to apply and receive funds for recruiting, organizing, training and educating Community Service officers to serve with local and state law enforcement agencies. In addition funds are available for compensation of these officers on a proportional basis.
The Commission recommends that:
The larger Georgia cities and towns launch programs to establish community service officers.

82

Treatment Programs

Probation and aftercare services can come from a variety

of sources in the State. In counties where there is a

juvenile court, most counties employ juvenile probation

officers who are responsible for pre-hearing investiga-

tions and probation supervision. In this case, state court

service workers are responsible for the aftercare of juve-

;

niles returning to the county from Youth Development

Centers. In counties where there is no juvenile probation

officers, court service workers are responsible for both pro-

bation services and aftercare.

However, there are variations in these procedures. In one circuit, the Superior Court Judge refused court service workers. Three of the four counties in this circuit haye no county probation officers, and none of the four has a juvenile court. In one circuit, there is one court service worker, a Negro, who handles aftercare for Negroes only. In at least four counties the State Probation Officer handles juvenile cases. No person interviewed had a clear picture of the total statewide procedure for probation and aftercare services.

The nature of probation and aftercare services, regardless of their source, consists largely of traditional pre-hearing investigation reports made either to the Juvenile Court or Superior Court Judge , and supervision , including counseling and community follow-up. Aftercare services largely follow the pattern of probation supervision, with primary emphasis placed on re-entry into the academic, social and vocational community.

When the State Board for Children and Youth was organized in 1963, one of its first goals was to provide local services for juvenile offenders. In 1964, the General Assembly made the first appropriation to establish a Court Services Section. As of July 1, 1967, 40 court service workers were employed in 39 judicial circuits providing probation and aftercare services to juvenile offenders referred to the Juvenile Courts. As of August, 1968, 39 court service workers have been employed in 39 judicial circuits. In 19 of the 155 counties served by court service workers, the workers provide aftercare only . In the other 136 counties the court service worker provides both aftercare and probation supervision.

When juveniles arrive at the Youth Development Center, they are wards of the court. After serving an unspecified period in the Center, they are released to the State Department of Family and Children Services. During the stay at the institution, the court service worker in the juvenile's county of residence evaluates the home environment and consults with the Youth Development Center regarding a release date for the juvenile. The aftercare program consists primarily of casework services, including counseling and referral to other agencies, such as the State Department of Labor, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Divisions of Vocational Rehabilitation and Vocational Education.

Juveniles receive aftercare supervision from six months to a year, with home and/or office visits, with court service workers scheduled from weekly to bimonthly visits. The length of supervision and the frequency of counseling sessions depend upon the adjustment of the child and the stability of his home and community environment.
It can be concluded that the statewide procedures for providing probation supervision and aftercare is, at best, confusing. State agencies - the State Department of Probation and Family and Children Services, 19 county juvenile court probation staffs, and numerous county and police probation officers - provide the probation services for juveniles in Georgia. In this study no attempt was found on the state level to coordinate or even measure the total range of services available - efforts which might be vital to statewide planning for personnel and program needs. Further, a wide range between the experiential and educational levels of the probation personnel was noted. One county with eight juvenile probation officers listed only one college graduate .

TREATMENT AND DETENTION FACILITIES

The facilities for confinement of the youthful offender

in Georgia fall into one of four categories: county

detention centers, Regional Youth Development Centers,

Statewide Youth Development Centers, or State Depart-

ment of Corrections facilities. In some counties, juveniles

are confmed unofficially in ja.tls pendmg theu transfer to

tTlese facilities. Also, less serious delinquency cases may be

temporarily housed in unofficial foster homes. Unlike in !fie past, ~ g.ounties__are reluctant, if not unwilling, to

place juveniles in jails along with adult prisoners. .

-

Detention Facilities
Tables 60 and 61 summarize the procedures to be followed to secure detention for juveniles. The two major categories are urban detention centers and Regional Youth Development Centers. There are currently seven urban centers and six Regional Development Centers These charts indicate the broad coverage these facilitie deten 1on.
County Detention Centers
Seven urban counties operate their own deteQ.!ion facilities to serve juveniles. These facilities also serve youths from adjoining counties awaiting court hearings or admission to one of the State Youth Development Centers, or serving disciplinary sentences imposed by the Juvenile Cour These centers are supported by county and state allocations with free detention service provided to nearby counties. The seven urban centers located in Bibb, Chatham, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton and Muscogee counties ~ry in facilities, staff, programs and capacity, ranging-ff'om a capacity for 26 in Muscogee County to 144

83

TABLE 60

PROCEDURES FOR PLACEMENT IN JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS

The Regional Youth Development Centers will accept children in need of detention from the assigned counties.

Albany

Augusta

Gainesville

Baker Ben Hill Calhoun Clay Colquitt Crisp Decatur Dooley Dougherty Early Grady Irwin Lee Macon Miller Mitchell Quitman Randolph Schley Seminole Stewart Sumter Terrell Thomas Tift Turner Webster Wilcox Worth Rome

Burke Candler Columbia Emanuel Glascock Jefferson Jenkins Lincoln McDuffie Richmond Screven Taliaferro Warren Wilkes

Banks Barrow Clarke Dawson Elbert Forsyth Franklin Habersham Hall Hart Jackson Lumpkin Madison Oconee Oglethorpe Rabun Stephens Towns Unions Walton White

Sandersville

Waycross

Bartow Catoosa Chattooga Cherokee Dade Douglas Fannin Floyd Gilmer Gordon Haralson Murray Paulding Pickens Polk Walker Whitfield

Baldwin Bleckley Dodge Greene Hancock Jasper Johnson Jones Laurens Montgomery Morgan Pulaski Putnam Telfair Toombs Treutlen Twiggs Washington Wheeler Wilkinson

Appling Atkinson Bacon Berrien Brantley Brooks Camden Charlton Clinch Coffee Cook Echols Glynn Jeff Davis Lanier Long Lowndes Mcintosh Pierce Tattnall Ware Wayne

TABLE 61
PROCEDURES FOR PLACEMENT IN URBAN DETENTION CENTERS
Below is a list of all counties served by urban detention centers, showing which center to call first and an alternate center in case the frrst ne has no space available . lf both centers are filled, the state office in Atlanta gives assistance in locating detention space.

County

Detention Center Alternate

Bibb Bryan Bulloch Butts Carroll Chatham Chattahoochee
Cla~ton
Cobb Coweta Crawford DeKalb Effingham Evans Fayette Fulton Gwinnett Harris Heard Henry Houston Lamar Liberty Marion Meriwether Monroe Muscogee Newton Peach Pike Rockdale Spalding Talbot Taylor Troup Upson

Bibb

Chatham

Chatham

Clayton Cobb

"

Chatham

Muscogee

Clayton

Cobb

Cobb

Bibb

DeK.alb

Chatham

Chatham

Fulton

Fulton

DeKalb

Muscogee

Cobb

Clayton

Bibb

Clayton

Chatham

Muscogee

Cobb

Clayton

Muscogee

DeKalb

Bibb

Fulton

DeKalb

Fulton

Muscogee

Muscogee

Cobb

Bibb

Waycross RYDC Sandersville RYDC Bibb Fulton
Bibb
Fulton Muscogee
Sandersville RYDC Waycross RYDC Clayton
Fulton Bibb Muscogee Fulton Muscogee Bibb Waycross RYDC Bibb Musco gee Bibb
Clayton Muscogee Clayton Clayton Clayton Bibb Bibb Muscogee Clayton

E! Fulton Coun_1y. During a th~ee-month period in 19~8 ,

to the State Division of Children and Youth. Further, the

3,909 juveniles were housed m these centers, totalling 34,770 child-care days.42
Table 62 summarizes statistics reported to the Division
lfile of Children and Youth by the detention centers. large

centers must provide confinement for juveniles, ranging from non-delinquent neglect and dependency cases to serious ajudicated offenders. Providing secure facilities is definitely a problem in centers largely understaffed with

number of juveniles going through the centers in the

inadequate night supervision.

five-county metropolitan Atlanta area depicts the senous

As stated, the State Department of Family and Children

juvenile delinquency problem in this area. The table also

Service Division of Youth and Children allocates funds to

indicat the small capacity for juvenile detention in the ;1 1t contribute to the support of these centers in exchange for

State. The 451 beds at the county detentiOn centers, added

free detention services for adjoining counties. However, the

to the 210 beds in the Regional Youth Development

supervision and/or evaluation of the programs of the

Centers , hardly offer adequate facilities for the temporary

centers is largely unstructured even though the centers

..

confinement of the State's juvenile offenders . )

represent a very crucial source of pre-admission confinement facilities for juveniles going to a Youth Development

Center. Centers submit monthly reports indicating numbers

of children confined from outside counties, but few

indicate the number of county residents confined or any

Bibb

Table 62
URBAN DETENTJON CENTERS: Capacity and Child Care Days
During April, May, and June, 1968
blY center

County Resi-
Capacity dents

Child Care Days

County Residents

36 51 615 214

Child Care Days
279?

other statistics.
The Commission recommends that: The State should establish operational standards for local detention and should give consultant services to the centers subsidized by the State. State funds

Chatham Clayton

42 21 446 395 60 14 355 108

3812 1155

allocated to these centers should be directed toward the refinement of programs and increased services. There should be continuous coordination between

Cobb DeKalb Fulton

75 48 68 . 24 144 43

923 208 3842

-

397 451

3237

862 1914 14,130

the State and local law enforcement officials to insure that the state detention centers are being fully and properly utilized. There should also be a clear understanding between the jurisdiction of the local authorities and the State in regard to procedures for

Muscogee

26

5

31 168 2169

detention.

TOTAL

451 20' 6 3629 3458 31 '141

Major problems observed in the centers visited were primarily related to staffmg, security, and facilities. At the time of the study, one center had only one part-time teacher and no classroom space . Another center had an adequate teaching staff but no space suitable for classroom instruction . Facilities were generally quite drab in the three centers and "institutional" in appearance. Only limited recreational programs were available because of limited resources, space, and numbers of instructors. Security measures ranged from overly restrictive in one center to relatively lax in another.
Disregarding the problems briefly reviewed above, the study fmds that the urban centers are performing a very basic function : that of limiting juvenile confinement in local jails. The centers must deal with overcrowding attributed to waiting lists for admission to State Youth Development Centers. Several centers indicated some juveniles waiting as long as five and six months for transfer

Regional Youth Development Centers
With the opening of the Regional Youth Development Center in Gainesville on September 1, 1968, there is now a statewide network of six regional facilities for temporary confinement of thirty juveniles each. The centers are located in Albany, Waycross, Sandersville, Rome, Augusta and Gainesville so that "there will be adequate facilities for juvenile custody within an hour's ride of any point in Georgia .. ." 43 The six centers operate under a plan contemplated to provide that all juveniles requiring detention may be admitted at one or the other.
The average length of confinement in the Regional Centers is three weeks, one and eight-tenths days, with periods of detention ranging from a few days to four months. The following chart represents comparative figures for a five-month period in 1967 and the same period in 1968 regarding the numbers of juveniles in the Regional Centers awaiting admission to State Youth Development Centers.

85

TABLE 63

Comparative Figures of Juveniles

-A-:w-aitilA! prAildtmhrisosuiognh

to Youth Development August, 1967 and 19

Centers

Month
April May June July August

1967
No. Awaiting Admission
.;v I 79
123 102 109 86
ifZiCI

1968
No. Awaiting Admission
t ;k 109 . '128 15l 143
&~;;v

These figures are significant indicators of increased juvenile caseloads. Because there has been little, if any , increase in the capacities of the State Youth Development Centers since their designation in 1963, their populations are controlled. It is the backloads in the county centers and the Regional Centers which, over time , have increased to critical proportions.
The Regional Detention Centers all operate under the same general pattern. The institutions are modern and functional in construction. The general architecture provides for adequate separation of the 30 children in terms of their age and sex. Living quarters are all single rooms. Both the boys' and girls' units have a general-purpose room which is large enough for quiet games, reading, and writing. The facilities also provide for a classroom. The living units are built in a quadrangle which encloses a large room used for eating. This room is also large enough for active recreational activities. The facilities provide for close custodial control but are attractive and do not over-emphasize security. A modern control system is in operation which permits lock control of individual rooms and units and also provides for audio control in any area. At the two centers studies, the food was nourishing and tasty, and a review of menus indicated that the meals were well balanced.
Observation of staff indicated a relaxed and personal relationship with the children, with a general sense of firmness and orderliness. Emphasis is placed on good eating habits, manners, and general standards of good conduct.
Staffmg patterns at the five institutions are uniform. In addition to the superintendent, there are thirteen other employees. These include nine house-parents, one teacher, and a supporting staff of cooks and maintenance personnel. Cottage parents are on the same payscale as the Youth Development Centers. The system provides for one house-parent at the House-parent II level entrance salary of $325 a month. The others are at the basic $295 a month rate. This permits the centers to operate on a forty-hour week on eight-hour shifts. Attendants are provided for the

first sixteen hours - one in the boys' unit and one in the girls' unit. During the remaining eight hours one attendant is there to cover the entire institution .
There is no provision for medical diagnoses , but physician service is available from the community. Medical care is limited to illnesses or other physical crises when a doctor is called, as he would be for anyone else in the community. Chaplain services are also available from the community.
In summary, the study found that although originally designed to provide short-term diagnostic detention , the facilities do not provide any diagnostic services. An attempt is made to maintain children's progress records which are available to the committing agency and to the state court service worker. Close liaison seems to be maintained between the court service worker and the institutions. However, the present staffing does not permit the detention centers to be used as study and diagnostic centers. Additional staff, particularly in the area of social, psychological or psychiatric services, would add greatly to the program provided by the centers and would offer the courts additional information in determining suitable plans or dispositions for the children.
The Commission recommends that:
The state regional detention centers and local detention centers should be provided the staff and resources required to extend diagnostic and social services for all children. This information should be made available to the courts in making dispositions of cases and to state court service workers so that, where possible, alternate plans rather than institutionalization can be developed.
Treatment Facilities
The two categories of treatment facilities in Georgia are provided by the Department of Family and Children Services and the State Department of Corrections. Juveniles who are tried under adult procedures in Superior Court are committed to the State Department of Corrections. Juveniles tried under juvenile procedures are committed to the Division of Children and Youth.
State Youth Development Centers
The practice of committing children to the Division of Family and Children Services began on July 1, 1965 . Until then , children had been committed by the court to a specific Youth Development Center, either Milledgeville or Augusta for boys or white girls to Adamsville and Negro girls to Augusta. Under the present system, the Division is able to work out other pians for some children to prevent the necessity of their being admitted to one of the centers. Most of these children remain in their own homes under supervision of the Division staff. In many cases early release dates have been arranged because of the increased

86

discretion given to the Division under the central

commitment program.



At present, the State Youth Development Center

program consists of three institutions with a fourth, the

Macon Center, under construction. Boys 14 and under are

committed to the Augusta Center, boys between the ages of

14 and 17 are committed to Milledgeville, and girls are

committed either to Adamsville or Augusta. The Macon

Center for 150 girls is being constructed to relieve the

overcrowding at Adamsville and to take the Negro girls out

of Augusta. Although the Division is officially integrated,

there remains some vestige of the old system as apparent

from the commitment of the majority of Negro girls to

Augusta and an all-Negro unit at Milledgeville.

Each of the three centers was visited by the study team

during May and June, 1968. Since only one day was spent

at each center, the main emphasis was placed on deriving

general descriptions of programs, analyses of facilities, and

reviews of staffmg procedures. Obviously, these studies

were not of adequate intensity to merit the formation of

in-depth evaluations of center activities. The recently

published report of the Peabody College Study of the

Milledgeville Center describes the type of intensive survey which is needed in the other two centers.44 However, in

the following sections, the centers will be only briefly

described, emphasizing their most salient problems.

Several general problem areas were observed in each of the centers. Overcrowding, insufficient facilities , low salary levels and intra-institutional communication problems hindered administrations to varying degrees. The Adamsville Center particularly lacked post-release community resources for girls who could not be returned to their home environments. Girls were being kept as long as two to four years because of a dearth of programs to provide supervision for older females being returned to the community. The programs for boys were characterized by too brief confinements, averaging around eight months. Because of the large waiting lists in the Regional and County Detention Centers, boys were being released from the Youth Development Centers much earlier than desired by Center personnel.

1

One problem mentioned at each of the centers and by

State Department personnel concerned the wide range of

characteristics of the children. Although no one had actual

figures , everyone interviewed referred to "large percent-

ages" of severely emotionally disturbed, mentally retarded,

and overly aggressive, sophisticated children who, of

necessity, were confmed along with the younger, less

serious offenders. Excessive run-away rates at each

institution were directly attributed, in part, to the inability

of Center security measures to restrain youngsters who

repeatedly escaped. There are a number of possibilities for

reuse of present facilities . The superintendent at the

Augusta Center plans to use the current girls' cottages for

special treatment units when the girls are transferred to

Macon. The superintendent at Milledgeville has already

vacated one cottage and is changing his program to provide

special treatment for the "sick" child. The West Campus, which provides its own dining facilities an.d recreation area, is also under consideration for use as a special unit for the more sophisticated juvenile. It has been necessary for the Augusta Center to use an abandoned prison camp on the grounds for the detention of the repeated runaway. This is a poorly equipped building and, while it provides some security, it is not conducive to anything but confinement.
Salary scales at the Centers provide a source of personnel discontent. A cottage parent's entrance salary is among the lowest in the State, and there is relatively little promotional opportunity. Competition with other state departments, particularly with the Department of Health, is making staff recruitment increasingly difficult. At Augusta there was no promotional structure for the house-parent position, while there was a House-parent I and a House-parent II level at Milledgeville and Adamsville, providing for some advancement beyond the beginning scale. Augusta house-parents' salaries were clustered at the beginning level of $295 per month. The top salary in this scale is $396 per month, whereas the House-parent II scale reaches $436 . Other salary discrepancies were noted at Augusta, where the recreational leaders earn as much as the graduate social workers and psychological aids with B.A. degrees earn almost $100 more per month than the social work aides with equal education.
The number of cottage staff is also extremely limited. The insufficient night coverage of the institutions, particularly at Augusta and Milledgeville, is dangerous. Children are left unsupervised during part of the waking hours and are dependent upon cottage-parents at Milledgeville sleeping in the cottage in case of emergencies. Cottage-parents are working extremely long hours and are supervising as many as 50 children during their tours of duty. Educational and other treatment programs will not be effective unless adequate staff is provided for the cottage life program which influences most of the hours of the children's stay at the Centers. The recent Peabody Study of the Milledgeville institution appears to be a sound one and points out many areas which can be improved.
Although the programs conducted at the three centers first seem to be similar, closer review reveals a number of inconsistencies. For example, the school program at Augusta is essentially ungraded , whereas Adamsville and Milledgeville assign the children to definite grade levels. In the cottage life programs, cottage-parents are assigned under a variety of schedules. At only one center were house-parents on an eight-hour shift. This variation is owing primarily to a lack of sufficient staff. The relationship of social services to other programs varies from center to center. At Adamsville and Augusta the social workers are located in the cottages with close association with children and house-parents. At Milledgeville the social workers are assigned to specific cottages but their offices are in the administration building, not in the cottages. Some difference of opinion exists between the centers as to appropriate use of social services. Further, some variations,

87

such as those relating to the vocational programs, are related to the age and sex of the children in the individual center.
In summary, the study finds that the Youth Development Centers are filled to capacity, and children are waiting as long as three months for admission. Programs are positive and treatment oriented. Staff concern for the individual child is evident. Administrative and professional personnel are relatively adequate. However, the centers are dangerously under manned in cottage parents - the group which has the most extensive contact with children. Staff in some instances are with children on twelve-hour shifts and must remain on call the other twelve hours. Salaries are among the lowest in the State, and few promotional opportunities are available. Physical facilities are well maintained but not adequate to provide for the older, more sophisticated delinquent and the emotionally disturbed and retarded child.
The Commission recommends that:
An extensive program of group homes and halfway houses should be established to care for the delinquent in lieu of institutional care and serve as a transition between the institution and re-entry into the community.
A special institution should be constructed for the custody and treatment of those children not suitable for care in the other Youth Development Centers. The projected capacity of this institution should be based on a detailed review of the characteristics of children cu"ently in the institutions.

Georgia Industrial Institute at Alto
The Georgia Training and Industrial Center located at Alto is operated by the State Board of Corrections. This institution, which has been designated for the youth offender, has a capacity for 1,000 inmates. The majority of prisoners are in a group over 20 in age. However, in addition to the juveniles now confmed there, there is a group of older prisoners at the institution who are used for general maintainance and work details. Except for limited segregation cells, the design of the institution provides for open dormitories and central mess facilities without special units for the separation of younger offenders from the older-age group.
Strenuous efforts have been made to renovate the physical plant, and additional facilities have been provided for vocational and academic training. An academic school is operated by the local county school system, with attendance primarily on a voluntary basis. Diagnostic services are limited. While the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation is providing counselor services for some inmates, it does not provide for the younger age-group who are not old enough to enter the labor market. There are no programs designed specifically for juveniles, and it is not the function of this institution to provide such services.
Experiences have shown that juvenile offenders require special programs, treatment and attention which cannot adequately be provided under adult correctional systems without the establishment of special institutions and treatment centers. To develop special programs for juveniles in the Department of Corrections would result in the duplication of services, resources, staff and facilities which are the responsibility of the Youth Division.
THE ALTO STUDY

The facilities of the Youth Development Centers should be studied to determine if they can be redesigned to accommodate the atypical child who does not require care in a special institution.
Additional cottage staff should be provided the Youth Development Centers to insure adequate supervision at all times. The staffchild ratio on all tours of duty needs to be greatly reduced.
In-depth studies of the youth development centers should be conducted similar to that recently completed for Milledgeville by Peabody State Teachers College.
Programs at Youth Development Centers should be expanded to include more participation in local church, school, recreation and work programs.

Background to the Study
One of the most crucial decisions in the disposition of juveniles concerns the appropriate procedure to be followed - juvenile or adult.
Figures indicate an increase in the percentage of jtWeniles being committed to the Department of Corrections. Commitments in the age group 18 and under increased from 810 to 894 during this period, representing 16.1 percent of all commitments in 1967, compared with 10 percent in 1960. Although the lack of consistent records in Georgia prevents any definite statement regarding trends in Superior Court hearing of juveniles, it is safe to say that a considerable number are being treated as adults. It is because of this number that the study team attempted to determine the basis for choosing Superior Court procedure over Juvenile Court procedure .
In the counties visited, judges and juvenile court probation officers were questioned regarding the rationale for selecting the final court of hearing. In almost every case the answers pointed to a set of conditions which were

88

weighed before the decision was reached. Among these conditions were, in order, the offense committed, the age of the offender, previous record, home environment, attitude of the offender, resources of the community to serve the juvenile, and behavior of the juvenile following apprehension and pending disposition. If these factors are, indeed, weighed as carefully as the interviewees indicated, the populations at the Youth Development Centers and the Departments of Corrections facilities should be significantly
different.

Findings of the Study
Personal Characteristics of the Two Groups
The table presented below summarizes the age and racial characteristics of the two groups studied. As the table indicates, the majority of the juveniles committed to Alto are Negro, whereas the majority of the Youth Development Center commitments were white. Eighteen inmates at Alto were under fifteen - FIVE OF THESE UNDER FOURTEEN.

Methodology of the Study
To determine if these differences do exist, a survey was made of the population of the Alto institution to identify all juveniles 16 and under, as of January 31, 1968 . A complete record check of these juveniles was conducted. A follow-u p check was performed by court service workers to determine the past records of the youngsters in their home counties. Once these checks were concluded, a random matched sample of juveniles confined in State Youth Development Centers was selected and a similar study of their records completed.
An initial review of the Alto roster showed 191 inmates had been sentenced to Alto while under 17. Of these, 90 were under 17 as of January 31, 1968, when the study began. Three of the 90 were excluded because of a lack of any basic information in their flies . The sample at the Youth Development Centers was selected on the basis of age at the time of the study. A questionnaire was prepared and information was gathered from the files at Alto and the Youth Development Centers. Questionnaires were sent to the court service workers and State Probation officers to verify certain information and to obtain additional data. In some cases visits were made to the juveniles' communities to obtain information not available in their records. The original survey form was altered several times when it became apparent that many flies at Alto did not include even basic information such as previous offenses, family background and school records.
The following sections summarize the results of the
study.

Previous Commitments Of particular interest were the numbers of commitments of each group to Alto, a Youth Development Center or other institutions. Table 65 on page 90 presents this information. It shows 28.7 percent of the Youth Development Center group had previous commitment whereas 72.4 percent of the Alto group had been confined in some institution. Except for a few cases, those having previous commitments had been confined in a Youth Development Center.
Previous Offenses Table 66 on page 90 reflects only slight differences in the percentages of children having committed previous offenses confined in Alto and the Youth Development Centers. However, even though these differences were small, they showed fewer offenses in the Youth Development Center group and larger numbers for Alto inmates.
Offense for Which Committe~ The nature of the offense committed was listed most often by persons interviewed as a basis for deciding proccedure for court hearing. Therefore, the study team was particularly interested in comparing the two groups on this point. However, the nature of the reports in both groups prevented such a comparison. At the Youth

Table 64

AGE BY RACE AND PLACE OF CONFINEMENT

.,

Age

12

13

14

15

16

TOTAL

White 1 1 3 5
13 23 (26%)

Alto
Negro 2 1
10 9 42 64 (74%)

Total 3 2
13 14 55 87

Youth Development Centers

White 1 1 6 7
34 49 (56%)

Negro 2 1 7 7 21 38 (44%)

Total 3 2
13 14 55 87

89

Previous Times
None 1 2 3 4 TOTAL

Table 65
PREVIOUS COMMITMENTS AT ALTO, YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTERS OR OTHER INSTITUTIONS

None
24

Alto
1

24

1

Alto

YDC Other

No.

24

34

35

14

3

17

10

10

1

1

59

3

87

%
27.6 4 0 .2 19.5 11.5
1.1 -

None
62

Youth Development Centers

. Alto

YDC Other

No.
62

15

5

20

4

4

1

1

62

0

20

5

87

%
71.3 23 .0
4 .7 1 .1
-

Table 66 PREVIOUS OFFENSES By Age and Place of Confinement

No. of

Alto

Youth Development Centers

Offences 12

13

14

15

16

No.

%

12

13

14

15

16

No.

0

1

1

7

9

10.3

1

1

2

1

6

11

1

1

4

7

12

13.8

6

13

19

2

2

2

8

12

13 .8

3

5

10

18

3

2

4

7

13

14.9

1

1

1

12

15

4

3

4

7

8 .0

1

4

6

11

5

1

1

1

1

7

11

12.6

1

3

4

6

1

1

7

9

10 .3

1

1

2

7

1

1

1

3

3.4

1

1

8

1

1

2

2 .3

1

2

3

9

1

1

1.1

10

1

1

1

5

8

9 .2

2

3

%
12.6 21.8 20 .7 17.2 12.6 4 .6
2 .3 1.1 3.4
3.4

Development Centers the juveniles are committed for being delinquent. General descriptions of offenses, such as larceny, which can be either a felony or a misdemeanor made a classification of offenses according to the major felony versus misdemeanor categories impossible. The Alto records were more specific, yielding extensive distribution in the felony category . Table 67 summarizes this distribution .
Circuits From Which Committed
Table 68 on page 91 ' summarizes the commitments of the two groups by community . The table indicates the Augusta Circuit committed 41 (47 percent) of the total Alto group studied. This circuit was also responsible for the
90

Table 67 OFFENSE FOR WHICH COMMITTED
ALTO

Delinquent

12

13 14

15

16 Total

0

Conduct

Misdemeanor Felony Capital (2 Murders) TOTAL

2

2

3 2 13 14 36 78

7

7

3 2 13 14 55 87

Table 68 CIRCUITS FROM WHICH COMMITTED

Alto

Youth Development Centers

Circuits

12 13 14 15 16 No.

% 12 13 14 15 16 No.

%

Alapaha Atlanta Atlantic

1

1 2 2.3

1

6

7

8.0 1

4 5 5.7

1

1 1 3 3.4

Augusta Blue Ridge

3 2 9 7 20 41 47.1 1

1

1

1.1

1 3 7 12 13.8 2 2 2.3

Brunswick

Chattahoochee

Cobb

[

Conasauga

Cordele

Coweta

Dougherty

Eastern

Flint

Griffin

Gwinnet

Lookout Mt.

Macon

2

1

3

3.4

1

2

3

3.4

2

2

2.3

3

3

3.4

1

1

1.1

4

4

4.6

2 5

2

9 10.3

2

2 2.3

4 4 4.6

1 1 1.1

3 3 3.4

2 2 2.3

2 2 2.3

2 2 4 4 .6

1 1

2 4 4.6

1 1 1.1

1 1 1.1

1 1 1.1

2 2 2.3

3 2 3 8 9.2

Mountain Northeastern Northern Ocmulgee Ogeechee Pataula Rome South Georgia Southern Southwestern Stone Mt.

1

1

1.1

3

3

3.4

3

3

3.4

1

1

1.1 1

1

1

1.1

2 2 2.3

1

1 2 2.3

1

2 3 3.4

1 1 2 2.3

1 1 1.1

1 1 1.1

1

1 1.1

1 1 2 2.3

1 1 2 2.3

1

2 2.3

3 3 3.4

Tallapoosa Tifton Toombs

2

2

2.3

1 1 1.1 1 1 1.1

Waycross Unidentified

2

2

2.3

1 1 1.1

3 1

4 4.6

91

largest percentage of Youth Development Center commitments - 13 .8 percent. The Alto commitments were all concentrated in 17 circuits , whereas the Youth Development Center commitments were more evenly distributed over the 34 circuits. Five circuits were not represented in either group. Court judges of these circuits do not rely on the Youth Development Centers. A follow-up of this finding in the Augusta Circuit confirmed this theory. The large number of runaways from the Augusta Youth Development Center who get into trouble in Richmond County are being heard eventually in the Superior Court in the circuit. They have committed numerous offenses and the juvenile procedure have failed to provide the secure confinement necessary in their cases. Therefore , Alto was their only alternative .
Of particular interest was the discovery that the only two circuits where the Superior Court judges had not sought the services of State Court Service Workers were the same ones contributing the largest and second largest numbers of children 16 and under to Alto .

reflect a justification for hear ing cases in Superior Court versus Juvenile Court. However, the difference is not so great as to indicate a clear delineation be tween one procedure and anoth er. The data indicated a rising scale of involvement with the law , beginning with non-commitment offenses and terminating with many offenses and several commitments at Alto. Perhaps an institution one step above the Youth Development Centers as currently organized would end the progression before eventual confinement at Alto.
The Commission recommends that:
Those juveniles under seventeen at Alto should be transferred to the Youth Division under the provisions of the statute which authorized such transfer. This should be accomplished as soon as suitable facilities can be provided for the Youth Division.

Summary
What began as a complete statistical and sociological comparison of the total group of juveniles 16 and under at Alto and a matched sample at the Youth Development Centers was prevented by the incredibly poor records at Alto .
The researcher reviewed the files in the central office of the institution . While other records were kept in the Vocational Rehabilitation Division, the counselors' offices, and teachers' files contained no records covering the total program of the inmate , his social history, or previous record. Efforts were being made at the time of the study to centralize records ; however, this had not been accomplished to any noticeable degree . Poor condition of the records was attributed to an earlier practice whereby the inmates maintained the files.
Some files at Alto contained only a few items although none were complete . The ages given by the " inmates" were unconfirmed . When the juveniles were admitted , they were asked if they wanted to go to school. If they said , " no ," the y were not placed in a school program . However, since the records were so segmented , it was impossible to know how many were in school without an extensive search through individual records kept in several places. Further, it became impossible to reach valid conclusions about the social backgrounds of the Alto group since this information often had been omitted from the records.
The items that were included in the study indicated that the groups are differe nt , although the significance of this difference is questionable. Mainly, the difference is one of degree. Both groups had previous offenses, but the Alto group had more commitments. The results of the study

Statistical Data and Records
This study concludes there are large gaps in information, inconsistency and lack of uniformity in statistical data and inadequate records relating to the characteristics of individual delinquents. Definitions and statistical systems vary between jurisdictions and between agencies within jurisdictions. Exchange of information and data between agencies is informal, sporatic or non-existent. This makes it difficult to determine trends in delinquency rates or to secure firm data on which priorities may be established and long-range plans developed .
The Commission recommends that:
A Central Information Service should be established in the Youth Division of the Department of Family and Children Services.
A statistical reporting system should be developed by the Central Information Service. It should include uniform definition of offenses, dispositions and other pertinent data.
Legislation should be enacted to require state agencies, courts and law enforcement agencies to submit such information as is necessary to maintain comprehensive, current state-wide data.
The Juvenile Information Center should periodically publish all pertinent data required to provide exchange of information between jurisdictions and agencies and to furnish data for research, evaluation and planning.
The confiden tiality of information regarding the individual juvenile should be safeguarded at all times.

92

Pornography
Until the early 1950's, obscene material or pronography was sold privately or under the counter. Therefore , there was less chance that this material would reach the hands of juveniles. Recent Supreme Court decisions on what constitutes obscenity have allowed hard pornography to become readily available nearly at every newstand across the country. The Georgia situation is no different, since th ere are big profits in this material and sellers are only too willing to deal with purchasers of all ages. To appreciate the amount of this obscene material that is readily available , one has only to step into almost any of the local newstands in any part of Georgia and observe the hundreds of books and magazines displayed for sale.
Much of this obscene material appears in paperback editions featuring lesbianism, incest, perversion , sadism, and homosexuality . Copies sell for as little as ninety-five cents and as much as four dollars, but they are within the economic range of most juveniles. In addition to these paperbacks, there are hundreds of nudist magazines available to the public for as little as seventy-five cents a co py .

Court held that the well being of its children is a subject within a state's constitutional power, and therefore it has the right and even the duty to regulate and limit the availability of sex material to minors. It appears that the Court applies a different standard of obscenity to children because of their immaturity and other considerations. Georgia has recognized a duty to protect the welfare of its children in the past.
The Commission recommends that: The legislature adopt an obscenity statute protecting minors patterned after the New York law which was held constitutional by The United States Supreme Court.

J. Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation , stated , "It is impossible to estimate the amount of harm to impressionable teenagers and to assess the volume of sex crimes attributable to pornography, but its influence is extensive. Sexual violence is increasing at an alarming pace . Many parents are deeply concerned about conditions which involve young boys and girls in sex parties and illicit relations . While there is no official yardstick with which to measure accurately the reasons for increases in any criminal violation, we must face reality. Pornography , in all its forms , is one major cause of sex crimes , sexual aberrations, and perversions."
It should be noted that in the United States forcible rape in 1966 increased I 0 percent over the 1965 total , with a violation occurring every 21 minutes. Since 1960, forcible ra pe has increased 50 percent.
Georgia presently has a law which makes it a felony to dis tribute obscene literature to minors under 18 ,45 but the dis tributor cannot be prosecuted for the violation of the law unless and until the material has been declared obscene by a court of competent jurisdiction and unless the dis tributor has received notice from the State Literature Commissi on by registered mail.46
In interviews, some of the solicitors throughout the Sta te stated that it is almost impossible to get a conviction under the present statutes ; therefore , no dealers are prosecuted for sales to minors .
Georgia needs a law which effectively curbs the sale of pornographic material to minors. The Legislature could enact a law patterned after the New York Criminal Obscenity Statute , which prohibits the sale of obscene material to minors under 17. The law was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court.4 7 The

Footnotes
1. Crime In The United States, Uniform Crime Report 1966 (hereinafter cited "as" 1966 Uniform Crime Report) Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C.
2 . Teeters, Negley K . and Matza, David, The Extent of Delinquency in the United States. p 200-213, The Journal of Negro Education, XXVIII, No.3, Summer, 1959.
3. Teeters, Negley K . and Reivermann, John, The Challenge of Delinquency, New York, Prentice Hall, 1950.
4 . National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Guides for Juvenile Court 2, (1957).
5 . Task Force Report : Juvenile Delinquency, (hereinafter cited Juvenile Delinquency Report .) By the President's Commission on Law Enforcement And Administration of Justice, Washington, D.C., 1967 .
6. The Georgia Supreme Court in 143/822 (85 S.E . 1025) declared acts 1908 P. 1107 (ss 885 - 900 P. C.), providing for Childrens Courts as branches of Supreme Courts etc. as unconstitutional . The General Assembly subsequently passed the Act of August 16, 1915 and Act of August 19, 1916 which was formerly codified in Chapter 24-24.
7 . Juvenile Delinquency Report, pg. 3 8 . GA. Code Ann. ~ 24-2401
9 . GA. Code Ann. 24-2407
10. GA. Code Ann. 24-2403
11 . Professor John Murray (see Appendix D for draft) .
12. McKay, Henry D., Report On the Criminal Careers of Male Delinquents in Chicago., Appendix E, Juvenile Delinquency Report.
13. Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor T., One Thousand Juvenile Delinquents - Their Treatment By Court and Clinic., Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. 1934.

93

14. Figures for Fulton County from 1967 Annual Report of the Fulton County Juvenile Court . Figure for Richmond County for 1964 through 1967 Annual Reports of the Richmond County Juvenile Court.
15. Opportunity for Urban Excellence (hereinafter cited as Urban Excellence) Report of the Atlanta Commission on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency, February 1966.
16. Glueck , Sheldon and Eleanor T ., Del inquents in the Making . Paths to Prevention, New York , Harper Brothers, 1952.
17. !!;lli!.
18. Ibid.
19. President's Commission On Crime In The District of Columbia, Report 120, (1966) .
20. Urban Excellence. 21 . Ibid .
22. Juvenile Delinquency Report.
23. Figures from Georgia Department of Public Health Biostatistics Service, Atlanta , Ga .
24. John Scanlon and Victor Harville, Profile of Recidivism, Research Department, Division of Children and Youth, August, 1966.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Figures from Fulton County Court.
28. Report of Committee on Care and Training of Pre-School Children.
29. Figures from Studies by State Department of Family and Children Services.
30. All figures from Studies by State Department of Family and Children Services

31 . Profile of Rec id ivism, John Scanlon and Victor Harville, Research Department, Division of Child ren and Youth , August 1966.
32 . Re id Gillis, A report on the Plans to Implement the Metropoli tan Five-County (12 -months) School Plan , November 30, 1967 . 30, 1967.
33. Figures from speech " School Dropouts" given by Judge George R. Lilly , Judge Superior Court , Southern Judicial Circuit.
34. Task Force Report : Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, p. 148.
35. F igures from Fulton County Board of Education 36. Present Judge of Fulton County Juveni le Court . 37 . Former Judge of Fulton County Juven ile Court, now Superior
Court Judge
38. Figures supplied by Division of Children and Youth of the State Department of Family and Children Services.
39 . Figures from Fulton County Court. 40. GA . Code Ann . 32-706 41 . Atlanta Crime Commission 42 . Figures from the respective agenc ies.
43. Progress Report , Division of Children and Youth , 1968, p . 12 . 44. A Survey Report , Youth Development Center, Milledgevil le,
Georgia, Center for Southern Education Studies, Georgia Peabody College for Teachers , Nashville, Tennessee , 1968. 45. GA. Code Ann . 26-6301 .1 46. GA. Code Ann . 26-6301 .2 47 . New York Penal Laws 484-h- Set out in the appendi x E .

94

CHAPTER V

COURTS, PROBATION, PARDON,



PAROLE AND CORRECTIONS

Courts
Courts are the focal point upon which Georgia's civil and criminal justice system turns ; therefore , in any attempt to reduce and control crime, treat and rehabilitate offenders and administer justice, the present court system must be evaluated . The continuing problem in the State's system is to maintain a proper balance between effectiveness and fairness. The need for court reform in Georgia has become more apparent and urgent because of increasing social unrest and the increasing crime rate.
Georgia's first Constitution in 1777 created a judicial system composed of a superior court, a court of conscience, and a court merchant. In 1789, an inferior county court was established to hear common law cases and the court of conscience was abolished . Until 1779, justices of the peace , who had been only peace officers with powers that were usually exercised by these officers in England, were given jurisdiction in suits for debts up to thirty dollars . The Supreme Court of Georgia was not created until 1845 . In 1851, a court of ordinary was created in each county. City courts began to appear in 1853 , county courts, in 1866. The inferior courts were abolished in 1868. In 1906 , the court of appeals was created to give Georgia a second appellate court. In 1915, the first juvenile courts appeared ; in 1957, the first court of small claims ; and in 1960, the first magistrate court. These co1.1rts were created in many instances to meet temporary or local needs. While there have been additions to our judicial system, there has been no complete revision of our judicial system since 1800.
Currently, Georgia has a Supreme Court, a Court of Appeals, 40 Superior Courts , 34 Juvenile Courts, 56 City Courts, 8 Special Civil and Criminal Courts , 5 County Courts , 4 Municipal Courts, I 59 Courts of Ordinary , II Small Claims Courts, 2 Magistrates Courts, about 2,500 Justice of the Peace Courts, and hundreds of Recorders, Police and Mayors Courts. A brief description of each follows.
The Supreme Court was created by the State Constitution which prescribes its jurisdiction. The Court has no original jurisdiction . It is restricted to correcting errors of law from lower courts and to hearing appeals from cases involving interpretation of the Constitution of the State of Georgia or the United States; title to land, equity, validity and construction of wills, capital felonies , habeas corpus, extraordinary remedies, and divorce and alimony .1
The Court of Appeals was likewise created by the State Constitution . Its jurisdiction is also limited to correction of errors on appeals from lower courts from which appeals lie to the Georgia Supreme Court but only in those cases wherein jurisdiction is not conferred upon this court.2

In Georgia the basic trial courts are the superior courts. 3 These courts have both civil and criminal jurisdiction. The superior courts have exclusive jurisdiction in cases of divorce , felony, title to land, and equi ty . They also have concurrent jurisdiction with all other trial courts
in all matters not specifically delegated to them or other courts. The superior courts have limited power to hear appeals from inferior courts, such as justice of the peace courts or city courts.4
The State is divided into 40 superior court judicial circuits, and there are from one to eight counties in each circuit. 5 Each circuit has at least one judge ; seven of the circuits have more than one judge .
The Superior Court of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit has nine judges. By law , the Superior Court of each circuit must meet in each county of the circuit at least twice each year at certain times appointed by law. At his discretion the judge of a circuit may hold extra terms in any county when ever necessary .6
The laws of Georgia prescribe no uniform regulations or procedures for the supervision or coordination of the work of the Superior Court judges. Thus, this study finds each circuit is administered independently, with few exceptions. Each circuit is a "judicial kingdom" with its own jealously guarded prerogatives. In circuits where there is more than one superior court judge there are separate "kingdoms ."
Juvenile Courts were created by statute.7 Their jurisdiction extends to all matters concerning custody and correction of delinquent children under I 7 . They may also exercise this jurisdiction over such children who are not delinquent but who are beyond control of parents or guardians. Superior Courts may also insist upon trying juveniles for crime ; therefore, the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court in this field is subject to control by the Superior Court.8
City Courts, commonly called "constitutional city courts," are not courts of the municipalities in which they are located but are state courts having original jurisdiction generally in all civil cases, except jurisdiction vested exclusively in the Superior Courts and in the trial of misdemeanors. Territorially, their jurisdiction usually embraces the counties in which they are located . Each is created by a special act of the General Assembly. Therefore , these courts often have varying jurisdiction qualifications, powers , salaries and terms of office.9
The Special Civil and Criminal Courts are found in cities where the work load of a city court has become so great that the court has been converted into a civil and criminal court. Their jurisdictions are similar to those of the

95

constitutional city courts since they are generally successors to city courts. Such courts are found in Fulton , DeKalb, Troup, and other populous areas. 10
County courts have jurisdiction in all cases of contract or tort except where exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the Superior Court, where the principal sum claimed does not exceed $500, and in misdemeanor cases. The enabling Act was a special law and therefore has not been included in any code since 1895 .11
Municipal courts are created by special statute and are whatever the statute says they are. Municipal courts are generally found in a county which already has a constitutional city court for the purpose of reducing the workload of the city courts. The jurisdictions of the two courts are overlapping to some extent , the larger claims being reserved for the city courts.
The Court of Ordinary enforces many local and special laws, as well as some general laws , like the Health Code and certain tax laws . They have jurisdictions to try misdemeanor cases arising under the Georgia State Highway Patrol , and they have power over probate of wills , administration of estates, supervision of matters of guardian and ward and guardianship matters relating to insane persons.
Small claim courts are more recent ; they have jurisdiction over civil actions where the principal amount claimed does not exceed $1000 . Such jurisdiction is concurrent with other courts. These courts have powers of garnishment, attachment, and justice of the peace authority .
Magistrate courts are intended to dispose of business normally handled by justices of the peace, since statutes creating magistrate courts have abolished the justice of the peace court in the same county . The civil jurisdiction is the same as that of justice of peace, except the maximum amount is increased to $1000 . Its criminal jurisdiction is limited to specified misdemeanors where the defendant has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere or where the defendant
waives trial by jury. Justice of the peace courts are created by the Georgia
Constitution as a civil tribunal only, but by statute the justice is granted a limited criminal jurisdiction which includes authority to issue warrants and to function as a court of inquiry . These justice courts are subordinate to the superior courts and cannot deprive the superior court of jurisdiction of the claims filed therein if a party desires to file his action in the superior court. 12
Recorders, police and mayors courts are usually created by legislation setting up city charters. These courts have the same powers in criminal cases as do justice of the peace courts. The courts may try offenses arising from violations of municipal ordinances and may impose sentences of fine, imprisonment, and alternate fine or imprisonment.
All the above courts are independent of each other, often being dependent on local financial resources and, therefore, unable to afford the necessary facilities and personnel for effective operation . Many have their own separate rules of practice. Their jurisdictions are conflicting

and overlapping. There are various methods of multiple

appeals. All of this produces confusion and delays.

The operation of the many courts in Georgia involves an

expenditure of millions of dollars per year. The Georgia

court system is big business. The public is financially

burdened by the existence of the two or more parallel sets

of courts. Presently , judges purchase their supplies

separately and keep their own records . Large savings for the

taxpayer would be realized by centralized purchasing and

record-keeping. The court delays caused by the present

system is also expensive in lost time and dollars for

participants such as witnesses, jurors and policemen. The

delays can also be expensive to the offender, since whether

ultimately adjudged guilty or innocent, he often loses his

job, and his family becomes dependent on public welfare .

The courts in Georgia do not keep any official statistics

concerning the number and nature of cases pending in the

various courts or the manner in which such cases are

terminated. Because there is no way to forecast the need,

congestion in the trial courts in this state has become one of

the major problems of judicial administration . Notwith-

standing the usual rule that criminal cases have priority over

civil cases, there are many serious delays in the

administration of criminal justice . Many judges and other

authorities believe that delay often diminishes the deterrent

effect of our system of justice in the eyes of the potential

offender. It may also undermine the public's confidence in

our court system.

A study by the Younger Lawyers Section of the State

Bar showed that superior court cases require from as little

as two months in some circuits to as much as twenty months in others to reach trial and disposition. 13 By

establishing responsibility at the state level to provide for

equalization of work by interchange or shifting of judges, a

more uniform time for trial and disposition of all cases

could be attained. Six months for trial and disposition is

not beyond the reach of an adequate and effective judicial

system. The same study showed that some superior court

judges dispose of six times as many cases as the judges of other circuits.14

Unification of all courts into a single state court system

has become a recurring element of reform . Since 1960, at

least 15 states have either partially or completely unified their court system.15 In 1964, Illinois vested its judicial

power in the State Supreme Court, an Appellate Court and

Circuit Courts. The Supreme Court has administrative

authority over all state courts. Administrative control in

each circuit is vested in the chief judge of the circuit. Local

courts are either assimilated into the state court system or

abolished, and all courts are courts of record .

.

Georgia, like every state, is concerned with the backlog

of cases in its court system. The records from Illinois

indicate that the problem of backlog can be handled by a

unified trial court. During 1964, 1,617,822 cases of all

types were ftled in the Circuit Court of Cook County,

Illinois, and 2,173,265 were terminated. Figures for 1965

show even better results, and for the first two years the

Circuit Court terminated more than one million cases than

96

were filed in the same period. Traffic and other small cases

constituted the bulk of these gains. These figures

demonstrate one of the many advantages of unified court. 16
This reform abolished some 4,000 fee system courts and

replaced them with 207 circuit courts. These courts are

administered by salaried magistrates who are legally trained

and who devote full time to their duties . In Cook County

one circuit court now functions in place of the 208 courts preVI.OUSIy eXJ.Stm. g. 17

It has become evident that if G~orgia is ever to have

effective court administration, it needs a unified court

l

system with clear authority and responsibility for

management both at the circuit and state levels. This

authority should include the right to assign judges and to

require adequate records and reports from all courts. The

unification should reach down to the local courts level

where there is a parallel need for administrative power,

including supervision of calendars, assignment of physical

and personnel resources and control over budgets.

An example of what could easily happen in Georgia

happened in Essex County, Newark, New Jersey . On July

17 , 1967 , over 1,170 persons were arrested and

incarcerated for rioting which included killings, serious

injuries, destruction of personal property , and plundering

and looting of business establishments. There was an

emergency since the county jail and the local penitentiary

were filled , and the overflow was being held in an

abandoned armory. The local officials were able to meet

the emergency because of their unified court system.

On the 19th, 20th, 21st, and 24th of July, 1967 , the

assignment judge in Essex County sent eleven judges,

accompanied by their clerks and court reporters, to three

courtrooms for hearings. During these four days, 132

defendants were paroled in care of the probation office,

302 defendants were paroled in their own custody and 58

defendants' bails were reduced. Under the present system in

Georgia there is no authority for various trial courts with

criminal or juvenile jurisdiction even to cooperate with each

other in an emergency such as this .

In summary, it can be said that Georgia does not have :
1) any supervisory administrative power vested in our highest appellate court
2) a court administrator (business office) to assist in supervising the operation .
3) a program or standards for the recruitment, promotion or compensation of court personnel.
4) uniform procedures for the preparation and analysis of the budget of the courts.
5) uniform procedures for the purchase of supplies for the operation of the courts.
6) a statistical system to provide facts. Facts are needed not only as an historical device but also to record court cases, forecast court calendars, and foresee problems .

Most of these defects could be cured by a unified judicial system. All the state courts could be unified into a single state court system.
A unified court best serves the objective of justice since better judges are attracted to such a court. With such a court duplication of parallel courts is eliminated and the cost of justice is reduced for the participants and the taxpayers . Since the judges will sit where actually needed, the speedy trial to which every person is entitled would also become more of a reality. Eventually all judges would become full-time professionals (i. e., all would be lawyers devoting full attention to their duties as judges).
The Commission recommends that:
The unification of all felony, misdemeanor and juvenile courts into one judicial department with administrative control at both the circuit and state levels.
SENTENCING
In addition to changes in our outdated court system , there are other changes which would advance the administration of justice . Among these is the need for better sentencing practices, including the abolishment of jury sentencing, introduction of sentencing institutes, and appellate review of sentencing.
Jury Sentencing
Forty-four of the fifty states have adopted laws which impose upon the judge the duty of sentencing in all but capital cases.18 It these states the jury determines only the innocence or guilt of the accused . In capital cases the majority of states permit a jury to choose between the capital penalty or the term of imprisonment.
Georgia is one of the six states that still allow the jury to determine the sentence in non-capital cases. 19 The jury sentencing power is limited to cases in which it has determined the guilt of the defendant ; while in Tennessee the jury is required to fix the sentence in all cases even when the defendant has pleaded guilty.20
In Georgia, where the jury imposes the sentence, the judge's role is limited to modifying a legal , but excessive sentence, or to conforming an illegal sentence to the statutory limits.
The origin of jury sentencing in this country has been attributed to the Colonial's reaction to harsh penalties imposed by judges appointed and controlled by the Crown and to the early distrust of governmental power.21 Since times have changed, the present system of jury sentencing is archaic. The principal arguments for the present continuation of jury sentencing are that jurors will not become calloused to the fate of defendants, the judgment of twelve jurors is more reliable and trustworthy than that of the judge. Jury sentences are less likely to be the result of

97

individual prejudices and political considerations, and jurors may be better able than judges to express the community sentiment with regard to the offense.22
There are many disadvantages of jury sentencing which call for its abolition in non-capital cases. The weakness of jury sentencing was shown in a survey conducted by the Atlanta Crime Commission .23 The survey included the sentencing practices by three judges in Fulton County Superior Court for the crimes of auto theft and burglary during 1963, 1964 and part of 1965 . It also surveyed jury sentencing for these two crimes for these three years.
The survey was based on official records of the clerk, Criminal Division, Fulton Superior Court ; the files of the State Board of Corrections ; and the records of the Atlanta Police Department. Exactly 440 guilty pleas (every third plea out of l ,320) and 119 jury trials (all the jury trials for these crimes in these years) were examined in detail. This study showed that in burglary sentencing by juries, first offenders received on the average more severe sentencing than repeaters . In auto theft sentencing by jury , repeaters received longer sentences than did first offenders, but the sentences only averaged five months longer.
The study showed that repeaters elect jury trials more often, sentences imposed by juries do not have any relation to the presence or absence of previous convictions, and jury sentencing prevents judges from handing down stiff sentences to repeaters. 4
The jury is often less able to assess an appropriate sentence because of their inability to see the previous record of the accused . Also , sentencing is a job for experts, and juries, because of their transitory nature, do not have the opportunity to develop expertise in this complex area as judges do .
Another weakness of jury sentencing is often confusion between conviction and punishment. Juries often compromise their doubts as to guilt with a light sentence. In other words, a juror who doubts the defendant's guilt may bargain away his not guilty vote in exchange for a light sentence.25
Jury sentencing has an adverse effect on the use of probation. In imposing the sentence a jury in Georgia does not have the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation and does not have the power to suspend sentence or grant probation. While the judges have the power to grant probation or suspension of sentences after sentencing by the jury, usually this is not the case . This fact is borne out by Georgia's figures which show only 25 percent of those convicted are placed on probation, while the national average is approximately SO percent.26
In summary, jury sentencing can cure none of the ills of sentencing. When contrasted with judicial sentencing, it is further away from equality or uniformity . A jury does not

develop criteria and does not express or record the rationale of its acts. It deters the use of suspended sentence and probation. Since it is necessarily based on less information than a judge has, it is at best a guess.27
The Commission recommends that:
Jury sentencing in non-capital cases should be abolished.
Sentencing Institutes
The judicial sentencing institutes are conferences of trial judges and correctional authorities for the purpose of studying, discussing and formulating objectives, policies, standards and criteria for sentencing those convicted of crime.28 The idea behind these institutes is to reduce disparity in sentencing practices and tend toward more uniformity in sentencing procedure.
It is generally agreed that a critical disparity problem exists in sentencing practice. The problem of disparity arises from the imposition of unequal sentences for the same offense or offenses of comparable seriousness without any reasonable basis. Often the sentence depends largely on the personality of the particular judge before whom the case is tried.
The staff of the Commission studied files29 on first offenders who had entered pleas of guilty and who were therefore sentenced by the judges. The offenders were guilty of the crimes of burglary or larceny . These ftles indicate that most first offenders are given a probated sentence and in Fulton County, an additional fine . While this is true for a majority, some judges give defendants as long as I 0 years for their first offense. One first offender charged with five counts was given 20 years, which is the maximum since Georgia law states that burglary shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than one year nor more than 20 years. 30There was nothing in the ftles to indicate why one defendant was probated and another made to serve six years, since the amount involved in the burglary often had no relation to the sentence. One first offender was convicted of stealing fifteen dollars worth of tools and was sentenced to five years, with two to serve and the balance on probation.
The study on the crime of larceny showed similar disparity. Again , a majority of first offenders were probated. Others were given the maximum allowed by law. In larceny when the stolen goods exceed fifty dollars in value, the punishment shall be imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than two years nor more than ten years.31 Figures indicated that persons convicted in Bulloch stood a greater chance of receiving a prison term than those from Fulton County.32 Spot checks indicated that similar disparities exist for other crimes. Within certain limits, a lack of uniformity in sentencing is justifiable. Indeed the reason for giving judges discrimination in sentencing is to

98

permit variations based on relevant differences in offenders.3 3
Sentencing institutes could allow judges to discuss their own sentencing attitudes with other judges and could be the first step toward standards in sentencing.
The superior court judges, like other American trial judges, receive no formal training in judicial function. The average judge assumes the bench with no previous experience in the art of judging. Sentencing decisions demand considerable experience on the part of the judge. He needs a thorough knowledge of the whole range of se ntencing choices and of their usefulness in dealing with the many types of offenders appearing before him.
In 1958, a federal program was founded with Congressional authority.34 The purpose of the program was to increase the uniformity of sentencing procedures. The first such institute was held at Boulder, Colorado, July 1959 , and since that time , eleven more have been held. The federal judges of all circuits have had an opportunity to participate in at least one. The most recent institute was held in Atlanta in October 1967, for the Fourth and Fifth Circuits.
These institutes have had varied programs , including such subjects as disparity of sentences, the identification of dangerous offenders and the use of pre-sentence reports. Some of the programs have been held near federal correctional institutions so that judges could become more familiar with facilities and the programs of rehabilitation at the institutions. Some states like California and New York have followed the lead of Federal authorities. The basic purpose of all these sentencing institutes is to reduce the disparity of sentencing.
Presently Georgia does not authorize any such institutes or conferences. With 40 circuits and over 65 superior court judges, sentencing disparities do develop . Equal justice in sentencing is best achieved through the judge's experienced objective consideration of all factors in each case weighed in relation to the sentence imposed by other experienced and objective judges in cases which are similar in the charge and background of the individual defendant.
The Commission recommends that:
The State organize and finance regular judicial institutes at which judges meet with other judges and with correctional authorities to discuss sentencing standards. These institutes can produce meaningful criteria for sentencing which can serve as a means of basic improvement in the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing.
Appellate Review of Sentences
In a majority of criminal cases the only issue is the appropriate punishment, since most defendants plead guilty without tria1.3 5 As apparent earlier in the report, a critical disparity problem exists in sentencing practices in Georgia .3 6

In Georgia there is no way for a defendant to directly appeal an excessive sentence . To circumvent this harsh rule, a skillful attorney must find some technical error in the trial on which to base an appeal. There is a temptation to the appellate court to seize on such errors for the reason that justice was denied by too severe a sentence . By admission of many experienced appellate ~udges this factor has contributed to numerous reversals . 7 By permitting review of the sentence , the effect will be to focus the appeal on what , in many cases, is the only real issue .
A method of appellate review of sentence should be available to defendants who have received , or believe they have received , excessive sentences. Two frequent objections to reviews are that sentencing is a discretionary matter involving a judgment and not a question of law such as appellate courts normally handle. The other is that review might greatly increase tl1e number of appeals , since it would become available for all those defendants who plead guilty and are therefore generally unable to obtain direct review of their convictions, and that many frivolous appeals would be initiated by defendants who would have nothing to lose , particularly if the appellate court lacked the authority to increase the sentence . Jurisdictions permitting appellate review, however, have not imposed an unreasonable burden on the reviewing court. From 1960 through 1965 in Massachusetts , for example , there was an average of about 300 sentence appeals per year , and the review division sat for an average of 15 days a year.38
These objections are not a valid basis for denying the review of sentences, since the only real issue is whether an appeal procedure is needed to insure the quality of justice that should characterize the courts and society.
There is a growing trend in this country to allow appellate review of sentences. About 19 states presently allow review of sentences . In 13 of these states there is statutory authority to review sentences.39 In the other six states courts have construed their power to "reverse , affirm or modify" a criminal judgment.4 Federal courts at one time had statutory authority for sentence review as part of the regular appellate process. The revision of this statute without including a provision for sentence review has caused federal authorities to hold that the power has been implicitly withdrawn ; therefore , federal appellate courts hold that they lack the power to review the merits of a sentence. Bills introduced in Congress to authorize appellate review of sentences in the Federal system have received support of the Department of Justice and the judicial conference of the United States.41
The most apparent benefit of appellate review is the opportunity it provides for correcting grossly excessive sentences . This helps promote respect for law and order by correcting abuses as they occur and by administering justice in a manner that commands respect for the court system. Although it would not totally eliminate the problem of disparity , appellate review would contribute to the development of a rational policy which can serve as the basis for future sentencing.

99

Another benefit is that defendants who have an opportunity to express their grievances are much more

each other . . . The state also shall have the right of severance on trial.4 7

likely to approach rehabilitation with a positive attitude

The law is clear that the judge presently has no

than defendants who believe themselves misjudged without recourse to further legal action.42 The average defendant is

discretion but must allow separate trials for each defendant if the accused so requests .

likely to base his judgment of the fairness of his sentence

An example of duplication of efforts is a recent case in

on a comparison with those received by others for similar

which seven men are charged with the rape of a woman.

offenses .

These seven men were charged with a total of 32 counts,

There are presently two major methods of sentence

including robbery of the victim and larceny of her

review in this country . In some states special panels of trial judges sit in review of sentences.43 In other states existing

automobile. The record shows that each defendant has elected to be tried separately, so there will a minimum of

appellate courts are empowered to review a sentence, along with the other issues in a case .44 Since each has merit, a

seven trials. In this case the victim and witnesses, the investigating officers, the solicitor general , the judges and

choice for Georgia should be made after the adoption of

court officials must duplicate their efforts at least seven

the proposed court unification. It appears desirable for all

times.

appellate courts in Georgia to have the power to review sentences while reviewing other issues.
The review statute should empower the reviewing court to increase a sentence appealed by a defendant. The state should not be allowed to appeal, seeking an increase in sentence. Four states presently allow an increase only if the defendant appeals.45 To protect the defendant , the appellate courts should be required to hear oral argument on the point before increasing the sentence. The need for an increase provision is based on the assumption that all defendants who have nothing to lose would appeal and that most appeals would be frivolous . This could tend to disrupt the appellate system. With a provision allowing the court to increase a sentence, a defendant would be reluctant to appeal for frivolous reasons.
Since 1943 , the Governor of Georgia does not have the power of executive clemency. This power was transferred to the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, which functions as part of the Executive Branch of Government. The Board presumes that all court sentences are fair, legally correct

In contrast, Federal rules4 8 allow the joinder of offenses for trial if they are similar in character or if they arise from the same transaction, and it permits the joinder of defendants if they are alleged to have participated in the commission of the same offense or offenses. The rationale for permissive joinder is to save time and money by the prosecution , the defendant and the Federal system.
Severance is typically sought on the ground that a unified disposition of several charges or several defendants would put those proceeded against at an unfair disadvantage because of confusion of law, evidence by the trier, and the "smear" effect such confusion can produce. Presently defendants in joint trials are often treated differently from those who receive separate trials. At joint trials evidence is often received that would have been inadmissible in one of the single trials had there been no joinder. A second important disparity is created by the fact that joinder has occurred when the defendants attempt to exercise their privilege against self-incrimination.49

and just, and generally upholds such judgments of the trial

courts. Thus, in this state it is particularly important that a

A compromise between a defendant's absolute right to

person who believes he has received an unjust sentence

elect a separate trial and the state's mandatory joinder can

should have a means to get his sentence reviewed.

be found in the Federal rules which recognize the possibility of such disparities between joint and single trials

and the need to avoid duplication that often occurs in the

The Commission recommends t hat :

Georgia court system. When the defendant is prejudiced by joinder, the court would have the discretion to order

The Legislature provide a means ofjudicial review for all sentences with power in the reviewing court to reduce, review without change or to increase the sentence of defendants who have appealed.
Joinder of Defendant s

separate trial of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever relief justice requires.
Georgia should adopt a law similar to the federal law or should adopt the model act, Joinder of Offenses and Defendants, drafted by the American Bar Association . (See Appendix H)50 To some extent such a law would relieve the

Georgia is one of the few states which still f.ants defendants an absolute right to separate trial.4 Most jurisdictions allow joinder of defendants when there is some good reason for subjecting them to trial together.
The present law reads :
When two or more persons shall be jointly indicted,

overcrowded court docket by allowing, within the discretion of the trial judge, a single trial of one or more defendants accused of the same crime . Indirectly the accused could benefit from a speedier trial, often avoiding a long wait in jail prior to trial. There are also economic benefits to be gained by the taxpayers .of Georgia who are

they shall be separately tried if they or either of them

/<""' ,,..: , etrll/ <e";~'!"t.t~.n..e.J..y.<"fS~~h~eM...I.r.-l~.J~~. no...do

when mpete

defe nt to

ndants testify

are for

separately or against

il !

~
t .!"

:1 ..0

f

,_
;

.,
'

I.;-,~

' ;

:
J

.
'


.,i



-

:

,.1
j!

presently charged with the extra costs resulting from multiple trials caused by each defendant's electing to be tried separately.51
1 oo

\

:-.... _

4/~.-- .-..-.....

.

~f)

I
.-/

[

The Commission recommends that:
The present law be changed to provide that the trial court shall have the discretion to determine whether or not jointly indicted persons are to be tried together or separately.
Prosecution's Right To Appeal Pre-Trial Motions
In Georgia and every other jurisdiction in this country, the right of the prosecution to appeal from an adverse ruling by a court is more limited than the comparable right of the defendant.52 This limitation is a result of the double jeopardy clause found in the Federal Constitution and in the constitutions of 45 states. Double jeopardy prevents the re-trial of a defendant for the same offense after he has once been acquitted.53 Therefore, the right of appeal from a trial ruling after jeopardy has attached is of very little value to the prosecution.54
Double jeopardy does not prevent states and federal government prosecutors from appealing pre-trial ruling dismissing the indictment or information, or sustaining a plea in bar to the presecution since jeopardy does not attach until the jury is impaneled and sworn or until the court in a non-jury trial begins to hear evidence. 55 The need for review of pre-trial motions has become important in light of recent Supreme Court decisions in areas of search and seizure and confessions, including extension of exclusionary rules to govern state criminal prosecution Now many Georgia prosecutions can be stymied by a pre-trial order suppressing seized evidence or a statement by the accused, thus reducing the prosecution's chances of obtaining a conviction. Although appeals by the prosecution from pre-trial suppression orders are constitutionally permissible, it is not available in the State of Georgia.
In 1930, the American Law Institute proposed a section in its Code of Criminal Procedure:
An appeal may be taken by the state from: a) an order quashing an indictment or information or any count thereof; b) an order granting a new trial ; c) an order arresting judgment; d) a ruling on a question of law adverse to the state where the defendant was convicted and appeals from the judgment ; e) the sentence on the ground that it is illegal.56 The majority of states follow the Model Code with only minor deviations. Georgia is one of only three states in which there is no right of appeal by the State.5 7 In Texas the law reads, "The state shall have no right of appeal in criminal cases."58 In Georgia59 and Minnesota5 the right is denie d by omitting mention of the states in statutory provisions authorizing whatever appeals are allowed in criminal cases. Thi~ is not to say that the other states do not fully recognize and protect an individual from jeopardy involved in a second trial from the same offense.

In times of a growing crime rate it becomes important to give state prosecutors all the power allowed by the Federal and state constitutions. For example, to combat professional criminal enterprises successfully , it is often necessary to introduce seized evidence, such as gambling equipment or stolen property at the trial. If the prosecution is not able to appeal an order suppressing such evidence , an erroneous decision by a trial judge may result in the inability of the prosecution to obtain a conviction in cases where law enforcement interests are part icularly strong.
If a lower court ruling that restricts police conduct cannot be appealed and if inconsistent lower court dec isions can be resolved only by an appeal from the defendant , it is extremely difficult to formulate effective law enforcement policies. The inability of a state to appeal a pre-trial motion can leave law enforcement officials with a restrictive ruling which could be erroneous. If they follow the lower court decision and abandon the practice , they cou ld never get an authoratative decision b y an appellate court, thus losing an effective police practice solely because they have no means of testing the adverse decision .
The study recognizes that some hardship will fall to the accused on an appeal by a state, but as noted previously , there are compensating values which make the right of state appeal desirable. The law can be drafted to minimize hardships , such as forcing the state to bear the expenses on appeal. Also, preference can be given on the courts' calendar to state appeals, thus insuring an early determination and fulfillment of the guarantee for a speedy trial.
Modern courts have seriously crippled the public's right to equal justice when they refuse to allow state prosecutors the right to appeal pre-trial motions and rulings. Some old studies indicate that in jurisdictions permitting state appeals the right is rarely used. This is attributed largely to the fact that the court and parties are zealous in their attempts to avoid error when appeals by either side are allowed.6 1
The Commission recommends that:
The Legislature enact a statute permitting the prosecution to appeal pre-trial orders suppressing statements or seized evidence, thus granting the prosecution a more general right to appeal from adverse pre-trial rulings on pleadings and motions.
General Immunity Statutes
In Georgia a grand jury can subpoena and compel the attendance of a witness with his books and records, but once the witness claims his fifth amendment privilege to remain silent in face of self-incrimination, the grand jury cannot compel the witness to testify or to open his private books or records . The power to compel attendance is ~herefore of very little value unless the witness gives testimony.
Since it is constitutionally per lia..!l~==+l~""' conditions to displace this right

101

with a grant of immunity from criminal prosecutions, many states and the Federal Government have passed immunity statutes to compel the testimony of witnesses.
Federal laws grant immunity only in prosecutions under specific statutes, such as those dealing with narcotics, anti-trust and communications violations. Some states have enacted general immunity statutes which allow the prosecution to grant immunity in any criminal case. A further distinction of immunity statutes should be made, since both the Federal Government and a state can be divided into two categories: automatic statutes and claim statutes. The Supreme Court62 has ruled that automatic statutes grant immunity for anything the witness may say under oath if it is pursuant to a subpoena to testify regardless of whether he claims the fifth amendment privilege. Claim statutes grant immunity only after the witness refuses to testify because of the self-incrimination privilege.
The rationale of immunity statutes is to protect witnesses against future criminal prosecutions. In an early decision the Supreme Court noted that to be valid, these statutes must provide "absolute immunity against future prosecution." 63 The use of these statutes in many instances is the only method to compel testimony in cases of official corruption. Also, these statutes are essential in the investigation for organized crime, since witnesses are often instrumental in a crime.
Once granted immunity , witnesses must either testify before the grand jury and at trial or face jail for contempt of court.
These immunity statutes should not be adopted without some reservations since there is a possibility of abuse of authority by prosecutors, as well as the use of immunization for corrupt purposes. Another danger is that immunity given by one prosecutor might be a hindrance to investigation in other jurisdictions. The Supreme Court prohibits the Federal Government from making use of testimony compelled by a state under a grant of immunity. Under this ruling, investigation by one state or the Federal Government may forclose another jurisdiction from exercising its right to prosecute .
The objections and weaknesses of immunity statutes could be largely overcome by requiring the jurisdiction that is to grant the immunity to give notice of its intent to other local, state or federal authorities. The objective of notice is to allow other officials to voice objections to immunity because of their investigations or pending trials or appeals. In cases which violate both federal and state law, a state could be required to get the permission of the United States Attorney before granting immunity.
In Georgia the need for an immunity statute to compel the testimony of a witness far outweighs the objections that could be satisfied with a statute requiring notice .
It should also be noted that under a claim statute, the State would have the privilege of deciding whether it wishes to exchange immunity for testimony .

The Commission recommends :
A general witness immunity statute providing immunity sufficiently broad to assure compulsion of testimony.

Unsworn Statement

Georgia is presently the only state in the union that

allows a defendant the privilege of making an unsworn

statement in his defense. The need for the unsworn

statement no longer exists in Georgia because of the change

in the state code in 1962.

Prior to 1962, Georgia was the only jurisdiction in the

common law world to retain the common law rule that a

person charged with a criminal offense was incompetent to testify under oath in this own behalf at his trial.64

The old code read :

No person who shall be charged in any criminal

proceeding with the commission of any indictable

offense or any offense punishable on summary

conviction shall be competent or compelled to give evidence for or against himself.5 5

The rationale followed the common law idea that it was

not humanly possible to speak the truth when testifying on

one's behalf. The development of the unsworn statement in

Georgia and other jurisdictions was itself a recognition of

the harshness of the incompetency rule . It was felt that an

unsworn statement would mitigate the damage caused by

not allowing a defendant to testify. Presently the Georgia Code reads :66

In all criminal trials the prisoner shall have the right to make to the court and jury such statement in the

~ (

case as he may deem proper in his defense. It shall not be under oath and shall have such force only as

t

the jury may think right to give it. They may believe

(

it in preference to the sworn testimony in the case.

The prisoner shall not be compelled to answer any

question on cross examination should he think proper

to decline to answer. . ..

Beginning with Maine in 1859 , legislatures passed statutes allowing defendants to be sworn as witnesses, as well as abolished unsworn statements. However, in Georgia the law on the incompetency of the defendant to testify remained in effect until 1962, when it was changed in response to a Supreme Court ruling in Ferguson v. Georgia, where the court held that under the present codes in Georgia a defendant had the right to be examined by his attorney when making his unsworn statement.57
Under the new code a defendant has the right to be sworn as a witness and be subjected to direct and cross examination like any other witness.58 Under 38-415 , the defendant's right to make an unsworn statement is merely an additional right not required by the Federal Constitution as essential to a' fair trial. Also, under this same code a defendant in Georgia has greater protection than in Federal courts and many other jurisdictions because his general

102

character cannot be assailed unless he actually puts it in issue .69 Jn Federal Courts and other jurisdictions a defendant who elects to testify can be impeached by proof of former felony convictions. The reasoning is that when he takes the stand in his defense, he is as impeachable as any other witness. It is for this reason a defendant who has a previous record cannot afford to testify in his behalf even when he has a good defense. Under the Georgia law no such injustice can arise.
When making an unsworn statement to the court and jury , the defendant is not under oath and there is no penalty prescribed for making a false statement. Also , the unsworn statement is confusing to a jury, since it is often hard for this group to deal with the statement as not being evidence. The unsworn statement can be prejudicial to the prosecution because defense counsels may consider it advantageous for the defendant to waive his right to be examined by counsel as a witness and to make an unsworn statement, thereby depriving the State of the opportunity to cross examine .
Since the present Georgia law gives the defendant who is sworn as a witness the same or even greater rights than do other jurisdictions and since the right to make an unsworn statement is merely an additional right no longer essential to a fair trial, it should be abolished .
T he Commission recommends that :
The Legislature abolish the unsworn statement of the accused.

immediate problem for the indigent defendant is his ability to make bail rather than his right to make bail . A recent survey estimated that 56 percent of the defendants in criminal cases throughout the United States eligible for bail are unable to make bail.7 5 There is no reason to believe that the percent in Georgia would be any less.
The Supreme Court of the Unites States has not yet held that a denial of due process results when an indigent is detained because he cannot make money bail while a person of means who commits the same crime is allowed his pre-trial freedom. In United States v. Bandy76 the question of equal protection of the laws was raised, and the court may yet reach this conclusion soon. The court might say there is a failure of due process where the defendant must suffer pre-trial detention while awaiting trial because of lack of funds.
The fact that a person has been charged with a crime does not justify his detention before conviction, especially since studies have shown that a large number of accused defendants will not be sentenced to prision, even if convicted. In 1965, there were over 727,000 arrests made for serious crimes. Of these , about 290,000 persons were released without a charge or only with a minor charge ; 260,000 were referred to juvenile authorities. About 177,000 were charged with serious offenses ; 9,000 were dismissed ; 8,000 were acquitted at trial ; and of the 160,000 convicted, more than 56 ,000 were placed on probation .77 A prediction that the defendant will receive probation would be difficult in some cases but a system that often allows pre-trial release reduces the incidence of injustice.

Bail
The need for bail reform goes hand in hand with the need for court reform. For centuries the imposition of money bail has discriminated against poor defendants, but only in the last few years has the movement to eliminate money bail for most defendants gained any momentum, and even so money bail is still used for almost everyone in the majority of courts.1The purpose of bail is two-fold: (1) to prevent punishing the accused before conviction, and (2) to secure his attendance at tria!.71 The Eighth Amendment declares that it must not be "excessive."72 Under the present Georgia law a person charged with any felony other than capital offenses is as a matter of right entitled to baiJ.73 A person accused of a capital offense is allowed bail only as a matter of discretion by a superior court judge. A person charged with a misdemeanor cannot be refused bail either before trial or after conviction pending a new trial. The law has been construed to mean that the amount of bail assessed in each criminal case is left to the discretion of the court and in absence of a flagrant abuse the amount becomes fixed.74
Most accused have a right to bail, but in practice the law works differently. Many police, prosecutors and courts seem to believe the best policy is to set bail so high the defendant cannot obtain his release and thus will be unable to commit more crimes before trial. Therefore, the

Appellate courts have declared that not just the seriousness of the charge but the defendant's personal family and employment situation must be weighed before the amount of his bail is fixed. Yet, most magistrates set bail according to standard rates.78
The ordinary method defendants use to furnish bail is to pay a fee, usually 5 to 10 percent of the bail to a bail bondsman who posts a bond for the full amount with the court. Over the years selling bail bonds has become a thriving commercial business.
In Georgia the amount which may be charged by a bondsman is set by law. 79 The charge is not to exceed 10 percent on the first $500 and 5 percent of each succeeding $500.00.
By and large, money bail is an unfair and ineffective device and discriminates against poor defendants. A study in New York, where the bondsman's fee is 5 percent, showed that 25 percent of arrested persons were unable to furnish bail of $500; 45 percent failed at $1,500 and 63 percent could not post a $2,500 bond.80 Professional criminals have little difficulty in posting bail, although they may be clearly dangerous.
Not only do the poor have to remain in jail awaiting trial, but previous studies of bail indicate that an accused who has been detained in jail between arrest and the final adjudication is more likely to receive a criminal conviction

103

or jail sentence than an accused who has been free on bail.81 Thus, a person's inability to post bail may result in more than a temporary deprivation of liberty.
A jailed defendant finds it more difficult to assist in the preparation of a proper defense. While in jail the defendant's ability to raise money by working is limited, seriously effecting his ability to hire an attorney. Jailed defendants are more likely to enter a hasty plea or to insist on an early trial in spite of the disadvantages attendant with unduly hurried work by the defense lawyer. A person free on bail and fully employed gives the appearance of one already progressing toward rehabilitation .
More than a hundred jurisdictions have adopted procedure whereby the criminal court's probation department questions defendants as they await their appearance before a judge . They obtain information as to family , neighbors or employer which they check by telephone . In many cases, the judge can have enough facts to make an informed decision as to whether bail is appropriate or whether the defendant can be released on his own recognizance , that of a member of his family , or that of his lawyers.
The Manhattan Bail Project by the Vera Institute has demonstrated that a defendant with roots in the community is not likely to flee irrespective of his lack of prominence or ability to pay a bondsman . To date, those projects have produced remarkable results with vast numbers of releases, few defaulters and scarcely any commissions of crime by parolees in the interim between release and trial.82
A pre-trial release program modeled after the Manhattan Bail Project was adopted in Fulton County. The program was started under the direction of Judge Luther Alverson in January, 1965, and is considered successful.83 From the start of the program until February, 1968 , 963 accused persons were released , and only 29 failed to appear at court. The program resulted in a forfeiture rate of less than three percent compared to the regular bondsman forfeiture rate of more than 6 percent.84
Under the Fulton County Project all felony defendants incarcerated in jail except those charged with murder, rape , robbery, narcotics and serious sex offenses are considered for release on self-recognizance. All misdemeanor defendants, except those charged with lottery, liquor control act and dangerous drug act violations, are likewise considered. The first interview with the release officer occurs from twelve to twenty-four hours after the accused arrives at the Fulton County jail.
The release officer meets with the defendant in detention and the defendant is asked about his residence, support obligations, relatives , employment, and criminal record . After the interview the defendant is scored according to a point rating system. If the interview indicates that the accused would be a good risk, the information is verified generally by telephone . After verification, the point system is again used and if the

accused is still considered a good risk, the release officer may allow the accused or a co-signer to sign his bond and then have the accused released . In Fulton County the release officer has broader powers than in most other pre-trial release programs where the verified information is forwarded to the court for action on release .
It should be noted that most first offenders are placed on probation after trial , rather than imprisoned, and some, of course , are acquitted and released.
In addition to the possible injustice and dubious legality involved, a side effect on money bail is the cost in thousands of dollars to taxpayers . By initiation of a pre-release bail project, savings to the state and counties could be realized. The per diem cost of incarceration is between four and five dollars in Fulton County. This cost must be multiplied by the number of days that it takes to. get the defendant to trial , which in some isolated cases might be as long as five months . Another saving is the welfare cost to the county or state arising by virtue of persons having their families dependent on welfare while they are incarcerated . Savings could be realized in the capital investment cost of building new jails and prisons. In 1965, the building cost was estimated between $10,000 to $20,000 per cell. New York City spends over ten million dollars per year on pre-trial incarceration of prisoners.
Today courts have authority without statutory approval to release defendants on their own recognizance, but judges, often afraid of critical reactions, do not fully utilize this authority to release defendants. Recently, states have passed statutes which specify that the court may release defendants on their own recognizance and list factors to be considered in such a determination. Most of these laws include a provision to make bail jumping a crime.85
The Commission recommends that:
Bail reform statutes based on the Manhattan Bail Project and/or elements of the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966 be passed by the legislature.
Probation and Parole
An important consideration in the sentencing process by trial judges is whether an offender should be placed on probation or sent to prison. A decision must be made as to whether a prisoner may be paroled or kept in jail to serve out his final sentence. Too lengthly or improperly conceived imprisonment can often reinforce criminal tendencies and lead to recidivism by one who otherwise might not have offended so seriously again.
In Georgia probation is the procedure under which a defendant found guilty of a crime upon verdict or plea is released by the court without imprisonment, subject to conditions imposed by the court and subject to the supervision of the probation service. Parole is the release of an offender from a penal or correctional institution after he has served a portion of his sentence, under the continued custody of the State and under conditions that permit his

104

reincarceration in the event of misbehavior. Before the courts or the State may choose these alternatives, there must be a sufficient number of parole officers and probations officers to supervise the parolees and proba-
tioners . By May , 1968, the State had 2,065 parolees under the
supervision of 44 officers.87 Ninety-one probation officers were in charge of I0,225 probationers.88 fhe state penal institutions confined 8,627 inmates.89 For a state of about four and a half million people, the inmate population is ex tremely high in contrast with the national average. In fact , Georgia's inmate population is the second highest for per capita population, exceeded only by the State of Alaska . In contrast, the per capita ratio of parolees and probationers is extremely low when contrasted with the national average.
Initial and continued imprisonment is financially the most expensive way of dealing with a convicted offender, not only in terms of custodial costs, which amount to $ 1,143 annually per inmate, but also in loss of the prisoner's productive capacity and in welfare payments for his dependants, which average $1,203 per year.90(This total of $2,346 annually does not include any amount for capital investment in prison facilities) .91 Moreover, as the Report of the Task Force on Corrections emphasizes, removing a man from the community may impede his successful reintegration later, and the atmosphere, association, and stigma of imprisonment may reinforce his criminality.9 2
To enable Georgia courts to utilize probation and parolees more effectively, the Legislature should increase funds available for hiring more probation and parole officers. It is fully realized by members of the Crime Commission that all convicted defendants are not qualified for probation and that all inmates would not be successful on parole. The Commission does suggest that one of the main reasons that the inmate population in Georgia is so high is that probation and parole are not used as extensively as they should be. Of the 3,397 persons committed to the custody of the State Board of Corrections for the fiscal year July 1966-June 1967, 2,362 (69.5 percent) were first offenders. Of the 11 ,412 felony prisoners serving time in 1967, 2,549 were released. Of these, 914 (35.85 percent) were paroled and 1,635 (64.15 percent~ were required to complete their sentences before release .9
The Commission believes that with an increase in the number of parole and probation officers, judges may be inclined to probate more first offenders, since they could be assured of proper supervision. Likewise, the State Board of Parole would be able to consider more inmates for parole.
Additional parole and probation officers would prove fi nancially rewarding to the State. The cost of keeping a man on probation is about $83.00 per year. In contrast, $2,348 is the cost of incarceration. The cost of supervising a man on parole is about $200 per year, a net saving of $2, 148 over incarceration.

Authorities on the Board of Parole and Board of Probation believe that an additional 25 parole officers and 25 probation officers could be fully utilized.
T he Commission recommends t hat:
The Legislature appropriate the necessary funds so that the Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Board of Probations can each hire an additional 25 officers (a total of 50).
In Georgia the relationship between parole and probation is close , since the members of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles sit ex-officio as members of the State Board of Probation.
The State Board of Pardons and Paroles was constitutionally cr~ated and established by an amendment to the 1877 Constitution by means of an amendment ratified on August 3, 1943 . This constitutional provision relating to the Board's activities and duties was included in the 1945 Constitution.
The law creating the State Board of Probation reads in part:
There is hereby created a statewide probation system to be administered by a State Board of Probation. Such Board of Probation shall be composed of members of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, acting in ex-officio capacity. The chairman of said State Board of Probation shall be the chairman of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles and he shall be so designated by the Governor for a term of office even with his term of office as a member of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles. Such probation system shall not be administered as part of the duties and activities of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and separate files and records shall be kept with relation to such system . Under Georgia law the two programs must be maintained independently. The records of the two boards are kept separately, and the personnel are housed and utilized as separate entities. The separate facilities , records and personnel of the two programs are predicated on the basis that probation is a judicial function while parole is an executive function. The duties and activities of probation officers and parole officers are analogous. A parole officer can perform the duties of a probation officer and vice versa. There is no essential difference in the operating philosophy and working principles of probation and parole . Thirtyseven states, including Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama , have combined their parole and probation offices . There are many advantages to be gained by a merger of the two Boards. Some of the advantages are : Staff training and development could be made more meaningful through consolidation. Since basic working philosophy and practices are basically the same , staff training is likewise basic to both services. A better training

105

program can be produced through the economy of a co-ordinated program.
There would be continuity in case handling. The offender would have the same officer from the pre-sentence investigation to discharge from parole . This is an advantage, particularly in the case work or therapeutic relationship, since one of the real problems in rehabilitating the offender is the lack of any meaningful interpersonal relationship in his life. If any real change or adjustment is to take place, such a relationship must evolve between the officer and the client. Under the present system this relationship is broken by a violation of probation and commitment to an institution, and the intricate and difficult task of building a relationship between the client and parole officer must begin again .
With consolidation, a uniform policy could be adopted which would facilitate efficient administration of probation and parole services, as well as increase staff performance and morale. A uniform policy would assure fair application of policy, regardless of whether the client is under probation or parole supervision. Uniform policy in regard to staff employment would remove any disparities that exist and enhance good morale. Presently in Georgia only parole officers are under the Merit System. Under a consolidated system all probation officers would be placed under the merit system, so that each election or appointment of a new judge would not mean a new probation officer. The present setup allows the senior judge in each of Georgia's 40 judicial circuits to appoint the probation officers who are paid by the State but who work at the direction of the judges.
Parole district lines are now drawn to include whole judicial circuits. There are 18 district offices located throughout the State. Probation presently has 48 field offices. A combining of facilities would allow both departments to operate with no more than SO offices. Office space, office equipment, and secretarial services could be utilized more efficiently. The combined probation and parole officer would have more time to supervise his clients, since his territory would be smaller. In the concentrated area he would become more familiar with the community, enabling him to do a better job of supervision. The merger would reduce travel time and expenses, which run over $400 per month for some parole officers. The combined officer would supervise both probationers and parolees, eliminating the present overlapping of supervision jurisdiction. For example, some probation officers now travel SO miles from one client to the next and pass up three or four parolees in between. With less travel time between clients, officers could easily supervise additional persons who could be probated or paroled . It should be noted that more than $1, l 53.00 yearly is saved by the State each time a person is placed on probation or is paroled, rather than incarcerated.
In one state with consolidated services the same officer investigates, supervises and, following commitment, continues to visit the offender every few months in prison. This

gives the offender a continuing link with his family and home community. It is also during this period that parole planning begins to prepare the inmate for his eventual return to the community under parole supervision.
Consolidation would permit free interchange of case files and identifying data, thereby improving the efficiency and performance of field staff. Surveillance and control of offenders' movement would be increased . Optimum use of research and special clinical services and facilities and personnel (i.e ., use of psychological and psychiatric services) would be obtained .
Studies from the 27 states that combine parole and probation functions in a single administration showed that a combined system avoids duplication, designates direct responsibility, saves unnecessary expense, creates higher standards, expedites comt procedure, and eliminates confusion. Such a system is the best method toward coordinating the work processes of custody and treatment. A combined agency offers the best service for a defendant in obtaining data on his background and possibilities for rehabilitation .
The Comm ission recommends that :
The State Board of Pardons and Parole be merged with the State Board ofProbation.
Increased Funds for Prison Releasees
Under the present Georgia law a prisoner discharged from a state institution is allowed a suit of clothing or $8 .00, but not both. He also receives a bus ticket to his place of conviction or his home if it is located within the State of Georgia.94
In today's economy $8.00 will not buy very much of anything, and if a releasee elects to take a suit, he receives no money . After he spends the $8.00, which lasts at most only two days regardless of how carefully it is budgeted , an ex-convict may resort to crime to subsist until the time he is able to get a job and receive his first paycheck .
The Commission recommends that:
The Legislature empower the appropriate state agency with the authority to provide a prison releasee with sufficient funds upon his release in addition to a suit of clothes.
Prison Study "The Report of Georgia Prison Facilities Study," made
by the Institute of Government, University of Georgia, July 1968 , for the Governor's Commission on Crime and Justice concluded with 14 recommendations which have been endorsed and adopted by the Commission . The report is set out completely in Appendix I. Also set out in Appendix J are the comments of Mr. Robert J. Carter, Director of the State Board of Corrections on the recommendations.
The recommendations are:

106

(1) That consideration be given to the abolition of the

I

present State Board of co"ections or that it be changed

into an advisory body only.

(2) That the director of the State Department of

Co" ections be given complete authority over his

departmental operations and responsibility for the success

or failure of the service. This authority must encompass

',

recruiting, promoting, and separating personnel.

(3) That careful PROFESSIONAL staffing of the reception and diagnostic center become a top-priority project as soon as operational guidelines are complete.
(4) That recent and long-overdue efforts at staff training be encouraged, intensified, and expanded.
(5) That steps be taken to enlarge the population and programs of the prison branches, so as to permit the phasing out of the assignment of felony offenders to county-operated public work camps.
(6) That growth and diversification of prison industries be fostered until work is available for every prisoner.

(7) That there be initiated effective service-wide programs of preventive maintenance that will assure future avoidance of neglected and deteriorated phy sical plants such as have faced Alto and Buford.

(8) That the procedure cu"ently employed for awarding good time, both statutory and extra, be subjected to a serious and searching official scrutiny to ascertain if it is achieving even limited success in fostering the incentive-producing objectives that were intended to result from the legislation that authorized such action.

(9) That there be constant and relentless upgrading of the most important single resource in co"ections - staff through the processes of recruitment, training, periodic evaluation of employee progress, and through the provision of a career ladder within the service.
(10) That realistic efforts toward conditioning both staff and inmates to court-ordered racial integration be made.
(11) That there be early implementation of both work release and the incentive pay program.
(12) That greatly improved prisoner classification and progress records be accomplished.
(13) That an improved system of policy issuance be created and put into effect.
(14) That the small, but impressive starts in both academic education and vocational training be accorded service-wide expansion wherever possible, with the full support of such community agency allies as the State Department of Education, VRA, and NMDTA that have provided real program enrichment at Buford and Alto.

Footnotes 1. Ga. Code Ann. 2-3704 2. Ga. Code Ann. 2-3708 3. Ga. Code Ann. 2-3901 4 . Ga. Code Ann. 2-3904 5. Ga. Code Ann. 24-2615
6 . Ga. Code Ann. 25-2501 7. Ga. Code Ann. 24-2401, Chapter 24-24 is based on the Acts
of 1951. pp. 291-311 and gives the present courts their power. 8. Ga. Code Ann. 24-2409 (2) 9 . Ga. Code Ann. 2-3704 10. Ga. Code Ann . 2-4201
11 . This Act of 1890-1, p 96, was codified in the Code of 1895 as 4270-4309, 777-790 1102 P.C. but was omitted from Code of 1910.
12. Ga. Code Ann. 27-102-401 13. Financed by private foundation - Atlanta Lawyers Founda-
tion, Inc. (See Appendix F) 14. See Apendix G. 15. Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine,
Michigan , New Jersey, New Mexico, New York , North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Vermont, Wisconsin .
16. Freel , "Illinois Court Reform - A Two Year Success Story," 49 JAM Jud. Socy. p. 206 (1966)
17 . Op. Cit. 18. The Challenge of Crime in Free Society, A Report by the
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. p. 145. (Hereinafter cited as Challenge of Crime) .
19. States still allowing jury sentencing Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas.
20. Tenn. Code Ann. 40-2310 (1955) . 21. National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement,
Report on Criminal Procedure 27- 1931 . 22. Challenge of Crime. 23. Urban Excellence. 24 . ..QE_cit.
25. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Task Force Report - The Courts, (Hereinafter cited as Task Force Report, The Courts)
26. Ibid . 27 . Sol Rubin, The Law of Criminal Correction, West Publishing
Company, 1963. 28. Challenge of Crime. 29. File studies were at random from Fulton, Chatham, and
Bulloch Counties.
30. Ga . Code Ann. 26-2402 31 . Ga. Code Ann. 26-2627 32. File Studies from Fulton and Bulloch Counties. 33. Task Force Report, The Courts 34. U.S. Code Ann. Title 28 334 (1958) 35. In some circuits the guilty pleas are entered in about 90
percent of the prosecutions.

107

36. The study conducted by the Commisson showed that most fi rst offenders for the crime of larceny and burglary get probation, while some few get t he maximum allowed by law w ithout any visual differences on t he records .
37 . " Appellate Review of Sentences," American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice.
38 . Task Force Report, The Courts
39. Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Tennessee .
40. Arkansas, Idaho, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsi n .
41. Hearings on S 2722, Before the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Senat e Committee on the Judiciary , 89 Congress, 2nd Session. 130-132 (1966)
42. American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, "Standards Relating to Appellate Review ."
43. Connecticut, Maine, Maryland and Massachusetts.
44. For example, Arizona, Florida, Hawaii.
45. Connecticut, Maine, Maryland and Massachusetts.
46. American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice. "Standards Relating to Joinder and Severance."
47 . Ga . Code Ann . 27-2101
48. Fed. R. Crim., P. 8(b) Joinder of Offenses and of Defendants.
49 . Yale Law Journal, Vol. 74, 553. Joint and Single Trials Under Rules 8 and 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
50. Fed. R. Crim ., p. 14.
51 . See Appendix H for the Proposed Act.
52 . Task Force Report, The Courts.
53. " Double Jeopardy, The Prosecution Problem," 77 , Harv. L. Rev., 1272 (1964) .
54. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2945. 68-70 and about 12 other states allow the prosecutor to appeal from trial rulings in cases where the defendant is acqu itted but the Appellate Court does not have the power to increase the judgment below. The rationale is that it enables the prosecutor to have erroneous rulings corrected so they do not affect future trials.
55 . Downum v. United States, 372 U.S . 734 (1963) .
56. ALl Code of Criminal Procedure 428 (1930)
57 . Kronenberg, " Right of a State to Appeal in Cr iminal Cases." 49 J Crim., C and P.S. 473 (1950)
58 . Texas Const . Art 5 26
59 . Ga. Code Ann. s 6-901 (1935). It reads in part " Either party in any civil cause and the defendant in any crimi nal proceeding in the superior or city courts, may except to any sentence, judgment decision or decree . . . ."
. 60. Minn. Stat. Ann 632 .01 , .05 (1949).
61. Perk ins, " Iowa Criminal Justice" 68 (1932) ; Sherill "Criminal Procedure in North Carolina" 23 (1930, Beatie, "Criminal Appeals in Californ ia, " 24 Calif., CR 623- 1936)
62. United States v. Novia 317 U.S. 424 (1943).
63 . Counsilman v. Hitchcock 142 U.S. 547 (1892)
64. Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U .S. 570 (1961)

65. Ga . Code Ann . 38-416
66. Ga. Code Ann . 38-415 (1866)
67 . 365 u.s. 570 (1961)
68 . Ga. Code Ann. 38-416 (1962)
69. Ga. Code Ann . 38-415 . Reads in part - "If so he shall be sworn as any other w itness and may be examined and cross-examined as any other w itness except that no evidence of general bad character or prior conviction shall be admissible unless and until the defendant shall have first pu t his character in issue ."
70. Challenge of Crime .
71 . State v. Roberts. 32 Ga. App . 339 . 72. U.S. Const itution , Amendment VIII (1 -808)
73. Ga . Code Title 29, Chapter 9 .
74 . Re id v . Perkerson - 60 S.E . 2d . 151 (1950) 75. Silverstein , Defense of the Poor in Criminal Cases in Amerjcan
State Courts. 1965.
76 . 81 S. Ct. 197-9. 1960.
77. Challenge of Crime.
78 . Ibid.
79 . Ga. Code Ann . 27 -501
80. Challenge of Crime.
81 . Ares, Rankin, and Struary, "The Manhattan Bail Project : An Interim Report on the Use of Pre-trial Parole," 38 NYUL. Rev. 67-87-88, 1963. Figures compiled showed that 59% of defendants with pre-trial release on recognizance were found not guilty, 23% of detai led defendants were found not guilty; prison sentences were given to 21 % of defendants with pre-trial release on recognizance and to 96% of detained defendants.
82. Freed and Wald- Bail in the U.S., 1964, p. 62.
83. Judge Superior Court, Atlanta Judicial Circu it .
84 . Figures from Eugene Brown - Release Officer, Fulton Cty .
85 . States which have passed such laws include Californ ia, Kansas, Kentuck y, Maryland, New Jersey , Ohio and Texas.
86 . Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966 authorized judges to release defendants upon their promise to return, or on an unsecured bond . Conditions may be included, such as assigning defendant to custody of a person or organization to supervise him, restricting his travel, associations, place of residence or placing him in partial custody so he may work days and be confined nights. The Act contemplates the gat hering and consideration by the judges of information concerning the bail risk . Special provisions permit the judge to consider the dangerousness of the person in deciding whether to release the offender and criminal penalties for a defendant's failure to appear are strengthened.
87 . Figures from Board of Pardons and Paroles
88. Figures from Board of Probation
89., Figures from State Board of Corrections
90. Figures from State Board of Corrections
91 . Figures from Family and Children Services
92 . Task Force Report - The Courts.
93 . Figures from State Board of Corrections.
94. Ga. Code Ann . 77-317 .

108

CHAPTER VI ALCOHOLISM AND DANGEROUS DRUGS

Part I : Alcoholism

According to A Comprehensive Plan For The Prevention

A nd Control Of Alcoholism And Drug Dependence In

Georgia, the use of alcoholic beverages is deeply rooted in many cultural traditions. 1 In most societies, a distinction is

made between the social use of alcohol and excessive

drinking as a social problem. The consumption of alcoholic

beverages is often used as a means of escape from tension

and anxiety. Although many people drink excessively

without developing a dependency upon alcoholic beverages,

the temporary effects of alcohol use create many social

problems . Habitual drinking often has deleterious effects

upon the organic structure and functions of individuals,

I, ,.

and , as such, creates a major medical problem.

As defined by the World Health Organization,

alcoholism is "a chronic illness that manifests itself as a

disorder of behavior. It is characterized by the repeated

usage of alcoholic beverages to an extent that exceeds

customary dietary use or compliance with social customs of

the community and that interferes with the drinker's health or his economic or social functioning ." 2

There are about 80 million people in the United States

who drink to some extent at some times in their lives. To

the majority of these people drinking presents no problem, but an estimated 6,500,000 become chronic alcoholics.3

Extent of Problem
Statistics for the United States showed two million arrests in 1966 were for the offense of public drunkenness.4 This figure accounts for more than 30 percent of the total arrests for all offenses that year and is almost twice the number of arrests for index crime offenses . The great volume of these arrests places an extremely heavy load on the operation of the criminal justice system. It burdens police, clogs lower criminal courts, and crowds penal institutions throughout the United States.5 In Georgia the alcoholic problem is no different from the problem existing in the United States.
In 1967 figures for Atlanta showed 43,956 arrests for public drunkenness. This represented almost 50 percent of
*Much of the material on the alcohol problem in Georgia is taken from :
A Comprehensive Plan For The Prevention And Control Of Alcoholism In Georgia, Part I, Alcoholism, (to be published 1968) developed by the Task Force on Alcoholism of the Division of Mental Health, Georgia Department of Public Health.

all arrests made by the police department. When added to the related offense of disorderly conduct, more than 70 percent of all offenses reported by the Atlanta Police Department were in this category.6 Table 69 shows that about the same arrest relationship exists even in the smaller towns and cities, wet or dry .
A 1963 study of the alcoholic prisoners in Atlanta by the Emory University Department of Psychiatry revealed that alcoholics utilized 40 percent of municipal court time and 60 percent of police time , occupied 60 percent of the space in city jail , and composed 95 percent of the stockade inmates. The resulting crowds in courts, jails, and prisons affect the efficiency of the entire criminal process?
The criminal justice system appears ineffective to deter drunkenness or to meet the problem of the chronic alcoholic offender. Related problems are the crimes committed by the alcoholic, which range from petty offenses to crimes of violence. Often crime against property is committed to pay for the next drink. Because the problem of intoxication has become so great, a more realistic effort must be made to solve the problem and find a way to rehabilitate some of the thousands who now repeatedly violate existing laws.
The full extent of Georgia's alcoholism problem is not known and is difficult to ascertain since there is no comprehensive reporting system which gives an exact indication of the problem. Although figures cannot be exact, the Alcoholic Rehabilitation Service of the Department of Public Health can make reliable estimates of the extent of alcoholism in the State. It estimates that there are about 100,000 people in Georgia with a direct alcoholism problem. The U. S. Public Health Service has deemed alcoholism the country's fourth most serious health problem.
In 1951, the Georgia General Assembly recognized alcoholism as an illness. They created, by special act, the Georgia Commission on Alcoholism under the authority of a seven-member board appointed by the Governor. The General Assembly in 1960 abolished the Commission on Alcoholism and transferred its functions and responsibilities to the Division of Mental Health, State Health Department.8 The Alcoholic Rehabilitation Service is to provide education, training, treatment, rehabilitation, and research in the field of alcoholism. Emphasis has been on making treatment services available to more of Georgia's alcoholics and their families in local communities before prolonged institutiona! care is necessary.
The alcoholic problem has been made more acute by recent lower court decisions which have ruled that "chronic

I09

City
Jesup Dalt on Elberton Newnan Augusta LaGrange Ga inesville Valdost a Cartersv i lle Cov ingt on T ifton Dublin At lanta

Table 69
1967 DRUNKENNESS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT ARRESTS FOR SELECTED CITIES

Populatio n

Total A r res t s

Arrests

% of Total

For Public Arrests For

Drunkenness Dru nke nness

D is o r d e r ly Conduct

Total No. of Publ ic Dru nkenness & T he Rela ted Offense of Disorderly Conduct

% of Total Arrests Caused By Publ ic
Drunken ness And Di so r d e r ly Conduct

8,500 23 ,100
7,700 13,200 85,000 23,900 18,500 32 ,4 00 10, 100 9,300 11,300 14,200 498,200

998 2,354
904 1,067 12,82 1 2,203 1,588 3,096
719 1, 140
1'101 1,408 89,048

497 1,494
3 18 384 6,589 1,196 778 1,511 389 508 588 720 43,956

49 .79 63.46 35. 17 35.99 51 .39 54 .29 48.99 48 .80 54. 10 44 .56 53.40 51.1 4 49 .36

114 0
245 180 1,708 382 163 671 104 284 240 336 22 ,369

6 11 0
563 564 8,297 1,578 94 1 2,182 493 792 828 1,056 66,314

61 .22 63.46 62 .27 52.86 64 .71 71 .63 59 .26 70.48 68 .56 69.47 71 .01 75 .00 74 .46

alcoholism is a defense to a charge of public intoxication and, therefore, is not a crime."9 These recent decisions concerning the chronic alcoholic court offender have made it imperative that the State and communities begin immediately to plan and implement a program of rehabilitation. On July 14, 1967, a similar decision was handed down in the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta .10 This decision has tremendous implications for Georgia . While lower courts have held that chronic alcoholism is no longer a crime, the alcoholic still impedes law enforcement in this and other states.
The United States Supreme Court accepted an appeal from the County Court in Travis County, Texas in the case, Powell v. State of Texas. 11 This case questioned whether an alcoholic may be convicted for his public intoxication. The Court affirmed the trial judge who held "as a matter of law, chronic alcoholism is not a defense to the charge of public drunkenness." This decision does not clear up the confusion, since the expert witness, Dr. David Wade , a psychiatrist, testified that Powell was under "as exceedingly strong influence which was not completely overpowering." It appears that if the defendant had an overpowering compulsion to drink and an inability to abstain from drinking, the Court would have held otherwise . The Court felt that to make a constitutional defense of alcoholism, a person would have to prove "loss of control" once he has begun to drink and an "inability to abstain" fro m drinking in the first place. In time another test case will be presented to the Supreme Court and, according to what was said in the Powell case, it appears that the Court will follow the Easter and Driver decisions .12 It is imperative that Georgia be prepared for such a decision.

While Georgia has been one of the pioneer states in developing programs for the alcoholic , there are still great gaps in services and many unmet needs . Legal decisions seem to necessitate treating intoxication cases of chronic alcoholics medically and socially, not criminally. Yet, most local Georgia communities have been slow to develop special services for the alcoholic, and the burden of providing care has usually fallen on the general health and welfare agencies .
In addition, there is a definite relationship between accident involvement and alcohol consumption, and between alcohol and crime .
Studies have shown that as the consumption of alcohol rises , the number of driver errors increases, resulting in greater chances for accidents . Deterioration in driver judgment c~n occur after a person has had one or two drinks, and efficiency is often reduced at the same time the driver's confidence in his own ability increases. Consequently, the gap between confidence and performance causes a great danger to road safety.13
In the following statistics, this study notes that alcohol is only a conditional variable among a number of other possible causative factors .
Investigations show that drivers with 0.15 percent or more alcohol in their blood were involved in accidents eight times more often than a control group which were not drinking. On the basis of these studies, estimates show that accident involvement with blood alcohol levels between .05 and 0.10 percent is 1!h times greater than those below .05 percent. 14 Other studies show that of the first 43

110

individuals killed in motor vehicle accidents in St. Louis

County , Missouri , in 1966 , 30 had alcohol blood levels of at least 0 .15 .15

Studies show that 60 percent of drivers and pedestrians

killed in the nine years (1957-66) were intoxicated.

Statistics kept by the Atlanta Traffic Council for 1965-67

reveal that the medical examiner was able to test 76 drivers

killed in Fulton County. Of those drivers tested , 51 drivers ,

or 67 percent , had alcohol blood levels above .05 .1 6

I .

It can be concluded that drivers wh o drink are more

likely to be involved in traffic accidents than those who do

not drink . Drinking drivers account for a high percentage of

I . all accidents , including fatal accidents . Also, some reliable

~.

indications show that alcoholics are higher non-traffic

accident risks than non-drinkers. 17

f

~

1Alcohol and Crime

I

Arrests for public intoxication and for alcohol-related

offenses , liquor law violations , drunk driving, disorderly

conduct and vagrancy constitute the majority of all

reported crimes in the United States . In addition, many

serious offenses are committed by or upon persons who

have been drinking just previously.

A comprehensive study of homicides conducted in Philadelphia revealed that in 64 percent of the cases, alcohol was present either in the offender or the victim . In 44 percent of the cases, it was present both in the victim and offender ; in 11 percent of the cases, in the offender only ; and 9 percent of the cases, the victim only .18
Indications are that there is a strong link between alcohol and homicide , and the presumption is that alcohol plays a causal role as one of the precipitating elements for violence. Many authorities believe that alcohol is directly responsible for some crimes when inhibitions are removed, leading the person to act in ways he would not ordinarily do , such as behavior resulting from sexual and aggressive impulses. Criminal behavior such as robbery and fraudulant check writing may also occur in an effort to obtain more alcoholic beverages.
Since alcohol acts as a sedative or tranquilizer, in many cases it suppresses functions, as well as releases inhibitions. Since it accounts for the reduction of action, some of that action which might have been criminal never takes place .
Available studies and information easily suggests that alcohol does play an important and damaging role in the lives of offenders, particularly chronic inebriates1 and in the production of crime. However, one should not be misled because sufficient studies have not been made proving that alcohol use by offenders exceeds that of non-offenders with similar social and personal characteristics .

EXISTING HEL,P IN GEORGIA FOR ALCOHOLICS
Department of Education, Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services
The Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services is responsible for administering services to individuals 16 years of age and over who have a physical or mental disability which constitutes a substantial handicap to employment. Alcoholism is considered a condition that warrants help from Vocational Rehabilitation , and this office is actively working with alcoholics. Some of the activities include assigning vocational rehabilitation counselors to each state or local alcoholism clinic, and funding the Emory University Alcoholic Rehabilitation Study Project.
State Department of Family and Children Services
This Department helps the alcoholic primarily by administering assistance through its county units. Treatment and rehabilitation services can be purchased , and some of the larger counties provide subsistence to persons during the treatment period. The Division of Social Administration recognizes alcoholism as a "crippling factor" and allows grants to be made under its Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled Program.
Georgia Department of Public Health
Under the law the Department of Public Health is charged with the duty to study the problem of alcoholism, including methods and facilities available for the care, custody, detention, treatment, employment and rehabilitation of alcoholics. The Division of Mental Health provides these programs and facilities designed to prevent alcoholism and to treat and rehabilitate the alcoholic:
Central State Hospital in Milledgeville, which is chiefly for the mentally ill , is obligated to accept any mentally ill person committed by the courts, including those with psychosis associated with alcoholism . Presently , there is no special unit for the alcoholic, although one is planned. Treatment consists of detoxification and involvement with the hospital's Alcoholics Anonymous group. Alcoholic Rehabilitation Service provides education, training, treatment, rehabilitation and research in the field of alcoholism . Emphasis has been placed on making treatment services available to more of Georgia's alcoholics and their families in their own communities before prolonged institutional care becomes necessary .
Some of the rehabilitation services include:
The Georgian Clinic in Atlanta , which is a statesupported, 50-bed, in-patient facility and a daypatient center, treats an average of 72 patients per

111

day , based on a seven-day week. About two-thirds of the patients treated recover sufficiently with continuous supportive therapy to maintain their jobs and families without welfare assistance. The Clinic also aids in the training of professional people for working with the alcoholic and his family within his own communities.
While the Georgian Clinic serves as a valuable treatment resource, its primary function continues to be training and research, and it is not obligated to accept all persons referred by the courts. It is one of the major training programs in alcoholism in the Southeast and can train personnel to serve as the nuclei for a statewide treatment program. 19
Another state-supported clinic is Chatham Clinic, located in Savannah. It is exclusively a day-patient clinic and carries an active caseload of 426 , with a daily average of 27 patients. Authorities believe its success and growth has demonstrated conclusively the practicality and desirability of developing community clinics throughout the State.
Community Clinics - In 1963 , Alcoholic Rehabilitation Service initiated a pilot project in the Spalding County Health Department in Griffin which was designed to gain experience in assisting a local health department develop a program of services for alcoholics. A team from the Georgian Clinic consulted with professional personnel in the County Health Department on the elements of community treatment for alcoholics.
Since the first clinic in Spalding County, others have been developed in Rome, Dalton, Athens and Statesboro. It has been found that such clinics are ideal for smaller communities but are not sufficient for larger cities, where full-time clinics, as in Savannah are needed. The Chatham Clinic in Savannah, the Garrard Clinic in Columbus, and the Macon-Bibb County Clinic are five-day-week, day-patient centers. In addition, 31 community mental health programs are being operated in Georgia by county health departments . While these are not operated primarily as alcoholism clinics, families in which alcoholism is a problem receive services.

provides shelter, food , clothing, Christian counsel and employment for indigent men . It is estimated that 85 percent of the 200 men taken care of each night here are alcoholics.
(3) St. Jude's House, Inc., is presently the only halfway house for alcoholics in the State. Located in Atlanta, St. Jude's is sponsored by two Episcopal churches and is supported by public contributions. It has beds for 40 residents and provides meals and care for an indefinite period in a protective setting.
Residential Rehabilitation Care
These five non-medical , non-profit programs in Georgia deal with the alcoholic and provide care for an extended period in a controlled, sheltered atmosphere:
Atlanta Union Mission Rehabilitation Farm - Jefferson The Harbor - LaGrange The Anchorage - Albany Hope Haven - Braselton Victory Home - Tallulah Falls

Private Psychiatric Hospitals
There are eight private hospitals in the State that are primarily concerned with treating the mentally and emotional disturbed. Of the eight, four limit their services to treating alcoholics, while three admit them but are also concerned with the broad range of emotional disorders .
These are Georgia's private psychiatric facilities :

County City

Hospital

Type

Burke Clayton Cobb

Waynesboro Thompson

Jonesboro White Cross

Smyrna

Brawner's

Alcoholic Alcoholic Psychiatric and Alcoholic

Fulton Atlanta

Peachtree

Psychiatric and Alcoholic

Parkwood

Psychiatric

Northside Manor Alcoholic

Northside Manor Psychiatric

Richmond Augusta Tidewater

Alcoholic

TOTAL Bed Capacity

No. Beds 28 43 50
65
40 16 35 _ML 317

Private Help Available to Alcoholics
These agencies provide numerous services which citizens could not provide for themselves, but they are often slow to develop programs for the alcoholic.
Following are some of the private agencies :
(l) The Salvation Army, which provides homeless men with shelter, estimates that almost 90 percent of its clients are alcoholics , but it does not have any facilities for medication or special treatment.
(2) The Atlanta Union Mission is supported by individual contributions and fees . The Mission

Casework service for the alcoholic in voluntary agencies is practically non-existent. Travelers Aid Society, which has offices in Atlanta, Columbus, and Savannah, counsels the transient and non-resident. Agencies, such as Family Service, work with a family but usually refer an alcoholic to other resources.
The Emory University Vocational Rehabilitation Alcohol Project offers services for the chronic alcoholic court offender. The project is the result of a previous study and contributes to the rehabilitation of the chronic alcoholic court offender through a strong vocational orientation. To be eligible for the service, the individual must be between 18 and 60 with a record of arrest for public intoxication and prospect of being rehabilitated vocationally.

112

Alcoholics Anonymous is a worldwide fellowship of

recovered alcoholics who help each other maintain sobriety

and who offer to share their recovery experiences freely

r

with other men and women who may have a drinking

problem. There are many branches of Alcoholics

Anonymous in Georgia.

FUTURE NEEDS
It is evident that services for alcoholics are truly lacking; alcoholics usually receive little or no specific attention for their alcohol problem. It is becoming increasingly apparent that an identifiable but coordinate network of state and local services for the alcoholic is essential if there is to be any real progress in the prevention, treatment and control of the illness.
Communities should accept their responsibility for developing their own prevention, treatment and rehabilitation programs in alcoholism.

The Commission recommends that: The State 's responsibilities for alcoholism programs should be essentially those of providing education, training and rehabilitation, giving technical and financial assistance to local communities, coordinating services, stimulating research and providing care for patients in need of intermediate and long term hospitalization.
The Georgian Clinic has been a big asset to Georgia's alcoholism programs, but the basic budget of the facility $350,000 state appropriation - is grossly inadequate to maintain its present level of operations and to develop an institute for research and training in alcoholism and drug dependence.
The Commission recommends that:
The budget of the Georgian Clinic be increased sufficiently so that it can expand its needed programs.
Patient Data Center
Alcoholics often seek help in many places and often at the same time, but presently there is no way of knowing exactly where they have been or the kind of treatment they have received . A patient data center operated by the State could eliminate duplicate services.

Hospital Services
It should be noted that the Georgia Department of Public Health is building eight regional multi-purpose state hospitals. These will be state-owned and state-operated, designated to serving the mentally ill and retarded. Sixty-bed units for alcoholics are included in the three hospitals under construction , and plans include similar units in each facility.
These state hospitals will not be sufficient to take care of all the alcoholics , so it becomes important that a comprehensive community program for alcoholism sufficiently broad to include full services be designed to fit the particular needs of the community served. A popular misconception exists that it is necessary to send a patient away from home for specialized treatment of this condition. This is not true if an alcoholic can be reached durin the early phase of his illness.
The Commission recommends that:
The State help communities develop comprehensive programs for alcoholism and alcohol-related problems as part of total health care services for areas of approximately 75,000 to 200,000 population.
Effective treatment of the alcoholic requires a multi-disciplinary approach and involves the use of many different professionals. Presently there is a severe shortage of trained personnel, thus necessitating the development of additional training programs. These programs can take the form of short-term experience in existing programs, as well as continuous on-the-job training. Authorities believe that even a well-trained competent professional requires about one year of working with an alcoholism team to function adequately with minimum supervision.
Training opportunities must be made available and inducement offered so that individuals can become interested in working in alcoholism programs. In general, the same kinds of personnel are needed in treating alcoholics as are needed in treating patients with mental disabilities. Internists, psychologists, social workers, nurses and chaplains usually form the core of the professional team needed in the prevention and treatment of alcoholism. In addition , community organizers, health educators, occupational therapists, recreational therapists, vocationalrehabilitation counselors, volunteers and others make many valuable contributions.
Georgia has a tremendous shortage of such professionally trained people qualified to render the basic service for an effective alcoholism program . As proposed community programs expand, this shortage will become more acute if no new programs for training are developed.

The Commission recommends that:
A patient data bank should be established on the state level to provide biostatistical information for use by participating service agencies.

The Commission recommends that: The Georgia Department of Public Health should actively support and encourage professional manpower development to meet program needs.
113

Specific instruction on working in alcoholism programs should be included and expanded in the curricula of colleges and universities as part of the training ofall professions involved.
Stipends, scholarships or other means of support should be made available through state and/or federal agencies to students in training.
As alcoholism programs are developed, the need for increased appropriations at all levels - federal , state, and local - underscores the fact that no single source can provide all the necessary funds. Communities must begin to realize that it is unrealistic to expect state and/or federal governments to bear total financial responsibility.
At present, very few single counties in Georgia can support adequate programs on their own. Financial cooperation among adjacent counties with demographic, geographic and socio-economic similarities is the solution.
The annual income to the State from the tax on the sale of alcoholic beverages is over $42,000,000, whereas expenditures for support of the alcoholism program is just over $500,000 or about 1~ percent. Authorities generally concede that 8 to 10 percent of such taxable income might properly be assigned to alcoholism programs, which would constitute an annual appropriation in Georgia of more than $4 million. In Florida and Indiana funds generally derived from the tax on alcoholic beverages or fees from liquor licenses are used in supporting alcoholism programs.
Communities are eligible for federal funds to construct community facilities~0 The law also authorizes the use of federal funds to assist in initial staffing of comprehensive community and mental health programs (including alcoholism). The National Institute of Mental Health has made grants available to communities interested in demonstrating new alcoholism services. These funds are made available for general operating costs and do not allow for any construction monies .21
State funds should be made available to local communities for program development on a matching basis.

provincial government programs are in existence throughout the United States and Canada.
Formulation of intelligent legislation has received great impetus through the increased interest shown by the legal profession. Lawyers realize that alcoholism is a sociomedical problem and that legal issues are vital to an effective prevention, treatment and control program.
During the past several years laws pertaining to alcoholism in Georgia have undergone three major revisions, the latest one being in 1964. In that revision, many civil rights restrictions were eliminated, and additional provisions regarding voluntary and involuntary admissions were added. However , changing concepts and new discoveries in the behavioral sciences, as well as social developments, necessitate continuous re-examination of the laws for revisions to keep them consistent with expanding knowledge.
Admission Procedure Legislation
The 1964 revision of the Georgia Health Code recognized alcoholism as an illness and a public health problem and vested administrative responsibility for alcoholic rehabilitation with the Georgia Department of Public Health.
Unfortunately, the code does not include procedures for an emergency admission of a patient either on a voluntary or involuntary basis. Present law permits the superior court or court of ordinary to take the " .. . alleged patient into custody if deemed necessary for the protection of the alleged patient or others." When a patient needs emergency treatment and/or hospitalization, the prescribed procedure may be impractical or, from a medical standpoint, undesirable. Such an emergency may cause inconvenience to the patient and his family by subjecting him to arrest and even confinement in jail, especially during nights, holidays, or weekends. Another weakness of the code is that it limits the involuntary admission of alcoholics to institutions established only for the purpose of treating alcoholics .

LEGISLATION
Legislative action has been primarily directed toward regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages, rather than toward the control of alcoholism as a medical and social problem. Early efforts of governmental control of alcoholic beverages were characterized by the Volstead Act, which prohibited the sale, production, and possession of alcoholic beverages for general consumption.
Governmental interest in alcoholism was revived during the 1940's when several states enacted legislation recognizing alcoholism as an illness and as a public health problem. By 1950, 14 states had enacted legislation for the
establishment of alcoholism progran:ts. Today, 53 state~ and

The Commission recommends:
Emergency involuntary admission of an intoxicated person to a hospital for a period of time not to exceed 72 hours, without legal proceedings or warrant, provided that the admitting physician concurs in the need for detoxification.
Also the Department of Public Health should have the authority to hospitalize persons with alcoholism or drug dependence who are without psychosis to any of its appropriate state institutions.
The present code does not provide any procedure for the return of state citizens hospitalized in out-of-state institutions directly to the state hospitals in Georgia. The patient has to be delivered to his own county of residence ,

114

and usual commitment proceedings m!JSt be held before the patient can be admitted to an institution In many instances, this routine procedure causes hardship on the patient and his family , as well as the agencies involved. There is an urgent need to develop a more direct procedure to expedite the transfer of such patients to institutions in Georgia.
The Commission recommends that: The legislature adopt the interstate compact on mental health, and needed provisions should be inserted into the Georgia Health Code for the use of the compact as it applies to alcoholism.
The Report of the Task Force on Drunkenness of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice emphasized the need for new legislation regarding commitments of chronic alcoholics and treatment for them. The recent court decisions on alcoholism, which were discussed earlier, have also contributed to the urgent need to take appropriate measures. I
The Commission recommends that:
Local communities pass laws which do not make drunkenness itself a criminal offense.
Health Education and Preventing and Controlling Alcoholism
Any attempt to prevent and control alcoholism must begin with an understanding of the social structures and cultural patterns which shape attitudes and behavior toward drinking.
Because of the many different attitudes which exist in our society toward drinking, there is conflict over the objectives of an alcohol education program. In the past, concern has been with the alcoholic as an individual sufferer and not with alcoholism as a public health problem which can be prevented, treated and controlled.
Community Education Establishing a community education program centered
around preventing and controlling alcoholism requires careful and coordinated planning done in a systematic way. The majority of the educational activities conducted in and by most communities today are sporadic, uncoordinated and often unrelated. This has resulted in a haphazard approach by official and voluntary agencies, as well as by civic and social organizations.
The Commission recommends that: The State should assist communities in establishing educational programs for the prevention, treatment and control ofalcoholism and for the development of services for treating and rehabilitating alcoholics.

Educational Programs for Specific Target Groups
Because of their roles in the prevention, treatment and control of alcoholism, several key groups of persons exist to whom special educational efforts should be directed . Included in these target groups are medical and health-related personnel, clergymen , members of business and industry and the schools, including teachers and students.
The Commission recommends that:
Professional persons such as physicians, nurses, educators, clergymen and others be encouraged to participate in community educational programs for preventing and controlling alcoholism.
While the responsibility for alcohol education in the public schools in Georgia has been assigned to the Department of Education, there is much that can be done by health departments - both state and local. It is essential that the efforts of both agencies be coordinated in such a way as to complement each other.
Because of the conflicting attitudes which exist from community to community, as well as from family to family, concerning the use of alcohol , a wide variation exists in the understanding, basic knowledge and perception of the function of alcohol in our society. In school perhaps for the first time - the child can be exposed to different points of view, perceive the logic as well as the rationalizations that exist in the positions assumed by different groups, and perhaps arrive at a decision based on knowledge and understanding rather than on impulse .
To achieve this kind of educational program, this study begins with the teacher. Not only must he be helped to resolve his own conflicting attitudes concerning alcohol, but he must be equipped to aid the child in doing the same. Thus, one of the target groups in a community education program is the teacher, along with supervisory personnel such as the principal and the school superintendent. Much of this can be accomplished through teacher training programs in colleges and universities and through in-service education.
Instruction manuals and teaching aids need to be developed that will provide teachers with factual information and techniques for presenting material on alcohol. The pattern for most manuals has been to over-simplify the subject by merely emphasizing the nature of alcohol and its " deteriorating physiological effects" and to overlook its social and psychological aspects. One reason for this has been that alcohol education in the public schools has been solely tied to temperance. As a result of the activities of temperance groups, legislation was passed by all the states requiring that public schools teach " the evils" or harmful effects of alcohol.

115



The Commission recommends that:
Secondary schools should provide courses on the prevention and control ofalcoholism based on factual and scientific information.
Industry and Business
Those industrial concerns and businesses which have instituted early identification and treatment programs for employees with alcoholism problems have found a reduction in absenteeism, defective work, accidents and personnel turnover. To accomplish this, however, management must be made aware that a problem exists which can be largely controlled, if not alleviated.
Educational programs should be directed first toward management and key supervisory personnel and then toward employees. These programs should be incorporated with other general health programs and coordinated with the community's total educational efforts. In many areas, local affiliates of the National Council on Alcoholism have developed very successful programs.
The Commission recommends that:
Official and voluntary health and social agencies should stimulate and assist industry in the development of alcoholism education and control programs.

Part II: Narcotics and Drug Abuse
Drug addiction is becoming one of Georgia's more complex social problems. This is not to say that the use of drugs is new. Drugs that affect behavior have been used since 2700 B. C.22 Arrests for Narcotic Drug Law violations rose 165 percent between the years 1960 and 1967. Narcotic arrests in 1967 were up 60 percent over 1966, influenced primarily by marihuana arrests.23
Presently drugs liable to abuse are usually put into two general classifications of narcotics and dangerous drugs. A narcotic is a chemical that generally induces sleep, dulls the senses or relieves pain. Although it does not fit this description under Federal Law and most state laws marihuana is classified as a narcotic for the purpose of legal control.
Heroin has replaced opium as the choice of today's narcotics users . True addiction occurs only with sedative drugs and is primarily associated with continued use. Heroin is not a problem of college or high school students, since there is little use of it by these persons. It is generally used by the highschool dropout and the poorer classes.
There are an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 narcotic abusers in the United States. New York accounts for more than 50 percent of these narcotic addicts. The cost of addiction to society is very high. The cost to large and small businesses shows up in tax money spent on the problem, employee absenteeism, pilferage and insurance premiums. It is estimated that addicts in New York must raise $220 million each year illegally to support their addiction.24
At least 50 percent - possibly as high as 80 to 90 percent - of those with convictions listed on the New York City police blotter are individuals with a previous narcotics conviction. It is apparent that there is a close relationship between drug addiction and crime .25
Federal and state authorities agree that Georgia presently is not troubled by a large group of heroin users. Statistics indicate that about 80 persons, or 1.9 per 100,000 population, are known active narcotics users in Georgia.26 But this is not to say that there is no potential for future problems .
In 1900 when heroin was incorporated in many patent medicines that were sold without prescription, about 1 in 400 persons in this country was addicted, whereas the current figure is about 1 in 2,000. The problem is not that the nation has more total addiction than it used to but that law officers have been unable to reduce the number of heroin users over the past 15 years. 2 7
Presently there is no specific facility for treatment, training or research in narcotic addiction in Georgia. All narcotic addicts must be sent to one of two federal facilities operated by the U. S. Public Health Service. These are located in Fort Worth, Texas and Lexington, Kentucky . Patients from Georgia and other states are admitted on a space-available basis after federal prisoners have been accommodated .

116

After release from one of the federal institutions, they receive no effective aftercare or supervision in Georgia, and authorities believe this to be a big factor in the high relapse rate shown by addicts. To overcome the problem , other states have recently developed numerous successful local programs for the treatment of addiction .
The Commission recommends that:
The Georgia Department of Public Health establish in one of its present facilities a unit for approximately 15 patients so that treatment, training and research can be carried on locally.
Drug Abuse
In recent years the use of dangerous drugs has become widespread. These are non-narcotic drugs which are habit forming or have a potential for abuse because of their stimulant (amphetamine), depressent (barbiturate) and hallucinogenic (LSD-25) effect. The extent of their use is unknown , but figures from Georgia and other parts of the country indicate that the problem is growing. During 1967, Atlanta police recorded 686 cases of drug violations, an increase of 65 .7 percent over the 451 cases recorded in 1966.28 The increase is largely attributed to marihuana smoking. Some authorities estimate that about 15 percent of all college students experiment with its use, but most try it from I to 4 times .29
A study by Dr. Sylvia Herz , a psychologist-sociologist, of ISO students of both sexes who were interviewed in their colleges in New Jersey and New York , showed that more than 25 percent of the students interviewed used drugs . Eight percent of the students had experimented with LSD. These students felt that about 50 percent of the student body used marihuana and that about 70 percent utilized amphetamine .30
A brief review of the users and properties of the drugs presently giving authorities the most cause for alarm follows. 31
Stimulants (Amphetamine)
Stimulants are drugs which directly stimulate the central nervous system, producing excitation, alertness, wakefulness and in some cases, a temporary rise in blood pressure and respiration. These drugs (amphetamine and other closely related drugs) have a wide application in current medical practice. They have been used for many years by physicians in treating a variety of mild mental diseases. More recently, amphetamine is being used by physicians in the treatment of seriously overweight patients.
Since amphetamine and related drugs tend to make depressed people feel alive, they have a special appeal to some people often causing abuse. Because the body develops a tolerance to amphetamine, abusers increase their dosages gradually, which wildly exaggerates the normal effects of these drugs.

One of the defendants accused in the "Hoard" murder case claims he did not know what he was doing at the time of the crime. He claims he had been taking "speckle birds" (an amphetamine type drug) prior to the time of the bombing.
In serious abuse cases there is a drug psychosis resembling schizophrenia delusions and hallucinations both auditory and visual. These effects are particularly dangerous when amphetamines are taken by long distance drivers to ward off sleep, for they are unaware of their fatigue until it overcomes them to cause serious highway accidents.
While amphetamines do not cause physical addiction, abusers develop a psychic or emotional dependence on these drugs. Continued abuse of amphetamine can cause high blood pressure, abnormal heart rhythm and even heart attacks .
Depressants (barbiturates)
Barbiturates depress the central nervous system and are prescribed in small doses to induce sleep. Presently these drugs are valuable in treatment of acute anxiety , hyperthyroidism and high blood pressure.
Excessive dosages of barbiturates result in slurring speech, staggering, loss of balance and quick temper. Overdoses particularly when taken in conjunction with alcohol result in unconsciousness and death, unless given proper medical treatment. Usually , the appearance of drunkenness without an alcoholic breath indicates barbiturate intoxication.
Physical dependence does not generally develop with the dosage normally used in medical practice - but it does occur with the excessive doses used by drug abusers. Withdrawal symptoms usually are far more dangerous than those resulting from narcotic withdrawal. Convulsions are a continual danger with barbiturate withdrawal and may be fatal.
LSD
The Director of the Atlanta field office of the United States Bureau of Narcotics and Drug Abuse Control warns that Atlanta is increasingly plagued by a LSD problem. Eating, inhaling or injecting even as small a quantity of LSD as 1/280,000 of an ounce causes symptoms ranging from hallucination distortion and intensification of sensory perception to panic, impulses toward violence, suicidal acts and psychosis. These effects, totally unpredictable and varying widely from person to person, may last from eight to ten hours and may recur without taking the drug again.
After nearly twenty years of clinical research and 2,000 papers published in scientific journals, no medical use has yet been found for LSD. The use of this drug can have disastrous consequences and frequently requires extensive psychiatric treatment to restore the individual. Because of the growing abuse of LSD, the only licensed manufacturer and investigator of the drug voluntarily ceased manufacture in April, 1966. Now all the LSD available is produced under

117

bootlegged conditions, and the dosage is unreliable. This

tion and its proliferation into the police apparatus, into

may be even more dangerous than the use of legally

community life and the business world itself, since

manufactured LSD.

generally the drug user pays exorbitant prices for cheap

LSD is colorless, odorless, tasteless and fairly easy to

products. The community must expend time and vast sums

produce. The only real answer to the problem is an

of money as well as the social energy of individuals, police

educated public. Risks caused by LSD as reported in popular articles

courts, hospitals, social agencies, etc., for the care of the drug users .

include psychosis, suicide, continuing undesirable personali-

Personality is generally an important factor in the

ty changes, release of sexual and aggressive impulses

development of abuse. The development of abuse is rooted

(leading to murder, rape, homosexual episodes, etc.), habituation, hallucination regeneration, (return of LSD

in the repeated use of drugs as a way of solving life's problems. Figures from the Georgia State Board of

state unasked and without taking the drug), and development of interests in illicit drugs.32 Two such
examples are : a 19-year-old California youth crazed by LSD
was felled by a fusillade of bullets as he charged a

Pharmacy for 1964-66 show that sixty percent of the drug abusers known to that department were school dropouts. Thirty-five percent were high school graduates, and five percent were professional persons.

policeman with a ceremonial saber aimed squarely at the officers stomach. He had run naked in the street threatening passersby with the sword swung high above his head . A young man under the influence of LSD killed his mother-in-law. She was stabbed 105 times .

The adult abuser of drugs commonly has a history of social maladjustment. The pressures and demands of society overwhelm him. Typically, he has a background of family difficulties, disciplinary problems and troubles with the police. Drugs provide artificial ways to escape reality,

Marihuana

anxiety and his feeling of inadequacy. The juvenile drug abuser presents a more complex

At one time marihuana had a minor place in the practice of medicine , but it is no longer considered medically respectable in the United States. It can be smoked, sniffed or ingested, but effects are experienced most quickly with smoking. The mental effects include a feeling of euphoria, exaltation and a dreamy sensation accompanied by a free flow of ideas.

picture. Going through adolescence is, under the best circumstances, a time of difficulties and stress. He does not understand himself and often finds little understanding at home. Thus he seeks refuge among groups or gangs or other young people who go through the same difficulties and satisfies his need to be understood, to be accepted and to belong.

Marihuana does not produce physical dependence or an abstinence syndrome. Once the user has established the amount of marihuana need to achieve his particular "high" there is little tendency to increase the dose, indicating that tolerance does not develop . Using marihuana is roughly comparable to moderate abuse of alcohol, which tends to loosen inhibition and increase suggestibility. This is given as the reason that an individual under the influence of marihuana engages in activities he would not ordinarily consider occasionally violent.
Some law enforcement officials and Federal Bureau of Narcotics personnel have held that marihuana leads to (a) criminal acts associated with impulsiveness, recklessness, and

The juvenile's recognition among his group depends on

his willingness to conform to its code of behavior, to deny

legal, social and parental authority and to follow the

leader's exploits of novel experiences, experiments and

J

thrills. For these reasons innumerable types of drugs are

'

being recklessly used and consumed by increasing numbers

J

of youths from all socio-economic levels. This increase is

taking place in Georgia, as well as in all parts of the

country. Arrests of Georgia juveniles for the use of drugs

have increased tremendously in the last few years, and there

is reason to believe that it will continue unless effective

controls are implemented.

violence, (b) distastful behavior associated with disregard for cleanliness, unrestrained sexuality, rebelliousness, unpredictable relations with others, (c) risk of later heroin dependency because marihuana use generates interest in having drug experiences which marihuana cannot produce and because it is obtained through illicit channels which provide opportunities for access to heroin.33
Drug Abusers

The numerous problems caused by narcotics and

dangerous drugs are immensely complex. Past efforts by

state and federal government to control these problems

have not been sufficiently effective. Adults have often set

bad examples for the youths in this country. Advertising

has sensationalized drug abuse, making it appear attractive. Obviously, the problems caused by the use of narcotics and dangerous drugs have not been solved by legislation.

J
I

Society has failed in checking the use of these products and

1

Why does society even concern itself with so-called drug

in fact, has promoted their use. Government officials and

abuse if it is not of the narcotic variety?

professional people throughout the country believe that

First, of course, is the fact that a person who obtains

education offers the best hope to prevent the misuse or

drugs outside an authorized medical setting is participating

abuse of these potentially harmful substances among our

in a criminal transaction. This supports criminal organiza-

country's youths.

118



An educational program can provide our youths with the opportunity to acquire adequate knowledge about these

potentially harmful substances. Such a program can help

these youths develop the self-restraint to avoid illegal uses

of such substances. The late President Kennedy's Advisory

Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse reported:

. . .An educational program focused on the teenager is the sine qua non of any program to solve the social problem of drug abuse. The teenager should be made conscious of the full range of harmful effects, physical and psychological, that narcotic and dangerous drugs can produce. He should be made aware that although the use of a drug may be temporary means of escape from the world about him, in the long run these drugs will destroy him and all that he aspires to. The education of the teenager is, therefore, an essential requisite of any prevention program.

Conversely, some authorities vigorously oppose educa-

tion about narcotics and drugs, for they think it will result

in experimentation and increased drug abuse. Federal

Commissioner of Narcotics, Harry J. Anslinger, has stated,

"many young people who become addicted have acquired

the habit not because of ignorance of consequences but

because they have heard too much about the effect of drugs

and felt the urge to try them for a thrill ."

If care is taken in instruction to avoid emphasizing the

,.

so-called "spectacular" or "glamorous" phases of drug abuse, education should cause the student to become

increasingly resistant to drug abuse . A sensible program

which emphasizes a positive approach to health education

can be invaluable in reducing the incidence of drug abuse

by teenagers.

faced by any law enforcement officer. Further, it is often hard for law enforcement officers to recognize the difference between persons intoxicated and those suffering from barbiturate poisoning, diabetes, or diseases with symptoms similar to intoxication.
During a routine check or an arrest for a totally unconnected offense, an officer may discover a chemical substance, or he may actually observe a person consuming some particular drug. The immediate question arises whether the substance is a harmful drug being illegally used. It thus becomes important that an officer have some specialized knowledge concerning the nature of drugs.
This is not to say that he must be able to identify the drug, since there is no instant test for the identification of most drugs , but he may be able to assess the situation for law violations.
Special precautions are necessary for jailed drug abusers, since they will go to tremendous lengths to get another fix. The drug addict is generally very skillful at concealing his supplies. It is important that he is not able to smuggle any drugs into jail. Here again it takes special training to cope with the problem of the arrested drug addict.
The Commission recommends that:
The Georgia Police Academy be provided with the manpower and other resources necessary to make possible a more comprehensive program of instruction on these subjects.
More police and law enforcement officers in Georgia be sent to the two-week training school on narcotics and drug abuse presently being offered by the federal government.

The Commission recommends that:
As early as can be effectively done in their education, students in Georgia should be given a comprehensive, factual, scientific education concerning the effects inherent in the use of narcotics, and dangerous drugs, to provide them with the background to enable them to make intelligent, informed decisions when they become exposed to these items. Likewise, it is recommended that educational and commercial television and all news media be utilized to present to the public factual scientific programs concerning the effects inherent in the use of narcotics and dangerous drugs.
Law enforcement has become an increasingly complex and skilled profession that demands specialized knowledge in many fields. One of these fields is drugs and their abuse. Since drug forms include solids, powders and liquids, the pure state of a drug may be very small. The search for drugs in any of its forms is one of the most difficult problems

Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Squad
Presently the Georgia Bureau of Investigation is understaffed and is not able to devote much help in restricting the illegal sale and use of narcotics and drugs. This part of law enforcement is left to a large extent to the Georgia Board of Pharmacy Inspectors, which consists of only five men. These inspectors are principally charged with the duty to check all the legitimate drug outlets in the state (i.e. , pharmacies, doctors, hospitals and wholesale manufacturers).
Federal authorities have cooperated with local officers in attempts to control the illegal sale and use of these drugs but have only a limited number of men available for Georgia .
Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee have special squads which receive specialized training in drugs. Deployed whenever needed, these squads are used to give other officers basic training in narcotics and drug abuse. Federal authorities have stated that these special squads have been very effective in controlling the sale and use of drugs.
A specially trained squad of narcotics and drug control officers in the GBI could render valuable assistance to local

119

authorities when necessary, and could assist the Georgia Board of Pharmacy and the Federal authorities , thus giving the people of Georgia maximum protection .
The Commission recommends that: A special section should be established within the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, consisting of adequate personnel, as a specialized, highly trained narcotics and dangerous drug section. These persons would work with Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel to curtail the traffic and use of narcotics and dangerous drugs and would be used in the training oflocal officers.
Legislation Medical advances are producing many valuable new
drugs, some of which can be abused . Under the federal drug abuse control laws, the Secretary
of Health, Education and Welfare has the power to include new drugs within the regulatory scope of the federal laws if, by regulation, he designates that such drugs have a potential for abuse.34
The Georgia drug abuse control laws, fashioned after federal laws, attempt to protect the public health and safety by regulating and controlling the manufacture, distribution, delivery and possession of depressant and stimulant drugs and other drugs which have a potential for abuse. The present law provides "any drug which contains any quantity of a substance designated by present regulations promulgated under the Federal Act as having a potential abuse . . . " shall be subject to state regulation.35 Since the State's law was enacted in 1967, no controls exist for drugs designated under federal regulation after 1967.
The Commission recommends that:
The Georgia act be amended so as to include by reference within its regulatory scope all future as well as present designation of dangerous drugs under federal regulation.
Treatment While there are federal and state programs for the
treatment of narcotic addiction, there exists virtually no program for the treatment of users of other dangerous drugs. Likewise, in Georgia there are no specific facilities , programs or treatment techniques for drug abusers.
This study finds there is minimal information about drug use and drug problems among Georgia's population. Only through study and research can the extent and dimensions of this drug use problem be found .

The Commission recommends that: The Georgia Department of Public Health establish a unit for drug abusers for approximately 30 patients to combat the continually mounting problem of drug (non-narcotic) abuse in the state.
Footnotes:
1. Developed by the Task Force on Alcoholism of the Division of Mental Health, Georgia Department of Public Health .
2. Expert Committee on Mental Health, Alcoholism Subcommittee, World Health Organization, General Medical Report Series, No. 48, August, 1952.
3 . Figures from National Council on Alcoholism. 4 . Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States,
Uniform Crime Reports, Washington, D. C., 1966. In 1966, 1,485,562 drunkenness arrests were reported by 4,042 agencies embracing a total population of 137,986,000. Projections based upon these figures indicate that there were more than 2 million arrests in the entire country in 1966. 5. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Drunkenness. Washington, 1967. 6. Figures from Atlanta Police Department, Annual Report, 1967. 7. Report on the Alcohol Project of the Department of Psychiatry, Emory University, 1963. 8. Georgia Code Ann. s 88.801a. 9. Driver v. Han nat, 356 F. 2d 761 (4th Cir., 1966), Easter v. District of Columbia, 361. F. 2d 50 (DC Cir. 19661. 10. Jack Dunlap v. City of Atlanta, Case No. B-29126, Fulton Supreme Court, 1967. 11. Presently there is no citation for this case. 12. 361 F. 2d 50 (DC Cir. 1966), 356 F. 2d 761 (4th Cir. 1966). 13. Bjerver, K. and Goldberg, L., "Effects of Alcohol Ingested On Driving Ability," Quart, J. Stud. AL c., 1950, 11, No. 1. 14. Smith, H., and Popham, R., "Blood Alcohol Levels in Relation to Driving," Canada Medical Association, J., 1951,65.325-328 15. New York Times, March 13, 1966 16. This number represents about 50 percent of the drivers killed for those years. Other drivers were not tested. 17. Trice, H. M., "The Job Behavior of Problem Drinkers," in Pittman and Snyder, Society Culture and Drinking Patterns," New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962. 18. Wolfgang, M. E., Patterns jn Criminal Homicide Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press., 1958. 19. Total number of admissions to Georgia Alcoholic Rehabilitation Services Clinics for the year July 1, 1967 through June, 1968 amounted to 1,171 . 20. Mental Health Community Center Construction Act of 1963 (Public Law 88-164). 21. Appalachia Regional Development Act (1965).

120

22., Drug Abuse : Escape to Nowhere - A Guide for Educators. Published by Smith Kline and French Laboratories Philadelphia, in cooperation with the American Association for Health , Physical Education and Recreation, a Department of the National Education Association.
23. Crime in the United States, Uniform Crime Report, 1967, issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.
c.
24. The Attack on Narcotic Addiction and Drug Abuse. New York State Addiction Control Commission, Vol. 2, No. 3, July 1968.
25. Ibid. 26. Charles Winick and Hubert Synder, "Facilities for Treatment
and Rehabilitation of Narcotic Drug Users and Addicts," American Journal of Better Health, Vol. 57 , No. 6 , June, 1967 . 27 . Ronald B. Louria, M. D., "Cool Talk About Hot Drugs," New York Times Magazine, August 6, 1967. 28. Figures from the Atlanta Police Department. 29. Louria, Op. Cit. 30. A 1968 Study by Dr. Sylvia Herz for the Essex County Council. 31 . The discussion on the drugs were taken mainly from Drug Abuse Escape to Nowhere, A Guide for Educators, and Fact Sheets from the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control, Food and Drug Administration, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 32. Richard H. Blum, "Mind Altering Drugs and Dangerous Behavior : Dangerous Drugs," Appendix A-1 , Task Force Report: Narcotics and Drug Abuse. 33. The President's Commission . on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force on Narcotics and Drug Abuse .
,..
121

122

APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF MAIL SURVEYS
.


In a mail survey of over 2,000 members of the Peace Officers Association of Georgia, chosen at random from their membership of approximately 10,000 returns were received from over 330 interested officers. Questions and answers are as follows:

I. List five things you think would reduce crime in Georgia.

In response the officers contributed the following

suggestions which are listed in the order of their

prominence (as indicated by the number of officers

making the same suggestion).

(1) That Georgia needs more and better trained

officers at all levels - state, county, and local.

(2) That there should be stricter enforcement of our

present laws by the courts and all law

enforcement officers.

..

(3) That there should be increased punishment for

all offenders and particularly second and third

offenders.

(4) That the courts should reduce the number of

probations and the parole board should reduce

the number of paroles.

(5) That police authorities should be given more

authority to arrest and hold law violators.

There were many other suggestions too numerous to

mention. Some of these are:

(>

(1) Legalize the sale of alcohol throughout the state,

thus reducing many of the opportunities of graft

and law violations which flourish with moon-

shine operations.

(2) An educational program aimed at the youths,

teaching them such subjects as their responsibili-

ty to society, and the need for respect of laws.

'

(3) The need for new riot laws.

(4) An educational program giving the public

information on ways and means to reduce

crimes affecting themselves, such as burglary.

(5) Stop federal authorities from interfering with

local law enforcement.

(6) Improve rehabilitation measures in prisons.

(7) Enforced curfews for juveniles.

(8) More supervised recreational facilities for our

youth.

(9) More trade and vocational schools to reduce the

amount of unemployment.

(1 0) Continue capital punishment for certain of-

fenses.

(11) More concentrated law enforcement in the high

crime and traffic violations areas.

(12) Reduction of the number of school dropouts. (13) More emphasis on dropout prevention. (14) New laws which allow into evidence confessions,
wire-tapping and new stop and frisk laws. (15) Reduce the number of legal technicalities by
which an offender may avoid conviction.
II. List five things you think would improve law enforcement in Georgia. In response the officers contributed the following information in order of their prominence. (1) Better pay for law enforcement officers at all levels, thus attracting more qualified and dedicated men. (2) Better training of officers after they have been employed.
(3) The qualifications and requirements to become law enforcement officers should be increased so that only the finest men can qualify.
(4) That law enforcement agencies should have more and better equipment, and a better communications system between the different agencies.
(5) That there should be a better public relations program so that the public can know and understand the problem facing law enforcement officials.
Some of the other good suggestions are as follows : (1) That law enforcement officers should receive more support from the prosecutors and courts. (2) Better pension and promotion systems with the intent to attract and keep better qualified officers. (3) Close supervision of officers by their superiors. (4) A thorough investigation of all applicants before being considered for employment. (5) Re-organize State Patrol into a state police agency and restrict the sheriff duties to those of officer of the court and jailer. (6) That there should be more and better communication between the different agencies. (7) State subsidized pay for the law enforcement officers in the smaller towns. (8) Require a state license before a man can serve as an officer. (9) Continuous in-service training for all law enforcement officers.
(10) Compulsory pre-service training for all officers.

123

Ill. When improvement in the morale of a law enforcement agency is needed, what is the best way to bring this about?
The officers contributed the following information in the order of their prominence :
(1) A better salary range. (2) Better working conditions. (3) Shorter work week and hours for all officers. (4) Proper recognition for a job well done. (5) Politics should be kept out of all law
enforcement agencies. (6) A promotion system based on merit rather than
one based on seniority or politics. (7) Better supervision of the junior officers. (8) Set up a grievance committee for each
department. (9) Have clear rules and regulations applied equally
to all. (1 0) Inter-departmental meeting with better com-
munications between all departments and between superiors and regular officers.
IV. If you had the responsibility of eliminating the following matters from within a law enforcement agency , what action would you take? (1) politics (2) dishonesty (3) corruption (4) graft (5) gross inefficiency In answer to the above question, most said that none of the above situations could be tolerated and could be eliminated by a closer screening of applicants and better supervision on the part of police officials. Most replies stated that officers guilty of dishonesty , corruption or graft should be thoroughly investigated and in cases where evidence was obtained, prosecuted.
V. What changes or improvements would you recommend in:
(1) the criminal courts. The responses in order of their prominence are as follows: (a) Stricter punishment should be given most defendants. (b) There should be prompt and efficient prosecution of all defendants. (c) Reduce the number of probations, thus making more defendants serve time. (d) Decrease the work load of each court by increasing the number, thus insuring speedier trials. (e) Allow the jury to see the defendants record before it actually sets its sentence.
Some of the other good suggestions include : (a) Let the judge do all the sentencing after
124

the jury fmds the defendant guilty. (b) The need for a uniform state court. (c) Judges should be appointed by the
Governor or a commission, thus insuring better judges and removing the judges from politics. (d) Sentences for the same offenses should be as equal as possible - do away with the disparity. (e) Take the politics out of the courts so that all parties receive the same consideration. (t) Abolish the nolo contendre pleas, especially in drunk driving cases. (g) Abolish the unsworn statement. (h) The need for mandatory retirement of judges at age 70. (i) The need for a mandatory pre-sentence report. G) Many officers felt that the courts should try the defendant and not abuse the officer who had made the arrest.
(2) The handling of juveniles. The responses in order of their prominence are as follows : (a) That the punishment given to juveniles should be more strict. (b) Make the parents more responsible for the behavior of their children. Hold them liable in damages for injury caused by their minor children. (c) There is a need for more and better juvenile training facilities. Sufficient facilities to insure that juveniles can be kept separate from adult offenders. (d) More specially trained officers to handle juveniles and their problems. (e) The names of juveniles should be published when they commit any act amounting to a felony or misdemeanor.
Some of the other good suggestions include : (a) More juveniles, especially those guilty of
felonies , should be treated as adults. (b) The need for more recreation facilities for
our youth. (c) The need for an educational program in
our schools, aimed directly toward the reduction of delinquency. (d) Need for more strict probation supervision. (e) That juveniles should be tried in open court, and should be photographed and fingerprinted. (3) The efforts being made to reduce traffic fatalities and casualties. The responses in order of their prominence are as follows :

(a) Increase the number of men and patrol cars on the road.
(b) Make the fines and penalties greater for violations.
(c) That more driver licenses should be suspended for continued traffic violations.
(d) The need to increase the use of equipment to detect traffic violations such as radar.
(e) More jail terms should be given for some specific traffic violations such as driving while intoxicated.

Some of the other good suggestions include :

(a) More safety education should be given in

our high schools.

{b) More public ads and education aimed at

reducing speed and carelessness.

(c) More defensive driving school for adults.

{d) Make requirements more strict to get a

drivers license and a re-examination every

so often.

(e) Abolish nolo contendre pleas in drunk

driving cases.

(f) The need for equal treatment of all traffic

violators regardless of their position in the

community .

(g) The need for more and better roads.

,.

(h) Need for central reporting of all traffic offenses.

(i) More and better training in traffic safety

for traffic officers.

G) Pass laws which would reduce the horse-

power of autos allowed to travel on

Georgia highways.

(4) Police-community relations.

The responses in order of their prominence are

u

as follows:

(a) The police should adopt programs which

inform the public on the problem facing

the police officers, such as assigning men

to speak at group meetings , local PTA, etc.

{b) Should gain the support of the news media

in helping to develop a good image of local

officers .

(c) Officers should receive more and better

training on public relations.

{d) Each department should assign one man as

its public relations officer.

(e) There should be more activities in which

the police officers can participate and meet

the public, such as little league baseball.

VI. What should the minimum educational standards be for a recruit law enforcement officer?

The responses were as follows :

Less than high school

30

At least high school

265

At least high school and some college

20

At least high school and 2 years college

20

High school and 4 years college

VII. What is the minimum training a newly-employed officer should receive during his first year?

The responses were as follows :

{1) On-the-job training only

24

{2) Less than one week

6

{3) One week

5

(4) Two weeks

26

(5) Three weeks

19

(6) Four weeks

15

(7) Five weeks

14

(8) Six weeks

34

{9) Seven weeks

2

{10) Eight weeks

46

(II) Nine weeks

1

(12) Ten weeks

9

(13) Eleven weeks

0

( 14) Over Eleven weeks

Ill

{15) All that is available

6

VIII. What do you think the minimum monthly starting salary should be for any newly-employed peace officer who has had no previous experience in law enforcement?

The responses were as follows :

{1) Between 200 and 249

3

{2) Between 250 and 299

1

{3) Between 300 and 349

6

(4) Between 350 and 399

11

(5) Between 400 and 449

67

(6) Between 450 and 499

50

(7) Between 500 and 549

101

(8) Between 550 and 599

23

{9) Between 600 and 649

47

(10) Between 650 and 699

13

{11) Over 700

4

In a mail survey of over 1,0001 Georgia probationers? who were chosen at random, returns were received from over 1502 interested probationers.
The survey asked: Please write , in order of their importance, the suggestions you have for improving the probation service in Georgia.
The responses, in order of their prominence, are as follows : {1) There is nothing wrong with the present
probation system, thus no change is necessary.

125

(2) There is a need for a job placement service specializing in finding employment for persons on probation. Youths should be given special consideration.
(3) More and better probation officers should be hired so that more direct supervision could be given to probationers.
(4) The terms of probation should be reduced after a person has shown that he has been rehabilitated.
(5) Should have probation offices open evenings and on week-ends so that probationers may report after working hours.
(6) The state should establish counseling centers for probationers where a person can discuss his problems .
(7) Probationers should be allowed to travel without prior approval.
(8) Persons on probation should be helped to get more vocational training and education .
(9) Do not contact probationers while on the job as many claim loss of jobs due to this factor.
(10) Probationer should be allowed to keep their driver licenses when it is needed to keep his employment.
(11) The state should find some means to help one on probation, buy insurance and establish credit.
(12) Probationers should be allowed to mail in reports.

(9) Some answered that there is nothing wrong with the present parole system.
(10) That all persons being considered for parole should have the opportunity to appear in person before the parole board.
(11) Parolees should be allowed to travel and move to other parts of the country.
(12) All should receive equal treatment before the parole board even if not represented by an attorney.
(13) A person should be released from parole when his time is completed, and citizenship should be restored.
(14) Relax the rules of parole such as the ban on the use of alcohol.
(15) Need for more and better parole officers who are interested in their assignees.
Footnotes:
1. This represents 10 percent of the probations under the state's probation services.
2. This represents a 15 percent return on the number sent out.
3. This represents 20 percent of the men and women in Georgia who are presently on parole.
4. This represents a 20 percent return on those surveyed.

In a mail survey of over 5003 Georgia parolees who I l
were chosen at random , returns were received from over 1004 interested parolees.
The survey asked: Please write, in order of their importance, the suggestions you have for improving the parole service in Georgia.
The responses, in order of their prominence, are as follows: (1) The need to provide parolees with jobs which
will pay them a livable wage. (2) Parole terms are generally too long. A parolee
should be allowed to earn good time off his term of parole. (3) More paroles should be granted. Persons who are often rehabilitated are not given parole. (4) The need for sufficient funds upon release from prison to help a parolee establish a new life. (5) The need for more pre-parole counseling so that a releasee will know what to expect upon release. (6) Need for more vocational training and education while still in prison. (7) Need to improve the prisons system. (8) Extra counseling while on parole, some group counseling.
126

APPENDIX B

Table I. 1. Departments Responding to Law Enforcement Questinonaires by Agency and Population

,.

. .

1. Town of Jenkensburg 2. Town of Williamson

3. Town of Byromville

POPULATION GROUP: LESS THAN 499
Local Police
4. Whigham Police Dept. 5. Town of Mansfield 6. Town ofTy Ty
POPULATION GROUP: 500-999

7. Hiltonia Police Dept. 8. Arcade Police Dept.

Local Police

1. City of Pavo

2. Kite Police Dept.

3. City of Sardis

4. City of Woodstock

. "

5. Chester Police Dept.

6. City of Woodland 7. Town of Mt. Airy 8. Smithville Police Dept. 9. City of Bowman 10. Town of Tignall
POPULATION GROUP: 1,000-1,999

11. Abbeville Police Dept. 12. City of Uvalda 13. Bogart Police Dept. 14. City of Rutledge

Local Police

1. Cooledge Police Dept.

2. Oglethorpe Police Dept.

3. Centerville Police Dept.

4. Doerun Police Dept.

5. City of Suwanee

6. Town of Snellville

7. Adairsville Police Dept.



8. Lenox Police Dept.

9. Meigs Police Dept.

10. Fort Gaines Police Dept. 11 . Twin City Police Dept. 12. Franklin Police Dept. 13. City of Buena Vista 14. Hahira Police Dept. 15 . City of Warrenton 16. Butler Police Dept. 17. Lumber Police Dept. 18. Town of Pooler

19. City of Palmetto 20. Chatsworth Police Dept. 21. City of Wadley 22. Nahunta Police Dept. 23. Reidsville Police Dept. 24. City of Union Point 25 . City of Loganville

POPULATION GROUP: 2,000-3,999

Local Police

1. City of Lithonia 2. City of Riverdale 3. City of Wrens 4. Savannah Beach Police Dept. 5. Avondale Estates Police Dept. 6. City of Ringgold 7. City of Clarkston 8. City of Byron 9. East Dublin Police Dept. 10. City of Madison 11. City of Dallas 12. City of Cumming

13. City of Fayetteville 14. Monticello Police Dept. 15. City of Greensboro 16. Alma Police Dept. 17. City of Acworth 18. City of Fairburn 19. Hogansville Police Dept. 20. Villa Rica Police Dept. 21. Lakeland City Police 22. Sylvania Police Dept. 23. City of Homerville 24. Louisville Police Dept.

25. McRae Police Dept. 26. Ft. Oglethorpe Police Dept. 27. Claxton Police Dept. 28. City of Norcross 29. Glennville Police Dept. 30. Folkston Police Dept. 31 . Duluth Police Dept. 32. Blackshear Police Dept. 33. City of Vienna Police Dept. 34. City of Jackson 35 . City of Gordon 36. Thunderbolt Police Dept.

Sheriff Departments

1. Quitman Co. Sheriff Dept.

2. Taliferro Co. Sheriff Dept. 127

1. Hawkinsville Police Dept. 2. Port Wentworth Police Dept. 3. Pelham Police Dept. 4. Grovetown Police Dept. 5. Commerce Police Dept. 6. Conyers Police Dept. 7. Jonesboro Police Dept. 8. Calhoun Police Dept. 9. Winder Police Dept.

POPULATION GROUP: 4,000-6,999
Local Police

10. Hartwell Police Dept. 11. Lafayette Police Dept. 12. City of Barnesville 13. Sanderville Police Dept. 14. City of Eastman 15. City of Summerville 16. Adel Police Dept. 17. Clinch Co. Police Dept. 18. Buford Police Dept.

19. Lyons Police Dept. 20. Baxley Police Dept. 21. Ashburn Police Dept. 22. City of Canton 23 . Lawrenceville Police Dept. 24. Blakely Police Dept. 25. West Point Police Dept.

1. Heard Co. Sheriff Dept. 2. Clarlton Co. Sheriff Dept.

Sheriff's Department 3. Clay Co. Sheriff Dept.

4. Brantley Co. Sheriff Dept.

Local Police
1. Toccoa Police Dept. 2. Monroe Police Dept. 3. Elberton Police Dept. 4. Garden City Police Dept. 5. Manchester Police Dept. 6. Hapeville Police Dept. 7. Chamblee Police Dept. 8. Vidalia Police Dept. 9. Thomaston Police Dept.
Local Police
1. Cedartown Police Dept. 2. Tifton Police Dept. 3. Newnan Police Dept. 4. Milledgeville Police Dept. 5. Cordele Police Dept. 6. Statesboro Police Dept. 7. Cartersville Police Dept. 8. Dublin Police Dept. 9. Covington Police Dept.

POPULATION GROUP: 7,000-11,999
County Police
None

Sheriff Dept.
1. Evans Sheriff Dept. 2. Dade Sheriff Dept. 3. Lumpkin Sheriff Dept. 4. Turner Co. Sheriff Dept. 5. Gilmer Co. Sheriff Dept. 6. Irwin Co. Sheriff Dept. 7. Bleckley Co. Sheriff Dept. 8. Wilkes Co. Sheriff Dept. 9. Greene Co. Sheriff Dept. 10. Pierce Co. Sheriff Dept. 11. Bacon Co. Sheriff Dept.

POPULATION GROUP: 12,000-14,999
County Police
None

Sheriff Dept.
1. Effmgham Sheriff Dept. 2. Chattahoochee Sheriff Dept. 3. Screven Sheriff Dept. 4. Jones Co. Sheriff Dept. 5. Telfair Co. Sheriff Dept. 6. Baxley Sheriff Dept.

128

Local Police
1. Americus Police Dept. 2. Warner Robins Police Dept.

POPULATION GROUP: 15,000-19,999
County Police
None

POPULATION GROUP: 20,000-24,999

Local Police
1. Gainesville Police Dept. 2. Thomasville Police Dept. 3. Dalton City Police 4. Smyrna City Police 5. Griffin Police Dept. 6. Decatur Police Dept. 7. Waycross Police Dept.

County Police
None

POPULATION GROUP: 25,000-39,999

Local Police

County Police

1. Forest Park Police Dept. 2. La Grange Police Dept. 3. Brunswick City Police Dept. 4. Rome Police Dept. 5. Valdosta Police Dept. 6. Marietta Police Dept. 7. College Park Police Dept.

1. Glynn Co. Police Dept.

POPULATION GROUP: 40,000-69,999

Local Police

County Police

1. Athens Police Dept. 2. East Point Police Dept. 3. Albany Police Dept.
.

1. Gwinnett Co. Police Dept. 2. Muscogee Co. Police Dept. 3. Chatham Co. Police Dept.
POPULATION GROUP: 70,000-99,999

Local Police

County Police

1. Augusta Police Dept.

1. Dougherty Co. Police Dept. 2. Floyd Co. Police Dept.
POPULATION GROUP: 100,000 and above.

II

Local Police

1. Savannah Folice Dept. 2. Columbus Police Dept.

County Police
1. Cobb Co. Police Dept. 2. DeKalb Co. Police Dept.

129

Sheriff Department
1. Elbert Co. Sheriff Dept. 2. Forsyth Co. Sheriff Dept. 3. Lamar Co. Sheriff Dept. 4. Rockdale Sheriff Dept. 5. Peach Co. Sheriff Dept. 6. Tatnall Co. Sheriff Dept.
Sheriff Dept.
1. Walton Sheriff Dept. 2. Cherokee Co. Sheriff Dept. 3. Coffee Co. Sheriff Dept.
Sheriff Dept.
1. Decatur Sheriff Dept. 2. Tift Co. Sheriff Dept. 3. Carrol Sheriff Dept. 4. Thomasville Sheriff Dept. 5. Colquitt Co. Sheriff Dept.
Sheriff Dept.
1. Whitfield Co. Sheriff Dept. 2. Walker Co. Sheriff Dept. 3. Glynn Co. Sheriff Dept. 4. Spalding Co. Sheriff Dept.
Sheriff Dept.
1. Clarke Co. Sheriff Dept. 2. Clayton Co. Sheriff Dept.
Sheriff Dept.
1. Richmond Co. Sheriff Dept. 2. Bibb Co. Sheriff Dept.

130

Appendix C LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS

As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice.
I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life. I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever

secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.
I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.
I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession .. . law enforcement.


..


'
131

132

APPENDIX D JUVENILE COURT ACT

Introduction
The Supreme Court in the decision of In R e Gault, 387 U. S. I (1966) held that the child and his parents are entitled to notice of specific charges made , and a reasonable opportunity to refute them, to be advised of the right to be represented by counsel, and by appointed counsel if unable to employ one, to have the charges substantiated by witnesses appearing in court and subject to cross-examination, and to be advised that the child need not give evidence against himself. The decision is clearly based on the requirement of due process. The language of the opinion and the implications contained go beyond the specific holding. It indicates that if the approach of the court is punitive, adjudging a juvenile involved in, conduct which for an adult would be criminal with commitment as the result, then the procedure must adhere to constitutional requirements which characterize a criminal proceeding. Outside of the proceedings which fmd the facts and may, result in commitment the normal juvenile court objectives and procedures involving treatment and rehabilitation are preserved.
The aim of this act is to preserve the basic objectives of the juvenile court system and to promote their achievement. In short the Act provides for judicial intervention when necessary for the care of neglected juveniles and for the treatment and rehabilitation of delinquent and unruly juveniles, but under defmed rules of law and through fair and constitutional procedure.
Table of Contents
JUVENILE COURT ACT
ARTICLE I - ESTABLISHMENT, PERSONNEL
Section
1. Creation; Purpose of Act 2. Defmitions 3. Juvenile Court is a division of the Superior Court;
designation of Juvenile Court judge in circuits with more than one Superior Court judge. 4. Powers, Authority and Jurisdiction of Superior Court Judge. 5. Terms of office of Juvenile Court judges appointed under the Act of 1951 and transfer of cases and records on effective date 6. Election of Superior Court judges and the designation of Juvenile Court judges in Judicial circuits having a population of sixty thousand (60,000) or more

7. Appointment of referees ; Their powers and duties; hearings by the judge upon referee's fmdings
8. Conduct of Proceedings 9. Appointment and compensation of personnel 10. Volunteer probation officers 11 . Duties and powers of personnel 12. Powers and Duties of Probation Officers
ARTICLE II - JURISDICTION
Section
13. Jurisdiction of juveniles 14. Transfer from other courts 15. Transfer to other courts
ARTICLE III - INITIATION OF CASES Section
16. Petition ; who may make 17. Petition ; contents 18. Investigation prior to hearing 19. Summons 20. Service of Summons 21. Failure to obey summons; warrants 22. Notice of Rights 23. Contempt of Court
ARTICLE IV - CUSTODY AND DETENTION
Section 24. Taking into custody of Juvenile 25. Detention 26 . Release of Juvenile on recognizance 27. Termination of parental rights
ARTICLE V - PROCEDURE, DECREE
Section
28. Procedure and decree of Adjudicatory Hearing 29. Time of Adjudicatory Hearing 30. Evidence, Proof required at Adjudicatory Hearing 31. Continuance, Adjournment ; Permissible Duration 32. Findings 33. Transcript 34. Appellate Review 35. Dispositional Hearing 36. Evidence, Proof required at Dispositional Hearing 37. Sequence of Hearings 38. Adjournment of Adjudicatory Hearing or during
Dispositional Hearing

133

39. .Disposition on Adjudication of Juvenile Delinquency 40. Disposition on Adjudication of Person in need of
Supervision 41 . Suspended judgment 42. Placement 43. Probation 44. Commitment 45 . Service of Orders
ARTICLE VI - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
46 . Adjudication no conviction of crime 47. Double Jeopardy 48 . Exclusion of General Public 49 . Publications of Orders; Penalty 50. Court of record, records , forms , privileged informa-
tion ; publication of names of j\lveniles 51. Law Enforcement Records 52. Initials on Appeal 53 . Provision in sentence of males between 16 and 18
years of age as to transfer to Board of Corrections 54. Civil Liability of juvenile ; restitution or reparation 55. Court sessions ; quarters 56. Court and witness fees 57. Applicability of Chapter ; Inconsistent or repugnant
laws 58. Short titre 59. Repeal 60. Time of Taking Effect
JUVENILE COURT ACT
ARTICLE I - ESTABLISHMENT, PERSONNEL Section 1. Creation; Purpose of Act. In all judicial circuits in this State, juvenile courts are created and established with exclusive jurisdiction in all cases coming within the terms and provisions of this Act. This Chapter shall be construed liberally and as remedial in character; and the powers hereby conferred are intended to be general' to effect the beneficial pu1poses herein set forth. It is the purpose of this Act that in all proceedings corning under its provisions the court shall proceed upon the theory that the juvenile to whom this legislation is applicable is a ward of the State and is entitled to receive, preferably in his own home, the care, guidance, and control which will contribute to his welfare and the best interests of the State, and that when he is removed from the control of his parents the court shall secure for him care which is as nearly as possible equivalent to that which they should have given him.

Comment
This is intended to emphasize the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile court.
Section 2. Definitions. When used in thi~ Act, unless the context ot~erNise requires :
(a) "Court" means juvenile court division of the Superior Court;
(b) "Judge" means judge.of the juvenile court ; (c) "Senior judge" means the judge of the judicial circuit who has served as a superior court judge for the longest continuous period immediately preceding the time in question ; (d) "Juvenile" means a person less than eighteen (18) years of age ; (e) "Adult" means any person who is not a juvenile ; (f) "Delinquent" shall mean any juvenile who commits an act which, if committed by an adult, would be a crime under federal or state law, or a violation of a municipal ordinance of local law; (g) "A juvenile in need of supervision" means any juvenile who:
(1) Is incorrigible, ungovernable, or habitually disobedient and beyond the control of his parents, guardian, or other custodian ;
(2) Is in violation of the compulsory school attendance law;
(3) Without just cause and without the consent of his parent, guardian, or other custodian, deserts his home or place of abode ;
(4) Engages in an occupation which is or whose behavior, condition, environment, or associations are such as to endanger his health, morals or general welfare or that of others ;
(5) Associates with immoral or vicious persons; (6) Is found begging, receiving, or gathering alms,
whether actually begging or under the pretext of selling or offering anything for sale ; Provided, this shall not be construed to prohibit solicitation on behalf of a recognized agency. (7) Unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, patronizes or visits any bar where intoxicating liquors are sold; or is found in possession of intoxicating liquor; (8) Wanders or loiters about the street of any city, or in or about any highway or any public place between the hours of Twelve (12:00) o'clock midnight and Five (5 :00) o'clock A.M. (h) "Traffic laws" includes all State, local, or municipal traffic laws or ordinances except (1) all felonies, (2) driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of drugs, (3) racing, (4) failing to stop vehicle at scene of accident resulting in injury to or death to any person. (i) The singular includes the plural, the plural the singular, and the masculine the feminine , when consistent with the intent of this Act.

134

Comment
This is similar to provisions of the present Act, with the following exceptions: (a) The age for a "juvenile" is raised from 17 or under to 18 or under. There are two reasons for this - first, because this is the age at which a person first receives some of the incidents of adulthood, and, second, because it is felt that this age limit will allow the court to jurisdiction over most people until they have graduated from high school. Under the present system, the court has jurisdiction over very few high school seniors. (b) The term "delinquent" is used to refer only to those juveniles who commit acts which would be crimes if committed by adults. Such a definition more nearly approximates the present day common meaning of "delinquent" than does the definition of that term under the present Act.
Comment to (h): This definition is for 13, primarily. It contemplates the definitions of traffic in Ga. Code Ann. 68-1504.
It excludes more serious offenses involving traffic, such as (1) felonies, e. g., negligent homicide, (2) driving under the influence, Ga. Code Ann. 68-1625, (3) racing or assisting others to race or accompanying others to race, Ga. Code Ann.68-1626(5)(e)-(g), and (4) failing to stop, 68-1618. All are normally punished as misdemeanors, Ga. Code Ann. \68-9926, with increasingly more severe penalties for multiple violations of driving under the influence.
These offenses are reserved for the juvenile court jurisdiction by the effect of this section. The reason that these offenses are carved out of other traffic violations is their seriousness, the fact that some of them smack of moral turpitude, and that one, racing, is closely related to gang activity and other dispositional problems of present juvenile court jurisdiction.
Section 3. Juvenile court is a division of the Superior Court; designation of juvenile court judge in circuits with more than one superior court judge. The juvenile court shall be a division of the superior court, and the judge of the superior court of each judicial circuit shall sit as the juvenile court judge of that circuit and hear all cases corning within this Act. In the case of any judicial circuit having more than one superior court judge, one of the superior court judges of such circuit shall be designated by a majority of said judges in such circuit to sit as the juvenile court judge of such circuit, and the superior court judge so designated shall sit as the juvenile court judge and hear all cases corning within the provisions of this Act: Provided, that in judicial circuits having a population of 60,000 or greater, by the last or any future United States census, more than one superior court judge may be so designated as the juvenile court judge of any such circuit. Provided, further, if a majority of the judges in any judicial circuit having more than one superior court judge are not able to agree upon such a designation, the senior judge of such circuit shall designate the judge or judges, as the case may be, who is to sit as the juvenile court judge. The judge or judges

designated by either of the foregoing methods shall sit as the judges of the juvenile court from the date of their designation until the ends of their terms of office.
Comment
There are four purposes to this section: By making the juvenile court a division of the superior court: (1) A uniform juvenile court system is created throughout the State. (2) The juvenile courts so created may have exclusive jurisdiction over any cases involving juveniles without violating the State Constitution. (3) Any circuit which wishes to establish a "family" court in connection with the juvenile court may do so without further legislative enactments, since the Superior Court would have original jurisdiction in both the juvenile and the domestic relations areas. It should be noted that such courts have already been successfully established in a few circuits. (4) If the juvenile court has the standing of a superior court, the juvenile court may not be regarded as a judicial stepchild by the community, at least, not to the extent to which it is so regarded at the present time.
Section 4. Powers, Authority and Jurisdiction of Superior Court Judge. This section shall create no new court or judge. This section shall be construed to mean that the juvenile court is a division of the superior court and that, in all matters connected with the organization and personnel of the juvenile court, the superior court judge who sits as juvenile court judge shall have and exercise all of the powers, authority, and jurisdiction given to the juvenile court under this Act and shall, in the exercise of said powers, authority, and jurisdiction, including the conduct of hearings, follow the procedure and practice prescribed in this Act.
Section 5. Terms of office of juvenile court judges appointed under the Act of 1951 and transfer ofcases and records on effective date. The respective terms of office of juvenile court judges appointed under the Acts of 1951, or any amendments thereto, shall expire on the effective date of this Act. All dockets, minutes, papers, and records of such juvenile courts shall, on the effective date of this Act, be turned over to the respective clerks of the superior courts of the counties in which such juvenile courts are sitting on the effective date of this Act.
Comment
The immediate expiration of the terms of office of the present judges necessary for the effective administration of this Act. However, the present judges need not lose their position, since under- 24-2404 the superior court may appoint them as referees for the juvenile court and ft.x their salaries ( 24-2405). It is anticipated that such appointments would not be permanent, but would remain in effect only long enough for the present judges to reestablish law practices or to run for the superior court if they reside in counties having a population of greater than 60,000.
Section 6. Election of superior court judges and the designation of juvenile court judges in judicial circuits

135

having a population of sixty thousand (60,000) or more. In all judicial circuits having a population of sixty thousand (60,000) or more, by the last or any future United States census, there shall be elected one additional superior court judge for each such circuit.
(a) In all judicial circuits having a population of sixty thousand (60,000) or more by the last United States census, said election shall be held upon the date of the next general election occurring more than four (4) months following the effective date of this Act.
(b) In all judicial circuits having a population of sixty thousand (60,000) or more by any future Unites States census, said election shall be held upon the date of the next general election occurring more than four (4) months following the official release of the census data.
Within one month after the superior court judge or judges elected at such general election have taken office, the superior court judges of each such circuit shall designate one superior court judge of such circuit as juvenile court judge for such circuit in the manner prescribed in Section (3) of this Act: Provided, however, that no such designation shall be made if there is at that time a superior court judge of such circuit who was not elected at such general election and who has previously been designated as juvenile court judge for such circuit in the manner prescribed in Section (3) of this Act.

(b) Written notice of the referees' fmdings and recommendations shall be given to the parent, guardian, or custodian of any juvenile or to any person concerned whose case has been heard by a referee.
(c) A hearing upon the referee's findings and recommendation shall be allowed by the judge when such person files with the court a written request for such hearing within fifteen (15) days after such notice: Provided, that in the event the referee recommends that a juvenile be adjudged a delinquent, removed from his parents or guardians, or deprived of his liberty by confinement, that such an adjudicatory hearing shall be allowed as of right.
(d) Any such hearing shall be treated as an appeal from the decision of the referee and upon the same evidence: Provided, that new or newly discovered evidence may be admitted in the discretion of the judge.
(e) In case no hearing before the judge is requested, or when the right to such hearing is waived, the fmdings and recommendations of the referee , when confirmed by an order of the judge, shall become the decree of the court: Provided, that failure to request such hearing, or waivers of such hearing, shall not affect the rights of any person to appeal from said decree of the court.
Comment
The qualifications for referees are increased to the attorney level for the same reasons that this is required of a judge, the referee having a similar function.

Comment
Based upon population estimates [for 1964], 23 judicial circuits have a population of greater than 60,000 while 17 circuits have less than 60,000. Eighteen of the former already have one or more juvenile courts operating within the circuit, while only 5 of the latter have such courts. It is therefore indicated that at least one additional superior court judge will be needed to handle the juvenile caseload in most circuits having more than 60,000 people . This section is intended to provide for this additional judge.
Section 7. Appointment of referees; their powers and duties; hearing by the judge upon referee's findings. The judge may appoint a suitable person or persons to act as referee or referees, to hold office during the pleasure of the judge. Such referees shall not be probation officers of the juvenile court or of any other court of this state. Such referees shall be members of the Bar and qualified for their duty by training and experience. The judge may direct that any case, or any class of cases, shall be heard in the frrst instance by a referee: Provided, that the hearing by the referee shall be in the same manner provided for by this Act for the hearing of cases by the court and shall be subject to the same evidentiary and procedural rules as are required in hearings held by the court.
(a) Upon the conclusion of the hearing in each case, the reference shall transmit to the judge all papers relating to the case, together with his findings and recommendations in writing.

Section 8. Conduct of Proceedings. The duties of representing the interests of and conducting the case for the State under the adjudicatory hearing provisions of this Act are vested in the offices of the respective Solicitors General.
Comment
It is inconsistent with the probation officer's role of post-determination supervisor of a juvenile adjudicated to be either delinquent or in need of supervision under provisions of this Act that they should assume the conflicting duties of protecting not only the interests of the juvenile, but also those of the State. In order that the judge may remain an impartial fact-fmder during the adjudicatory phase and that the probation officer may remain uninvolved until the post-adjudicatory period, the office of Solicitor General must conduct the State's case in the adjudicatory hearing. See Section 11, supra. Compare UNIFORM JUVENILE COURT ACT 6 (6) (3rd Tent. Draft, Nat'l Conf. of Comm'rs on Uniform State Laws 1968).
(a) See GA. CODE. ANN. H24-2913, 2914 (1959). Recognizing the need for special training and expertise in conducting cases before a juvenile court, the provisions for appointment of a competent attorney to represent the State's case in the adjudicatory hearing would appear relevant to and consistent with the purposes and policies of this Act. The above provisions provide for responsibilities and fees of acting Solicitors General.

136

(b) See Mach v. State, 109 Ga. App. 154, 135 S. E. 2d 467 (1964) which held, inter alia, that assistant prosecuting officers, duly authorized by prosecutor and court to assist the prosecutor in discharge of his duties are invested with the same rights and subject to same restrictions with respect to appearing before grand jury as are the regular prosecuting officers. Moreover, it was held not to have been an abuse of discretion by the trial court judge, in response to a petition of the Solicitor General showing an unusual number of similar cases pending to appoint an assistant solicitor to handle all such cases before the grand jury. By analogy, it would seem consistent with the discretion vested in the juvenile court judge by this Act for such judge, on the petition of any Solicitor, to appoint a competent attorney to represent the office of Solicitor General before the juvenile court.
Section 9. Appointment and compensation ofpersonnel. Personnel necessary for the execution of this Act shall be
1
appointed and compensated in the same manner as is now provided by law for the compensation and appointment of such personnel: Provided, however, that in the event that there is no provision for the appointment and compensation of any personnel whom the judge, in his discretion, reasonably believes are necessary for the execution of this Act, the judge shall have the authority to appoint such personnel, and their compensation shall be fixed by the judge.
In the event that any personnel are appointed by the judge under the circumstances provided for by the foregoing proviso of this section:
(a) The salaries of said employees shall be paid out of the county or counties comprising the judicial circuit in which the juvenile court sits, and the expenses of the payment of these salaries shall be apportioned, as nearly as is reasonably possible, among said counties according to their respective populations.
(b) All appointments of such personnel shall be made from eligible lists secured from the local merit board in those counties within the circuit where such boards exist or from lists established by competitive examinations conducted by the court, or from both such eligible lists and such competitive examinations.
(c) The appointment, salary, tenure, and all other conditions of the employment of said personnel shall be in accordanre with rules and regulations established by the court.
(d) Any such employee of the court may be removed for cause by the judge of the court, the reasons therefor to be assigned in writing.
Comment
The frrst sentence of this section is merely intended to make it clear that personnel necessary for the execution of this Act shall be appointed in the same manner as are any other personnel utilized by the Superior Court. This will retain uniformity throughout the superior court system and

will also allow juvenile court personnel who qualify (such as probation officers) to some within the provisions of the State merit system. The advantages to this latter factor are obvious.
The proviso in the first paragraph is intended to provide for the employment of personnel for whom there is no specific present provision made under Georgia law. The method of appointing and compensating such personnel is the same as that utilized under present 24-2405, except that present ~4-2405 is fashioned for county juvenile courts and this section is fashioned around judicial circuits. It is hoped that eventually the State will set up a uniform system for the appointment and compensation of all personnel of the juvenile court, but, at the present time, this proviso is probably the only method in which one can be certain that no necessary personnel will be lost by the enactment of this Act.
Section 10. Volunteer probation officers. The judge may appoint a volunteer probation officer or officers to serve without compensation, subject to such regulations and direction as the court may deem proper.
Section 11 . Duties and powers of personnel. Administrative and professional personnel shall be under the direct supervision of the judge or his duly appointed supervisor and shall be charged with the execution of all orders and assignments necessary in the performance of this Chapter.
Section 12. Powers and Duties of Probation Officers. For the purpose of carrying out the objectives and purposes of this Act and subject to the limitations of this Act or imposed by the Court, a probation officer has the power and duty to :
(a) make investigations, reports, and recommendations to the court authorized by this Act.
(b) receive and examine complaints and charges of delinquency, neglect or unruly .conduct with respect to a juvenile for the purpose of considering the commencement of proceedings under this Act;
(c) supervise and assist a juvenile placed on probation, or in his protective supervision or care by order of the court or other authority of law ;
(d) make appropriate referrals to other private or public agencies of the community where their assistance appears to be needed or desirable ;
(e) take into custody and detain a juvenile who is under his supervision or care as a delinquent or neglected juvenile when the probation officer has reasonable cause to believe that the juvenile's health or safety is in imminent danger, or that he may flee from the jurisdiction of the court, or when ordered by the court pursuant to this Act. Except as provided by this Act, a probation officer does not have the powers of a law enforcement officer nor may he conduct proceedings under this Act against a juvenile who is or may be under his care or supervision ; and
(f) perform such other functions as are designated by this Act or by order of the court pursuant thereto. Any of the foregoing functions may be performed in another state

137

when authorized by the court of this state and is permitted by the laws of the other state.
Comment
This Section brings together the various functions of the probation officer under this Act. Specific powers also appear in other sections in the Act.
The primary role of the probation officer is the care and protection of the juvenile , and in delinquency cases, his treatment and rehabilitation as well. Incompatible roles such as the power of arrest, conducting the proceeding in juvenile court, representing the juvenile in court, have been excluded.
The several powers stated are subject to limitations imposed by the court.
This section and accompanying comments are a reproduction of 6, Third Tentative Draft, Uniform Juvenile Court Act.
ARTICLE II - JURISDICTION
Section 13 . Jurisdiction of Juveniles. The juvenile court shall have original jurisdiction concerning (i) any juvenile, as defined in 2 of this Act, who is living or found within the judicial circuit ; or (ii) any person living or found within the judicial circuit who, when less than eighteen (18) years of age , committed an act which, if committed by a person eighteen (18) years of age or older, would be a crime under federal or state law, or a violation of a municipal ordinance or local law, and such persons shall also be considered to be juveniles and shall be charged with a violation of such criminal acts in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
(a) Who is alleged to have violated or attempted to violate any federal, state or local law or municipal ordinance ;
(b) Who is beyond the control of his parents or other custodian ;
(c) Whose occupation, behavior, condition, environment or associations are such as to injure or endanger his health, morals and general welfare or that of others;
(d) Who is neglected or living under insufficient and improper guardianship, or who is in need of medical, psychiatric, psychological or other care necessary for his well-being, or who is abandoned by his parent or other custodian. In the consideration of these cases, the juvenile court may establish a division of the juvenile probation system of each county for the physical and mental diagnosis of children who are believed to be physically or mentally diseased or defective, and may appoint as a special child guidance consultant any duly qualified physician or physicians, and other necessary and qualified personnel for the purpose of making a complete examination and rendering corrective treatment to said juvenile or juveniles, and the compensation for said services shall be fixed by the judge with the approval of the county governing authority: Provided, however, that where qualified personnel for the purposes herein stated are available or which can be made

available at a reasonable convenient branch clinic of the Department of Health, the Department of Health officials or physicians shall make the examinations and corrective treatments. In connection with the pr~vention of juvenile delinquency and the establishment and operation of said division, the court may offer consultant services to public and private juvenile care agencies and members of the public either before or after formal inquiry or disposition of a juvenile's case is had before the juvenile court.
(e) Whose custody is the subject of controversy; (f) Whenever any such juvenile court shall have acquired the jurisdiction of any juvenile such jurisdiction shall continue so long as, in the judgment of the court, it may be necessary to retain jurisdiction for the correction or education of such child, but such jurisdiction shall terminate when such juvenile shall attain the age of 21 years. (g) The juvenile court shall also have original jurisdiction concerning any juvenile who has been adopted and whose adoptive parents failed to faithfully perform their obligations to such juvenile. The court may act upon a complaint or petition substantially conforming to the procedure and form prescribed hereinafter.
Comment
(ii) is intended to prevent abuses which occur at the present time due to prosecuting authorities' waiting until a juvenile is too old to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court before proceeding against him for acts committed while he was still young enough to be handled by that court.
The increase of the jurisdictional age to include the 17th year was made for three reasons, all of which tend to establish that age as the logical jurisdictional age:
(1) At the age of 18, the juvenile becomes eligible to register to vote.
(2) At the age of 18, the juvenile becomes eligible for the draft.
(3) The 17-year-old is still in high school, and is still thought of as a juvenile by his peers and the community. For these reasons, highschool is often an excellent tool for the juvenile court judge in fashioning his disposition.
It is persuasive that a majority of states now use the "under 18" jurisdictional age limit.
Section 14. Transfer from Other Courts. (1) If, during the pendency of a criminal or quasi-criminal charges against any minor in any other court, it shall be ascertained that the minor was under the age of 18 years, at the time of committing the alleged offense, it shall be the duty of such court forthwith to transfer the case, together with all the papers, documents and testimony connected therewith, to the juvenile court. The court making such transfer shall order the minor to be taken forthwith to the place of detention designated by the juvenile court or to that court itself, or release such to the custody of some suitable person to be brought before the court at a time designated.

138

The juvenile court shall then proceed as provided in this chapter.
(a) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this subsection (a), of section 13 and notwithstanding any other provisions of the laws of this State providing for juvenile courts , it is hereby expressly provided and enacted that all courts in this State having jurisdiction to try cases in which parties are charged with violation of State , local, or municipal traffic laws , or ordinances , including the courts of municipalities by whatever name designated, shall have the power and authority to retain jurisdiction of cases initiated in said courts involving alleged violations of such traffic laws or ordinances , provided such court otherwise has jurisdiction of such case, if the alleged offender shall be sixteen years of age or older on the date of the alleged offense, and shall have the power and authority to make final disposition of said cases and to impose such fines and sentences as may be prescribed by law for the punishment of the offense for which said minor is charged .
(b) Provided, however, that said courts, if they elect to do so, may transfer said cases or any of them , together with all papers, documents, and records connected therewith , to the juvenile court of the county having jurisdiction of said juvenile ; and in making such transfer, the transferring court shall order the juvenile to be taken forthwith to the place of detention designated by the Juvenile Court or to the Juvenile Court itself, or shall release said juvenile to the custody of some suitable person to be brought before the Juvenile Court at a time designated by the order of the transferring court, and the Juvenile Court shall then proceed as provided in this Chapter.
Nothing in paragraphs (a) or (b) or subsection (1) shall
{ deny to said juveniles any of the methods of appeal now provided by law or which may hereafter be provided. (2) Courts of record in handling divorce or habeas corpus cases involving the custody of a juvenile or juveniles, may transfer the question of the determination of custody and support to the juvenile court for investigation and report back to the superior court for investigation and determination. The juvenile court then shall proceed to handle the matter in the same manner as though the action originated under this Chapter, in compliance with the order of the superior court.
Comment
Changed to conform jurisdictional age requirements with
)2 .
Also eliminated last paragraph in (1) (g) , giving grand jury the option of recommending effectiveness of (a) & (b). Striking this option has the effect of making paragraphs (I) (a) and (I) (b) automatically effective .
Section 15. Transfer to other Courts. If a juvenile of fifteen (15) years or older is charged with a criminal offense, and if the court after full investigation deems it contrary to the best interest of such juvenile or of the public to retain jurisdiction, the court may in its discretion

certify such juvenile for proper criminal proceedings to any court which would have trial jurisdiction of such offense if committed by an adult.
Comment
Retained old section , except for second sentence, which is now unnecessary under new concept of juvenile court as branch of superior court.

ARTICLE III - INITIATION OF CASES

Section 16. Petition; Who May Make. Subject to the

provisions of Section 15 , the petition may be made by any

person, including a law enforcement officer, who has

knowledge of the facts alleged or is informed and believes

that they are true.

Section 17. Petition; Contents. The petition shall be

verified and may be on information and belief. It shall set

forth plainly:

(a) the facts which brings the juvenile within the

jurisdiction of the court ; together with a statement that it is

in the best interests of the juvenile and the public that the

proceedings be brought and, if delinquency or unruly

conduct is alleged that the juvenile is in need of treatment

or rehabilitation ;

(b) the name , age , and residence address, if any , of the

juvenile on whose behalf the petition is brought ;

(c) the names and residence addresses, if known to

petitioner, of the parents and guardians of the juvenile and

of the juvenile's spouse if married . If neither of his parents

or guardian resides or can be found within the state, or if

their respective places of residence address are the name of any known adult relative residing

wuintkhninowthn~

county, or, if there be none, the known adult relative

residing nearest to the location of the court ;

(d) whether the juvenile is in custody and , if so, the

place of his detention and the time he was taken into

custody.

Comment
The allegation that the juvenile is in need of treatment and rehabilitation is a necessary one and , in the light of the Gault case, must be established if the proceedings are to retain their non-criminal character.
Juvenile court acts rarely have provisions for a formal answer to the petition . The parties simply appear at the hearing and state whether they admit or deny the allegations. If admitted, the hearing proceeds to the disposition stage. If denied , the hearing continues to determine the facts. There is likewise no provision for default for non-appearance . If the juvenile is before the court, the appropriate disposition is made without the non-appearing party. If the appearance of a party such as a parent is deemed essential , he can be brought in by subpoena under Section 17 (d) or by order on the summons under Section 17 (a).

139

Section 18. Investigation prior to hearing. (a) Prior to hearing of a case of any juvenile , the judge may cause an investigation of all the facts pertaining to the issue to be made. Such investigation shall consist of the facts which bring the juvenile within the purview of this act , including an examination of the parentage and surroundings of the juvenile, his age, habits, and history , and shall include also an inquiry into the home conditions, habits and character of his parents or guardian. In such cases the court shall also, if practicable , cause the juvenile to be examined as to his mentality by a competent and experienced psychologist who shall make a report of his findings . In the case of any juvenile, there shall be obtained from the school which he attends, a report concerning him. The school officials shall furnish such report upon the request of the court or the probation officer. The court shall, when it is considered necessary, cause a complete physical examination to be made of the juvenile by a competent physician .
(b) In cases of violation of a law or an ordinance relating to operation of a motor vehicle by a juvenile under 16, preliminary investigation and petition shall not be required , and the issuance of a traffic citation or summons shall be sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
Comment
Section 18 was added because of the high incidence of juveniles involved in motor vehicle offenses. To avoid unnecessary paper work , the court's jurisdiction will be invoked without the need of preliminary investigation .
Section 19. Summons. (a) After the petition has been filed, the court shall fix a time for hearing, which, if the juvenile is in detention, shall not be later than I 0 days after the filing of the petition , and shall direct the issuance of a summons directed to the juvenile, the parent, guardian or other custodian and such other persons as appear to the court to be proper or necessary parties to the proceedings, requiring them to appear before the court at the time fixed to answer the allegations of the petition. A copy of the petition or a summary of its allegations shall accompany the summons.
(b) The court may endorse upon the summons an order directing the parents, or guardian or other custodian of the juvenile to appear personally at the hearing and directing the person having the physical custody or control of the juvenile to bring the juvenile to the hearing.
(c) The summons shall state that a party is entitled to counsel in the proceedings and that the court will appoint counsel if the party is unable without undue financial hardship to employ one.
(d) If the person so summoned shall be other than a parent or guardian of the juvenile, then the parent or guardian or both shall be notified of the pendency of the case and of the time and place appointed , by personal service before the hearing, except as hereinafter provided.

Summons may be issued requiring the appearance of any other person whose presence, in the opinion of the judge is necessary. If it appears that the juvenile is in such condition or surroundings that his welfare requires that his custody be immediately assumed by the court, the judge may so order, by endorsement upon the summons, that the officer serving the same shall at once take the juvenile into custody.
A parent or guardian shall be entitled to the issuance of compulsory process for the attendance of witnesses on his own behalf or on behalf of the juvenile.
(e) A party , other than the juvenile, may waive service of summons by written stipulation or by voluntary appearance at the hearing.
Comment
Service of the summons is required upon the juvenile since the juvenile is the primary party to the proceedings. The juvenile is not permitted to waive service. This has been the direction of judicial decisions on the question.
Section 20. Servic.e of Summons. (a) If a party to be served with a summons is within the state and can be found, the summons shall be served upon him personally at least 24 hours before the hearing. If he is within the state and cannot be found, but his address is known or can with reasonable diligence be ascertained , the summons may be served upon him by mailing a copy thereof by registered or certified mail at least 5 days before the hearing. If he is without the state but he can be found or his address is known, or his whereabouts or address can with reasonable diligence be ascertained, service of the summons may be made either by delivering a copy thereof to him personally or mailing a copy thereof to him by registered or certified mail.
If after reasonable effort he cannot be found or his post office address ascertained, whether he is within or without state, the court may order service of the summons upon him by publication in accordance with the provisions of 81-207 and the hearing shall not be earlier than 5 days after the date of the last publication.
(b) Service of the summons may be made by any suitable person under the direction of the court or, when so restricted by the court, shall be made only by a law enforcement officer.
(c) The court may authorize the payment from county funds of the costs of service and of necessary travel expenses incurred by persons summoned or otherwise required to appear at the hearing.
r
Comment
The summons and the service thereof give notice of the proceedings to the parties affected and warn them that action may be taken as stated in the petition unless they appear. Persons required to be present but who are not

140

inte nded to be participants as parties can be brought into court by subpoena.
In the interest of consistency of procedures for the publication of the summons, reference is made to the general publication statute .
Judicial decisions indicate that such service by publication is not constitutionally permissible unless a substantial showing is made that alternative and better modes of notice are not available.
Section 21. Failure to obey summons; wa"ants. If any person summoned as herein provided shall, without reasonable cause, fail to appear, he may be proceeded against for contempt of court, without intervention of a jury. In case the summons cannot be served or, the parties served fail to obey the same, or in any case when it shall be made to appear to the judge that the service will be ine ffectual , or that the welfare of the juvenile requires that he shall be brought forthwith into the custody of the court, a warrant or capias may be issued for the parent, guardian, juvenile , or other persons summoned to court.
Section 22. Notice of Rights. Prior to the commenceme nt of the adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile and his parent(s) or guardian shall be informed by the juvenile court judge that the juvenile has the right :
(a) To representation by counsel of his own choosing or, should financial ability preclude retention , to appointment of counsel upon request ; To have the juvenile court judge appoint counsel for indigent parents , guardians and juveniles as early in the proceedings as practicable.
(b) To remain silent throughout the proceeding, to submit to sworn examination, or to make an unsworn summation at the conclusion of the proceeding prior to decision by the court ; and
(c) To confrontation and cross-examination of any petitioner, accuser , or witness called to testify against the juvenile .
(d) Should a juvenile of any age waive these rights, such waiver shall not be effective unless intelligent and concurred in by the said juvenile's parent(s) or legal guardian. Should the juvenile wish to exercise his right of counsel, any waiver of such right given by parent or legal guardian shall be void and of no effect.
Comment
l . Right to Counsel. The right to counsel in juvenile court proceedings has been unequivocally recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 3442 (1967); Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 561-2 (1966). See Lefstein, In re Gault, Juvenile Court and Lawyers, 53 A.B.A.J. 811 (1967) ; The Supreme Court, 1966 Term, 81 HARV. L. REV. 110, 171 ( 1967); Comment, In re Gault, Children Are People, 55 CALIF . L. REV. 1204, 1212-14 (1967) ; Recent Decisions, 20 U. FLA. L. REV. 120 (1967) ; 20 VAND. L. REV. 1161 (1967); 53 A.B .A.J. 657 (1967).

(a) The impact of Gault was readily recognized by the Georgia Juvenile Court Law Study Committee, appointed by the Governor. The Committee Report recommendations for changes to the existing 1951 Juvenile Court Act included therein the right to counsel. R eport, Part 111(5), p. 6 (1967). The General Assembly enacted such a provision which has been codified as GA . CODE ANN . 24-241 8A (Supp. 1968). See Ga. Laws, 1968, p.
(b) See Also UNIFORM JUVENILE COURT ACT, National Conference on Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 26 (3d Tent. Draft 1968); STANDARD JUVENILE COURT ACT, National Council on Crime and Delinquency , 19 (6th ed. 1959). The UNIFORM ACT, supra, defines a person entitled to court appointed counsel as: A needy person ... who at the time his need is determined is unable without undue financial hardship , to provide for the full payment of legal counsel and all other necessary expenses of representation . See generally. Th e Challenge of Crime in a Free Society Report of President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice (1967) (" no single action holds more potential for achieving procedural justice for the child in the juvenile court than provision of counsel.").
2. Privilege Against Selflncrimination. The privilege against self-incrimination was emphatically affirmed in Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 42-55 (1967), where the Supreme Court stated that "juvenile proceedings to determine 'delinquency ,' which may lead to commitment to a state institution, must be regarded as 'criminal' for purposes of the privilege against self-incrimination." /d. at 49. But see In re Whittington, 13 Ohio App. 2d 11, 233 N.E. 2d 333 , cert. granted 36 U.S.L.W. 3143 (U .S. Oct. 10, 1967). See generally. law review articles cited , supra, note I. (a) Provided for by 1968 Amendments. GA . CODE ANN . 24-2418A (Supp . 1968). (b) See also UNIFORM ACT supra, 27 (3d Tent. Draft 1968).
3. RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION - See Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 56-57 (1967), where the Supreme Court, affirming its earlier dictum in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 554 (1966) , held "that, absent a valid confession , a determination of delinquency and an order of commitment to a state institution cannot be sustained in the absence of sworn testimony subjected to the opportunity for cross-examination ... ."/d. at 57.
Section 23. Contempt of court. - Any adult who willfully violates , neglects or refuses to obey or perform any lawful order of the court, or who violates any provision of this Chapter may be proceeded against for contempt of court. Any adult found in contempt of court may be punished by a fine in the discretion of the judge .

141

Comment
This section provides for the complete discretion of the judge in matters of contempt. However, it limits them to civil penalties. The old act provided for criminal penalties as well. However, criminal penalties have been limited, for the reason that it may be unconstitutional to put a person in criminal contempt without a jury trial.
ARTICLE IV - CUSTODY AND DETENTION
Section 24. Taking into custody of Juvenile. Any juvenile in need of supervision as defined by this act may be taken into custody by city, county, or State police officers or other peace officers. Such taking into custody shall not be termed an arrest. The jurisdiction shall attach from the time of such taking into custody.
Any juvenile found violating any law or ordinance may be taken into custody by city, county, or State police officers, or other peace officers upon the issuance of an [arrest warrant] for the juvenile offender which shall be given upon affidavit of the appropriate law enforcement officer. The jurisdiction of the court shall attach from the time of such taking into custody.
Section 25. Detention. Provisions shall be made for a detention home or homes for temporary detention of juveniles, to be conducted by the court or subject to the supervision of the court or other appropriate public agency, or the court may arrange for the use of private homes for such detention, subject to the supervision of the court or other agency, or may arrange with any institution or agency to receive for temporary care or custody, juveniles within the jurisdiction of the court. When a detention home is established as an agency of the court, necessary professional and other employees for such home shall be appointed in the same manner as provided for the appointment of other employees of the court.
In all counties where special detention homes or facilities are provided by the juvenile court or governmental or other authorities, no juvenile shall be detained in any lockup or jail except by order of the judge of said cour . It shall be the duties of the officer taking the juvenile offender into custody to place him in such detention home and to file a complaint with the court, setting forth the particulars necessitating such action.
In counties where there are no special detention facilities for holding juvenile offenders provided by the juvenile court or other governing authorities and it appears to the officer that it is necessary for the protection of society or the juvenile offender that he be held, the officer may temporarily place him in any appropriate place of security, separate and apart from adult offenders charged with crime, without court order for a period not to exceed twenty-four (24) hours, during which time he shall file a complaint with the judge of the juvenile court, and obtain an order from the judge making further disposition of the juvenile offender. The judge, in his discretion, may ord~r the

juvenile held or may release him to his parents, with or without bail, always acting in the best interest of correcting and rehabilitating the youthful offender.
Section 26. Release of Juvenile .on recognizance Until the first hearing of the case by the court a probation officer assigned to the court may release the juvenile upon his own recognizance, or upon the recognizance of the parent or the person having the custody control or supervision of the juvenile, to appear before the court at such time as may be therein fixed.
Section 27. Termination of parental rights. Whenever in the course of a proceeding instituted under this Chapter, it shall appear to the court that the parents or the surviving parent of the juvenile, or the mother of a juvenile born out of wedlock, have abandoned such juvenile or have substantially and continuously or repeatedly refused, or being financially able have neglected to give such juvenile parental care and protection ; or that such parent or parents are unfit by reason of their conduct or condition being seriously detrimental to the said juvenile, the court shall have jurisdiction to transfer the permanent care, control and custody of such juvenile to some other person, agency or institution , and may terminate all rights of such parent or parents with reference to such juvenile, and also may appoint a guardian for the person of such juvenile. Such transfer or termination shall be made only after a hearing before the court and the court shall cause notice of the time, place and purpose of such hearing to be served on such parent or parents personally at least three days prior to the date of hearing; or if the court is satisfied that personal service cannot be affected, then by publication thereof in a newspaper in the county once a week for three weeks prior to the date of hearing.
Upon application of the parents or the surviving parent, or the mother of a juvenile born out of wedlock, the court may order the transfer of the permanent care, control and custody of such juvenile, and if it appears wise, the termination of all the rights of a parent or the parents with reference to such juvenile, provided the court after a hearing finds such transfer or termination to be in the best interests of the juvenile. Every order of the court transferring the permanent care, control and custody of a juvenile or terminating the rights of the parents or of a parent with reference to a juvenile shall be in writing and shall recite the jurisdictional facts. Such order shall be conclusive and binding on all persons and in all proceedings after 30 days unless the judgment of the court is contested by appeal as provided by law.
Comment
This section established a means whereby the court can terminate the parent-child relationship, if it deems such action necessary. Such termination may be accompanied by the transfer of the permanent care, control and custody of the juvenile to another. This termination of rights can be accomplished either upon application by the court in such a situation where it deems such termination necessary or by

142

application of the parent or guardian of said child to have the parent-child relationship terminated. This provision is in complete accord with the old law, and is taken from 24-2427 of the former Ga. Code Annotated. 32- The rule allowing for transcripts herein set forth is a corollary to the provision permitting appeals. That is, a transcript allows an appeal to be perfected.
ARTICLE V - PROCEDURE, DECREE
Section 28. Procedure and Decree of Adjudicatory Hearing. An adjudicatory hearing shall be a civil proceeding conducted under adversary rules in response to a formal petition whereby it has been alleged that the juvenile has violated a criminal statute for which, were he an adult, he might be criminally prosecuted or whereby it has been alleged that he is a person in need of supervision by the court. Need of supervision may be declared upon proof that the juvenile is incorrigible, ungovernable , habitually disobedient, beyond the control of parent(s) or guardian, or habitually truant. The adjudicatory hearing shall be confined to determination of whether he has either violated the specific law alleged (or any lesser included offense) or is presently in need of supervision by virtue of such conduct as would fall within the ambit of behavior described above.

Comment
Time of . .. Hearing. While the number of days a juvenile is held in detention prior to a hearing is flexible, three days (72 hours) was arbitrarily chosen on the basis of the current maximum period allowed under Georgia criminal procedure standards to expire between arrest and committal hearing . Cf GA . CODE ANN. 27 - 210 (920 pc). Should a juvenile not have been detained, the judge, in exercising his discretion, should balance the interests in adequate preparation of the case by the interested parties and advantages of rapid disposition, whenever he sets a case down for hearing under the provisions of the second sentence of Section 28.
Section 30. Evidence; Proof Required at Adjudicatory Hearing. Only such evidence that is competent, material, and relevant to the violation or conduct alleged in the peittion shall be admissible in the adjudicatory hearing. No uncorroborated confession or statement made out of court shall be admissible. Unless a finding be supported by [proof beyond a reasonable doubt/clear and convincing proof], the petition shall be dismissed by formal order of the court. Only a finding of juvenile delinquency or need for supervision must be accompanied by a formal decision as prescribed in Section 31.

Comment
Procedure ... of adjudicatory hearing. The adjudicatory hearing is strictly a fact-finding proceeding designed to determine on the basis of competent, material, and relevant evidence whether or not an individual juvenile violated a criminal statute, ordinance, etc. or whether or not his conduct drawn into question renders him a juvenile "in need of supervision." Such a clearly defined procedure has the benefit of allowing the retention of a civil character while insuring the individual before the court of an impartial hearing. Such a proceeding will undoubtedly require a stricter separation of roles -judge, defense, and petitioner - than previous procedures necessitated, yet anything less than a quasi-adversary proceeding would fall short of the Gault guidelines designed to insure due process. See Lefstein, In re Gault, Juvenile Courts and Lawyers, 54 A.B.A.J. 811,812-13 (1967).
(a) Compare N.Y. LAWS 742 (McKinney 1963). (b) Cf Section 34-38, this statute, for definition of "dispositional hearing." The clear demarcation between the two types of hearings supplies a framework for different standards for admissibility of evidence and related matters. (c) GA. CODE ANN. 24-2420, replaced in its entirety.
Section 29 . Time of Adjudicatory Hearing. If the juvenile has been detained, an adjudicatory hearing shall be held within three working days after the petition was filed. Otherwise, such hearing shall be called by the Clerk of the Court, but in no event shall such hearing date exceed thirty calendar days from the date on which the petition was filed.

Comment
Evidence; Proof Required. . . The terms "competent," "material" and "relevant" should be construed in their formal legal sense. The adjudicatory hearing is a fact-finding proceeding which cannot help but result in a distortion of the accuracy of the determination should the evidentiary standard implied by the above phraseology be departed from.
(a) The ban on admissibility of uncorroborated confessions or statements was included to reinforce the juvenile's right against self-incrimination . See Section 20 (3), supra, this statute. The question of whether or not a juvenile is entitled to the full-range of Miranda rights is currently before the United States Supreme Court for decision in the case of In re Whittington 13 Ohio App . 2d 11, 233 N.E. 2d 333, cert. granted 36 U.S.L.W. 3143 (U.S . Oct. 10, 1967). See 36 U.S.L.W. 3192 (U.S. Nov. 7, 1967) (summary of holding below and questions certified). Cf Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 {1966).
{b) The question of quantum of proof is also before the United States Supreme Court in Whittington. Consequently, no firm position in favor of either "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "clear and convincing proof' has been taken by the drafters . In no way, however, can the mechanism of an adjudicatory hearing be reconciled with a standard so meaningless as "preponderance of the evidence," the Standard heretofore used by the overwhelming majority of juvenile courts throughout the nation. It is interesting to note that, pending the outcome in Whittington, the UNIFORM ACT has also stated its quantum of proof standard in the alternative. See UNIFORM ACT 29 (b) {3d Tent. Draft 1968).

143

(c) The value of a strict delineation between adjudicatory and dispositional hearings can readily be observed when the final sentence of this Section is read in conjunction with the terminal clause in the preceding sentence. No records need be kept following a petition's dismissal . No decision need be written. The juvenile should be able to return to society certain that his day in court has exonerated him and no "file" lingers to be used against him should he be so unfortunate as to subsequently appear before the same court again. A conclusive finding, as a matter of fact, is necessary to set the dispositional (probational) machinery in motion .
Section 31. Continuance, Adjournment; Permissible Duration. A continuance may be granted , in the juvenile court judge' s discretion , for good cause, but for a period no longer than three working days beyond the scheduled hearing date . An adjudicatory hearing, after commencement, may be adjourned, if the juvenile is in detention, on the courts own motion or on motion of the petitioner for good cause not to exceed three working days. On the juvenile's motion , an adjournment may be had for good cause for a reasonable period. Following the completion of an adjudicatory hearing resulting in a finding of juvenile delinquency or need or supervision, court may be adjourned prior to the dispositional hearing for a period of no longer than thirty days for the purpose of inquiring into the facts surrounding the incident in question, the juvenile's background and living conditions, and his personal capabilities. Interim adjournment may be had on juvenile's motion for a time reasonable in order for preparation of information of extenuating or mitigating nature , as well as other above mentioned factors.
Section 32. Findings. No formal, written decision is required to accompany an order dismissing a petition. Where there results a finding of juvenile delinquency or need for supervision , a formal, written decision shall accompany the order, including at least :
(a) An order finding juvenile to be a juvenile delinquent or in need of supervision ;
(b) A clear, concise, and brief statement of the relevant and material facts ; and
(c) Citation of the legal authority for the decision .
Comment
Findings. This section is self-explanatory. It is designed to provide a permanent, written record of the factual determination and its basis. Together with the transcribed record, this brief statement by the juvenile judge will adequately insure each juvenile of an adjudicatory hearing consistent in impartiality with a jury's verdict. The subsection (c) should be compiled with whenever possible and appropriate, but should not be construed as a mandatory requirement. However, subsection (b), being the heart of the process, must be conscientiously followed.
Section 33. Transcript. Every juvenile found to be delinquent or in need of supervision, shall, as a matter of

right, be provided with a copy of the order/decision and a

printed transcript of the record provided at state expense.

Section 34. Appellate Review. A decision by a juvenile

court shall be appealable in accordance with the procedures

applicable to all superior court criminal convictions.

Section 35. "Dispositional Hearing. " When used in this

r

Article "dispositional hearing" means in the case of a

petition to determine delinquency , a hearing to determine

whether the respondent requires supervision, treatment, or

confinement. In the case of a petition to determine need

for supervision, "dispositional hearing" means a hearing to

determine whether the respondent requires supervision or

treatment.

Comment
The purpose of a dispositional hearing is to introduce evidence relating to the juvenile which does not involve the actual charges against the juvenile or his parents. This evidence will aid the court in reaching a first form of rehabilitation.
Section 36 . Evidence, Proof Required at Dispositional Hearing. (a) Only evidence that is material and relevant may be admitted during a dispositional hearing.
(b) An adjudication at the conclusion of a dispositional hearing must be based on a preponderance of the evidence.
Comment
(a) Any evidence which has a bearing upon the juvenile or his relation to the community is admissible, but evidence which was introduced at the adjudicatory hearing is not.
(b) Because of the inherent problems and the discretion allowed the court, the amount of proof necessary to arrive at a decision is less than necessary at an adjudicatory hearing.
Section 37. Sequence of Hearings. (a) Upon completion of the adjudicative hearing, the dispositional hearing may commence immediately after the required findings are made .
(b) Reports prepared by the probation officer , the welfare department, school teachers, school principals, school counselors, or any other report which will aid the court at any time prior to making of an order of disposition shall be deemed confidential information. Any report which is material to the disposition of the case shall, upon request, be shown to the attorney for the juvenile and to the attorney for the juvenile's parents if he be different from the attorney for the juvenile . [The attorney may reveal the content of the reports to his client or clients ; however, he shall not reveal the source of the report.] Such reports may not be furnished to the court prior to the completion of the adjudicatory hearing, but may be used in a dispositional hearing.

144

Comment
(a) None (b) This subsection lists some reports which may guide the court in arriving at a decision. It is not intended to be an exclusive list because of the differences which will arise between cases. The protection afforded the source of the report is designed to prevent conflicts between the juvenile an d his supervisory personnel.
Section 38. Adjournment of Adjudicatory Hearing or During Dispositional Hearing. (a) Upon its own motion, the court may adjourn the proceedings on the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing or during a dispositional hearing to enable it to make inquiry into the surroundings, conditions, or capacities of the juvenile. An adjournment on the court's motion may not be for a period of more than ten days if the juvenile is detained, in which case not more than a total of two such adjournments may be granted in the absence of special circumstances. If the juvenile is not detained, an adjournment may be for a reasonable time , but the total number of adjourned days may not exceed sixty days.
(b) On motion on behalf of the juvenile or by his parent or other person legally responsible for his care , the court may adjourn the proceedings on conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing or during a dispositional hearing for a reasonable period of time , but the total number of adjourned days may not exceed sixty days.
Comment
After adjudication or during dispositional hearing, .the court may freely adjourn the hearing to allow each side to prepare its case and to avoid surprise evidence. The stricter rules applicable when the juvenile is in custody follows the ge neral .intent of this statute to avoid confinement.
Section 39. Disposition on Adjudication of Juvenile Delinquency. Upon an adjudication of juvenile delinquency, the court shall enter an order of disposition :
(a) Suspending the judgment in accord with section 40; (b) Continuing the proceeding and placing the juvenile in accord with Section 41 ; (c) Putting the juvenile on probation in accord with Section 42; (d) Committing the Juvenile in accord with Section 43 ; Section 40. Disposition on Adjudication of Person in Need of Supervision. (a) Upon an adjudication of person in need of supervision, the court shall enter an order of disposition:
(1) Discharging the juvenile with a warning; (2) Suspending the judgment in accord with Section
40 ; (3) Continuing the proceedings and placing the
juvenile in accord with Section 41; (4) Putting the juvenile on probation in accord with
Section 42;

Section 41 . Suspended judgment. (a) Rules of court shall define permissible terms and conditions of a suspended judgment.
(b) The maximum duration of any term or condition of a suspended judgment is one year, unless the court finds at the conclusion of that period and after notice and hearing that exceptional circumstances require an additional period of one year.
(c) Under no circumstances shall a term or condition of a suspended judgment exceed two years in total time or beyond the juvenile's eighteenth birthday without his or her consent and in no event past his or her twenty-first birthday.
Comment
Each court is free to draft its own rules conditioning suspended judgments in order to meet the requirements of the community . These rules are reviewable in the Appellate Courts to .insure fairness and a certain amount of uniformity.
Section 42. Placement. (a) For purposes of Sections 38 and 39, the court may place the juvenile in its own home or in the custody of a suitable relative or other suitable private person subject to the orders, terms, and conditions of the court , or the court may place the juvenile in an authorized agency or youth center.
(b) Placements under this section shall be for an initial period of eighteen months or shorter periods if subsection (c) of this section applies, and the court may, at the expiration of such period and after notice and hearing, make successive extensions for additional periods of one year. The person with whom the juvenile has been placed under this Section shall submit a report at the end of each period of placement, making recommendations and giving such supporting data as the court finds appropriate. The court may issue an amended order of placement or change of placement.
(c) Successive extensions may be granted , but no placement may be made or continued under this Section beyond the juvenile's eighteenth (18) birthday without his permission and in no event past his twenty-first (21) birthday.
Comment
This section is unrelated to section 44 Commitment .in that here the juvenile .is given to the custody of a member of the community or a relative only if the parents are unable to care for the juvenile. It also allows the Court to use youth centers - i.e. Halfway House .
The court shall review each case yearly to insure that the juvenile is receiving necessary care and/or fulfilling the conditions.
Section 43 . Probation. (a) Rules of court shall define permissible terms and conditions or probation.
(b) The maximum period of probation in the case of a juvenile adjudged in need of supervison shall not exceed

145

one year. If the court finds at the conclusion of the original

period that exceptional circumstances require additional

year of probation , the court may, after notice and hearing,

amend its original order to continue probation .

(c) The maximum period of probation in the case of a

juvenile adjudicated a delinquent shall not exceed five

years. If the court finds at the conclusion of the ori-

ginal term that exceptional circumstances require an

additional period of probation, the court may, after notice

and hearing, amend its order to continue probation for an

additional two years. The probation officer shall furnish the

court yearly reports, or more often if the court should

request, and the court shall review each case yearly to

determine if sufficient progress has been made to release

the juvenile from probation or to place the juvenile in

accord with Section 41. If the court finds a change in

placement in accord with Section 41 is warranted , the court

must amend its order to reflect this change in status and the

supporting evidence.

(d) In no case shall probation continue beyond the

juvenile's eighteenth (18) birthday without his consent, and

in no event past his twenty-first (21) birthday .

Section 44. Commitment. (a) For purposes of Section

38 the court may commit the juvenile to the care and

custody of an institution suitable for the commitment of a

delinquent juvenile maintained by the State or any

subdivision thereof or to an authorized agency subject to

the further or amended orders of the court.

(b) No commitment under this section may exceed five

years, or shorter period if subsection (d) of this section is

applicable.

(c) The institution shall file yearly reports with the

court including recommendations and such supporting data

as the court deems necessary, and the court may release the

juvenile from the institution when improvements merit and

place the juvenile in accord with :Sections 40 or 42. If the

court places the juvenile in accord with 42 the court shall not allow the period

Sections of such

p4l0a~4e1m~notr

to exceed the time remaining under the term imposed

under Section 43; however, this shall not prevent the court

from exercising its options of extensions where necessary.

Section 45. Service of Orders. (a) In each case in which

the court issues an order, or in each case in which the court

issues an amended order, a copy thereof shall be served

upon:

(!) The attorney for the juvenile;

(2) The attorney for the parent;

(3) If the juvenile is placed under Section 40, the

person with whom the juvenile is placed;

(4) If the juvenile is committed or placed under

Sections 43 or 40 the director; or head of the institution

(5) The probation officer;

'

(b) A verified copy of each order and of each

amended order shall be made available to any attorney

who is taking an appeal from such order or amended

order. Said copy shall be attached to the petition for

appeal .

Comment
In serving copies of the court order upon the parties concerned with the disposition , the problems which arise when one of the parties disclaims knowledge thereof are avoided.
ARTICLE VI - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 46. Adjudication no conviction of crime. No action taken against a juvenile under the provisions of this Chapter shall be denominated as a criminal action nor an adjudication as a conviction ; nor shall any juvenile be charged with crime or convicted by any court, except as provided in this Chapter.
The disposition made of a juvenile, or any evidence given in the court, shall not operate to disqualify the juvenile in any civil service or military application or appointment.
Section 47. Double Jeopardy. A final judgment rendered pursuant to this act shall be a bar to prosecution for the same offense in a proceeding as an adult.
Section 48. Exclusion of General Public. The adjudicatory and dispositional hearing shall be a closed proceedi~g at which no representative of the public nor the press may appear. Attendance shall be confined to the juvenile court judge, the juvenile, the parent or guardian of the juvenile, counsel for the juvenile and counsel for the petitioner or state. Sequestration of all witnesses is mandatory .
Section 49. Publications of Orders: Penalty. (a) No order or amended order, or the content of order or amended order, shall be made available to any medium of public information except in accord with Section 49.
(b) Each order and amended order shall state that the person who makes the order, the amended order, or the content of the order available to any medium of public information shall be punished for contempt unless done with the written permission of the court which issued the order.
Section 50. Court of record, records, forms , privileged information; publication of names of Juveniles. (a) The juvenile court is a court of record, having a seal, and the judge and his duly appointed representatives shall each have power to administer oaths and affirmations.
(b) The juvenile court shall make and keep records of all cases brought before it, and shall preserve the records pertaining to a juvenile until ten (I 0) years after the last entry was made, and may destroy them, except that records of cases where orders were entered permanently depriving a parent of the custody of a juvenile shall be preserved permanently. The juvenile court shall make official minutes, consisting of all petitions and orders filed in a case and any other pleadings, certificates, proofs of publication, summons, warrants, and other

146

writs which may be fLied therein and shall make social

(

records, consisting of records of investigation and treatment and other confidential information not

forming part of the official records.

(c) Juvenile court records except records of traffic

violations, shall not be open to inspection by the public.

All records, except those for traffic violations, shall be

inspected only upon order of the judge, and only by

duly authorized employees of state courts and penal

institutions who are deemed by the judge to have a

proper interest therein , except that a juvenile and the

parents or legal custodians of the juvenile and their

attorneys shall always have the right to inspect and copy

an official record pertaining to the juvenile. The judge

may permit authorized representatives of recognized

organizations compiling statistics for proper purposes to

inspect and make abstracts from official records, under

whatever conditions upon their use and disposition the

judge may deem proper, and may punish by contempt

proceedings any violation of those conditions.

(d) All information obtained in discharge of official

duty by any judge or employee of any juvenile court

shall be privileged, and shall not be disclosed to anyone

other than the authorized personnel of the juvenile court

and others entitled under this Act to receive that

information, except upon order of the judge.

(e) All orders of the court shall be in writing and

signed by the judge, except that his duly authorized

representative may sign a summons, witness subpoenas,

notice to appear or warrants.

(f) The name or picture of any juvenile under

the jurisdiction of the court shall not be made public by

any newspaper or radio station except as authorized by

order of the court. Any person who violates this

provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Neither the fingerprints nor a photograph shall be

taken of any juvenile taken into custody for any

purpose, without the consent of the judge. Peace

officers' records of juveniles shall be kept separate from

records of adults and shall not be open to public

inspection .

Comment
Subsection (c). The new section adds the phrase which allows the judge to order inspection of juvenile records "only by duly authorized employees of state courts and penal institutions," and, hence, limits the judge in his discretion. Under the old section the judge was given complete discretion as to who might inspect the records . This section, as now amended, limits the judge's discretion to the above two categories in order to further protect the child .

Section 51 . Law Enforcement Records. (a) Law enforcement records and files concerning a juvenile shall be kept separate from the records and files of arrests of adults . Unless a charge of delinquency is transferred for

criminal prosecution under Section 34, or the interest of national security requires, or the court otherwise orders in the interest of the juvenile, such records and files shall not be open to public inspection nor their contents disclosed to the public.
(b) Inspection of such records and files by the following is not prohibited:
(I) a juvenile court having the juvenile before it in any proceding;
(2) the officers of public institutions or agencies to whom the juvenile is committed.
(3) law enforcement officers of other jurisdictions when necessary for the discharge of their official duties.
(4) a court in which he is convicted of a criminal offense for the purpose of a pre-sentence report or other dispositional proceedings, or by officials of penal institutions and other penal facilities to which he is committed, or by a parole board in considering his parole or discharge or in exercising supervision over him .
Comment
Same as Uniform Juvenile Court Act of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1968 .
This is consistent with the non-criminal character of juvenile court proceeding involving a delinquent juvenile. At the same time, it does not prevent inspection of law enforcement records by appropriate authorities concerned with the child.
Section 52. Initials on Appeal. The name of any child who appeals his case from the juvenile court to a higher court shall not be released by either court. In all records before the appeal court the juvenile shall be referred to only by the initials of his first and last name.
Comment
The need of this was shown by the Gault decision where the juvenile's name was kept secret at the juvenile court level, but released by the appeal court. This section will change the law to help protect the juvenile's name even if he should question the ruling of the juvenile courts.
Section 53. Provision in sentence of males between 16 and 18 years of age as to transfer to Board of Co"ections. Whenever any male person between 16 and 18 years of age, who has been duly convicted in any court of this State of any crime not punishable by death or by imprisonment for life, is to be sentenced to the Georgia State Training School for Boys, said sentence shall contain the following provision, to wit:
"If the juvenile sentenced, after reaching age 18, proves to be uncontrollable through ordinary means

147

of discipline or if the juvenile sentenced, by reason of his conduct or attitude, fails to profit from the opportunities at the Georgia State Training School for Boys; said juvenile, in the discretion of the governing authority of the Georgia State Training School for Boys may be transferred to the State Board of Corrections for placement in an institution which will meet the needs of the individual, where he shall serve the remainder of his sentence."
Comment
This section changes in part the old act. The new act provides : Whenever a male between 16 and 18 is convicted in a court in Georgia for any crime not punishable by death or life imprisonment and is sentenced to the Georgia State Training School for Boys, the sentence should contain the provisions provided for in the above order. The order, as now written, provides that an uncontrollable may be transferred to the State Board of Corrections. However, it adds the additional requirement that this transfer cannot take place unless this juvenile is at least 18 years of age . The old law provided the transfer could be made for juveniles 16 years or older. This change was to insure that all legally defined juveniles remain under the direction of juvenile authorities and not be subjected to the control of the state correction authorities.
Section 54. Civil liability of juvenile; restitution or reparation. If in adjudging a juvenile to be delinquent, the court shall find as an element of such delinquency that the juvenile has committed an act involving liability in a civil suit, the court may require that the juvenile shall make restitution or reparation to the injured person to such an extent, in such a sum, and upon such conditions as the court shall determine.

Comment
This section allows the judge complete discretion in forming his sentence so that it may work for the greatest benefit of the rehabilitation of the child . Under this section the judge can frame his orders in such a manner as to require the child to restore or repair any injuries that he has caused. This section is the same as the old 24-2425.
Section 55. Court sessions; quarters. Sessions of the court shall be held at places throughout the county as the court shall from time to time determine . Suitable quarters shall be provided by the local authority of the county for the hearing of cases and for the use of the judge and other employees of the court.
Section 56 . Court and witness fees. In proceedings under this Chapter, no court fee shall be charged against and no witness fees shall be allowed to any party to a petition. All officers of court and all other persons acting under orders of the court may be paid for services or service or process and attendance or serving as witnesses , the fees provided by law for like services in cases before the superior court, to be paid from county funds when certified to by the judge .
Section 57 . Applicability of Chapter; inconsistent or repugnant laws. This Chapter shall govern the substantive rights of the parties and the procedure and practice to be followed in all courts of this State in all cases coming within the provisions of this Chapter. All laws and provisions of laws inconsistent with or repugnant to this Chapter shall be considered and held to be inapplicable to the cases arising under this Chapter.
Section 58 . Short Title. This act may be cited as the Georgia Juvenile Court Act.
Section 59. Repeal This act repeals chapter 24-24, Juvenile Courts, of the Georgia Code .
Section 60. Time of Taking Effect. This act shall take effect January 1, 1970.

148

APPENDIX E NEW YORK PENAL CODE ON PORNOGRAPHY

New York Penal Law 484-h as enacted by L. 1965, c. 327, provides :
484-h. Exposing minors to harmful materials. 1. Definitions. As used in this section :
(a) "Minor means any person under the age of seventeen years .
(b) "Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state .
(c) "Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation , homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, but tocks or, if such person be a female, breast.
(d) "Sexual excitement" means the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.
(e) "Sado-masochistic abuse" means flagellation or torture by or upon a person clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one so clothed .
(f) "Harmful to minors" means that quality of any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse , when it:
(i) predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful or morbid interests of minors, and
(ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors, and
(iii) is utterly without redeeming social importance fo r minors.

(g) "Knowingly" means having general knowledge of, or reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry of both:
(i) the character and content of any material described herein which is reasonably susceptible of examination by the defendant, and
(ii) the age of the minor, provided however, than an honest mistake shall constitute an excuse from liability hereunder if the defendant made a reasonable bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of such minor.
2. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to sell or loan for monetary consideration to a minor:
(a) any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture fllm, or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body which depicts nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors, or
(b) any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced , or sound recording which contains any matter enumerated in paragraph (a) of subdivision two hereof, or explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse and which, taken as a whole, is harmful to minors. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to ex~bit for a monetary consideration to a minor or knowingly to sell to a minor an admission ticket or pass or knowingly to admit a minor for a monetary consideration to premises whereon there is exhibited, a motion picture, show or other presentation which, in whole or in part, depicts nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors. 4. A violation of any provision hereof shall constitute a misdemeanor.

149

150

APPENDIX F TIME REQUIRED FOR DISPOSITION OF CASES BY SUPERIOR COURT CIRCUITS

CIRCUITS*
Atlanta Atlantic Augusta Blue Ridge Clayton Cobb Cordele Coweta Dougherty Fl int Gwinnett Macon Northern Rome South Georgia Southwestern Stone Mountain T ifton Western

Docketed 7,573 571 2,353 695 1,447 2,949 396 1,156 744 696 1,014 2,647 359 723 264 401 2,874 480 898

CIVIL CASES 1964 Disposed of 4,013 482 1,965 532 1,500 2,500 248 921 455 435 750 1,984 290 599 252 322 2,299 450 737

Time** 20mo.
8mo. 2mo. 7 mo. 16 mo. 18 mo. 9mo. 5mo. 2mo. 6mo. 3mo. 4mo. 7 mo. 8mo. 9mo. 6mo. 12 mo. 5mo. 5mo.

* Information on omitted circuits could not be obtained. ** Approximate period of time between docketing of a case and a jury trial.

CRIMINAL CASES 1964

Docketed

Disposed of

2,443

2,134

206

188

1,087

857

2,461

2,266

1,023

1,009

5,354

5,000

693

519

777

703

419

362

1,500

1,303

267

204

1,249

1,128

410

410

181

153

367

327

273

266

820

788

828

900

953

901

Time** 2mo. 6mo. 2 mo. 7 mo. 1 mo. 1 mo. 2mo. 4 mo. 1 mo. 2mo. 2mo. 3mo. 7 mo. 2mo. 3mo. 6mo. 4mo. 3mo. 4mo.

151

152

Appendix G

NUMBER OF CASES DISPOSED OF IN 1964 BY CIRCUIT

CIRCUITS*

TOTAL OF ALL CASES 1964
Docketed Dis~osed of

CIRCUIT AVERAGE PER JUDGE
Di!!!osed of

Atlanta Atlantic Augusta Blue Ridge Clayton Cobb Cordele Coweta Dougherty Flint Gwinnett Macon Northern Rome South Georgia Southwestern Stone Mountain Tifton Western

10,016 777
3,440 3,156 2,470 8,303 1,089 1,749 1,163 2,196 1,281 3,896
769 904 631 674 3,694 1,308 1,851

6,147 670
2,822 2,798 2,509 7,500
767 1,440
817 1,738
954 3,112
700 752 579 588 3,087 1,350 1,638

683 670 940 2,798 2,509 3,750 767 1,440 817 1,738 954 1,037 700 752 579 588 772 1,350 1,638

*Information on omitted circuits could not be obtained.

153

154

APPENDIX H

Standards (Model Act drafted by the American Bar Association)
Joinder of Offenses and Defendants
1. Joinder of offenses Two or more offenses may be joined in one charge, with each offense stated in a separate count, when the offenses, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both : a. are of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan ; or b. are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.
2. Joinder of defendants Two or more defendants may be joined in the same charge : a. when each of the defendants is charged with accountability for each offense included ; b. when each of the defendants is charged with conspiracy and some of the defendants are also charged with one or more offenses alleged to be in furtherance of the conspiracy; or c. when, even if conspiracy is not charged and all of the defendants are not charged in each count, it is alleged that the several offenses charged: (I) were part of a common scheme or plan : or (2) were so closely connected in respect to time, place, and occasion that it would be difficult to separate proof of one charge from proof of the others.
3. Failure to join related offenses a. Two or more offenses are related offenses, for purposes of this standard, if they are within the jurisdiction of the same court and are based on the same conduct or arise from the same criminal episode. b. When a defendant has been charged with two or more related offenses, his timely motion to join them for trial should be granted unless the court determines that because the prosecuting attorney does not have sufficient evidence to warrant trying some of the offenses at that time, or for some other reason , the ends of justice would be defeated if the motion were granted. A defendant's failure to so move constitutes a waiver of any right of joinder as to related offenses with which the defendant knew he was charged. c. A defendant who has been tried for one offense may thereafter move to dismiss a charge for a related offense , unless a motion for joinder of these offenses was previously denied or the right of

joinder was waived as provided in section b . The motion to dismiss must be made prior to the second trial , and should be granted unless the court determines that because the prosecuting attorney did not have sufficient evidence to warrant trying this offense at the time of the first trial, or for some other reason, the ends of justice would be defeated if the motion were granted. d. Entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to one offense does not bar the subsequent prosecution of a related offense. A defendant may enter a plea of guilty or nolo contendere on the basis of a plea agreement in which the prosecuting attorney agreed to seek or not to oppose dismissal or other related charges or not to prosecute other potential related charges.
Severance of Offenses and Defendants
1. Timeliness of motion ; waiver ; double jeopardy . a. A defendant's motion for severance of offenses or defendants must be made before trial, except that a motion for severance may be made before or at the close of all the evidence if based upon a ground not previously known . Severance is waived if the motion is not made at the appropriate time . b. If a defendant's pretrial motion for severance was overruled, he may renew the motion on the same grounds before or at the close of all the evidence. Severance is waived by failure to renew the motion . c. Unless consented to by the defendant, a motion by the prosecuting attorney for severance of counts or defendants may be granted only prior to trial. d. If a motion for severance is granted during the trial and the motion was made or consented to by the defendant , the granting of the motion shall not bar a subsequent trial of that defendant on the offenses severed .
2. Severance of offenses. a. Whenever two or more offenses have been joined for trial solely on the ground that they are of the same or similar character, the defendant shall have a right to a severance of the offenses. b. The court, on application of the prosecuting attorney, or on application of the defendant other than under subsection a. , should grant a severance of offenses whenever: (I) if before trial , it is deemed appropriate to promote a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of each offense ; or (2) if during trial upon consent of the defendant, it is deemed necessary to achieve a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of each offense. The court should consider

155

whether , in view of the number of offenses charged and the complexity of the evidence to be offered , the trier of fact will be able to distinguish the evidence and apply the law intelligently as to each offense. 3. Severance of defendants. a. When a defendant moves for a severance because an out-of-court statement of a co-defendant makes reference to him but is not admissible against him, the court should determine whether the prosecution intendes to offer the statement in evidence at the trial. If so , the court should require the prosecuting attorney to elect one of the following courses: ( 1) a joint trial at which the statement is not admitted into evidence;
(2) a joint trial at which the statement is admitted into evidence only after all references to the moving defendant have been effectively deleted ; or
(3) severance of the moving defendant. b. The court, on application of the prosecuting
attorney, or on application of the defendant other than under subsection a, should grant a severance of defendants whenever: (I) if before trial, it is deemed necessary to protect
a defendant's right to a speedy trial , or it is deemed appropriate to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of a defendant ; or (2) if during trial upon consent of the severed

defendant, it is deemed necessary to achieve a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of a defendant. c. When such information would assist the court in ruling on a motion for severance of defendants, the court may order the prosecuting attorney to disclose to the court in camera any statements made by the defendants which he intends to introduce in evidence at the trial. 4. Failure to prove grounds for joinder of defendants. If a defendant moves for severance at the conclusion of the prosecution's case or of all the evidence, and there is not sufficient evidence to support the allegation upon which the moving defendant was joined for trial with the other defendant or defendants, the court should grant a severance if, in view of this lack of evidence, severance is deemed necessary to achieve a fair determination of that defendant's guilt or innocence.
Consolidation or Serverance on Motion of Court
1. Authority of court to act on own motion. a. The court may order consolidation of two or more charges for trial if the offenses, and the defendants if there is more than one, could have been joined in a single charge. b. The court may order a severance of offenses or defendants before trial if a severance could be obtained on motion of a defendant or the prosecution.

!56

APPENDIX I REPORT OF GEORGIA PRISON FACILITIES STUDY

Institute of Government University of Georgia July, 1968

Table of Contents

Preface

. . . . . . 158

In troduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Observations ... .... . . . ... .... . . ... . .................. ...... . ...... .. ....... ... . . .. .. . .. . . ... . . . . . 159

Recommended Modifications . .... ...... . .. ...... . . . . . ..... . ...... . .......... . ... . .. ... .. . . .. .... .... 159

Summary and Conclusions .................. .. .. ... . . . .... . . . ... .. . .... ...... .. . .. ..... .. . . ..... . ... 162

Appendices:

I. Reidsville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 II. Alto ... ..... . . .. ...... . . . ...... . . . . ...... .... . ......... . ... . . . .... .. . .. ....... .. . . . . . 164 Ill. Buford .... .. .. .. ...... .. . ....... .. ... . ... ........ .. ..... . ... .. .... . .. . .............. . . 164 IV. Reception and Diagnostic Center . .. . .. .... . . ...... . .. ... . ..... . .... .. . .. ... . .. .... .. . ...... . . 165 V. Prison Branches and Public Works Camps ....................... .. .. . ..... ... .. . .. . . . . . .... . . .. 165

15 7

REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS OF GEORGIA CORRECTIONS
Preface
In February, 1968, the Governor's Commission on Crime and Justice requested that the University undertake a Georgia Prison Facilities study. The specific charge was as follows :
" A study of the current use of facilities as to the types of the prisoners housed therein will be made to determine in terms of both immediate and long range plans what is needed to insure the maximum separation of youthful offenders, misdemeanants and the more serious offenders. Education programs, industries and other programs designed to insure the prisoners maximum adjustment upon return to the community will be reviewed to see how these can be strengthened.
" The operation of the classification center now under construction requires that specific programs be developed or the findings of the classification studies will be wasted. This study would provide specific recommendations which could be used as a timetable and guide for the Commission , the State Department of Corrections, and the Legislature."
This constitutes the report of the study which was made during the period, March-May , 1968, by Messrs. Charles J. Eckenrode of the University's Institute of Government and Virgil Breland, Special Consultant.
The approach included an initial visit with the Director of Corrections, development of an acquaintanceship with the personnel and services of the central offices in Atlanta, at least one personal visit to each institution in the system, and psychological and educational testing of sample inmate groups.
During the three-day visit to Reidsville , the survey team held interviews with the chief administrator and several of his top level assistants and with a few inmates. Observations of the full gamut of program activities from early morning to late evening hours were also featured.
The same pattern was followed during two visits , covering parts of three days, at Alto, and one visit each to Buford, the Butts County Reception Center, the seventeen Prison Branch Camps, and a random sampling of the Public Works Camps which are operated by counties.
Basically, the study team attempted to make observations and gather data which would permit:
(1) Establishment of an up-to-date profile of the inmates (age, functioning educational level, learning capacity, occupational aptitudes and interests).
(2) Inventory of "treatment" programs provided by the institutions.
(3) Assessment of the procedures by which programs are fitted to the inmates in answer to their needs (e. g., classification).

Appendices to this report record specific observations of the several institutions visited.
Care has been exercised to avoid duplication of a separate report which addresses itself to a study of juveniles and the problems attendant upon the operation of programs for juveniles.
Introduction
A precursory observation of Georgia Corrections discloses a number of oases, or bright spots, in what otherwise would be drab circumstances blanketing the state. These oases are largely isolated, rather than coordinated, programs and activities which have come into being partially as a result of a joining of forces with sister agencies of the State in the production of such efforts as the MOTA center at Buford; the education-vocational training-counseling complex at Alto with VRA, the State Department of Education, and the State Office of Vocational Training providing the services ; and the beginnings of a staff development program with the assistance of the University of Georgia.
Closer inspection, however, reveals that there is less a program of co"ection than an antiquated program of penology. We have not progressed far beyond the traditional punitive approach in the handling of social offenders. Stern discipline is the order of the day with emphasis on the performance of staff in maintaining control over inmates, whereas the more progressive correctional philosophy is therapeutic in nature and cultivates the development in the inmates of the ability to control and manage themselves.
Transistion from the one ideology to the other can neither be easy nor rapid , yet it was with conviction that the transition is imperative that the task if surveying existing facilities and practices and framing recommendations designed to result in progress toward a healthy Department of Corrections was approached.
In the course of the study the team attempted to :nake meaningful observations of operations at all levels of current correctional functioning. Further investigations should cease until proposals now on record can be implemented .
Those upgradings that can be achieved either with no cash outlay or with but small expenditures are emphasized most. This , of course, is not intended to imply that projects requiring substantial cash fundings are not needed. Some are , but they should be postponed until professionally assessed needs are established and sound functional plans for construction and operation are fully devised. It is hoped that sustained development of progressive correctional practices, rather than periodic surges calculated to assuage and quieten an aroused public will become the order of the day .
Despite what must have been underlying feelings of impatience over persistent recent investigations, the team was received , with very few exceptions, in a spirit of full

158

cordiality and cooperation throughout the State. Most officials throughout the system were generous in giving of their time to the survey, and frank and forthright in their comments. The Chairman , State Board of Corrections, who also serves as Warden of the Jefferson County Public Works Camp, graciously cut short a local inspection trip to return to camp and help acquaint the team with the current role of the State Board of Corrections within the framework of the statewide system . The Director of the State Department of Corrections, four assistant directors, and the chief administrative officers at each of the three major prison facilities, the Training and Development Center, the fourteen Prison Branches, and the half-dozen widelyseparated Public Works Camps which were inspected were unifo rmly cooperative and helpful.
Observations
From observations growing out of the above mentioned contacts, areas where there were evidences of noticeable progress were viewed :
(I) There has been a near service-wide energetic and relentless program of repairs and refurnishings of the facilities and surroundings at most prisons and branches. These undertakings range all the way from scheduled early total replacement of the Prison Branches at Mt. Vernon and Jesup and almost complete renovation of the old buildings at Alto, where a 250-capacity cell house is also nearing completion, to addition of a new dormitory at Eatonton, and repairs and redecorations of varying extents at most other facilities. It is hoped that this action signals the early emergence of a more systematic program of preventive maintenance that can forestall such heavy accumulations of problems in the future.
(2) Although there are areas where housekeeping and sanitation could stand improvement, there is evidence of efforts to achieve cleanliness at almost every location. This effort should be continuous.
(3) The food service at almost all facilities was impressive . At many locations kitchen equipment was primitive, shopworn, difficult to operate and keep clean, and badly in need of either replacement or over-hauling. However, menus proved to be wholesome , nutritious, and appetizingly served. The wise prison administrator never underestimates the morale implications of food, and the current service-wide picture is good.
(4) Evidences of growth, though somewhat small and slow, of soundly formulated and well administered programs of training for both officers and inmates were observed. Officer training affords one of the best means of establishing adherence to modern penological practices in areas that are now largely occupied by those who have long subscribed to chain-gang philosophies and practices and who have by seniority and attrition often advanced to supervisory levels.

Academic education and vocational training have always been prime ingredients in effective correctional treatment programs and additional growth is expected to ensue.
(5) Diversified Prison Industries that have a potential for expansion and growth if properly planned, patiently operated, and realistically accepted by legislators have been established. Their acceptance is contingent upon the legislators' learning to expect, and discreetly brush aside, expressions of exaggerated concern from needlessly excited civilian competitors. Planning inmate programs that supply work with purpose will be much enhanced by these added, vital resources, and their continued growth should be fostered .
(6) The team observed attempts to experiment with such relatively modern facts of programming as classification , prerelease, group work, and the utilization of community resources. These practices could well sow the seeds for badly needed future program enrichments. They need, however, high-level recognition and acceptance if they are to come into wide use.
(7) Recent across-the-board salary increases would have been better applied on a more discriminate, weighted-value basis. Nevertheless, the cumulative long-range impact of the action will be good for the elevation of employee morale as well as recruitment and retention of better personnel.
(8} The readying of the Reception and Diagnostic Center in Butts County brings to Georgia Corrections new opportunities, potentials, and problems. How well this facility is staffed with experienced specialists and how wisely formulations of policy and procedure are devised and applied are undertakings difficult for professionals and even more difficult for persons of but limited experience. If this expensive, aesthetically beautiful but functionally awkward physical plant is to serve its purpose, the best professional know-how available must be secured.
Recommended Modifications
While there is a favorable side of the picture, the unfavorable side must also be presented :
Administration of the Department
(I) Prior commission studies found that the State Board of Corrections, as presently constituted and operated, does not provide sufficient professional , non-political leadership to warrant its retention . Accordingly , serious consideration should be given to its abolition or absorption into a larger Board that would include a working majority of professional people and heads of services who keep abreast of modern penological concepts. Also, its character should be changed from a policy making body to one with advisory responsibility only. Services and groups that might well supply such needed representation may include the State Vocational Rehabilitation Service , the Manpower Development and Training Program, the State Chamber of Commerce, the University of Georgia's Institute of Government, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, the

159

State Department of Vocational Education , the State Department of Labor, and the State Board of Industry and Trade.
This recommendation is made with full awareness of the difficulties that attend the altering or discontinuation of Constitutional Boards. Yet, based on observations locally and across the nation correctional progress and upgrading will not be accomplished unless top level policy decisions are made by a professionally qualified person with full powers and responsibilities.
(2) The Director, State Department of Corrections, has been placed in the unenviable position of being selected by, and serving at the pleasure of, a politically oriented Board. To aggravate further that status there have been five designees to the position within a period of about four years , during which time there was only limited continuity in programming and planning for a department that was already much in need of such attention. During this unsettled period, high level staff assignments were awarded to persons with too little creditable correctional experience. This unfortunate situation largely persists today and will continue as long as corrections is controlled by politicians.
The Director, and not the Board of Corrections, should have full authority over the internal management of the correctional system if he is to be charged with the responsibility for administering it. At present, the authority-responsibility tandem is in a bad state of imbalance, with the authority sprocket being much too small to cope with the responsibilities that attend the operation and upgrading of a poorly-organized and under-developed correctional system .

Prison Branches and Public Works Camps (5) Of almost equal gravity is the widespread employ-
ment of prisoners on contracts and commitments to the State Highway Department and Counties under gun-guard conditions that have been outmoded long since in progressive correctional practice. Reimbursement to the State Department of Corrections ranges from nothing above assumption of basic care expenses in Public Works Camps and three of the Prison Branches, to $3.50 per day (about ~ the present statutory minimum wage - and approximately ~ of the per capita daily costs) for Prison Branch inmates who are regularly assigned to filling State Highway Department contract quotas.
Such a practice degrades and destroys prisoner morale, whereas correction demands the converse. Early legislative action should be considered to end the policy of confining felony offenders in Public Works Camps. Meanwhile, there needs to be a study in depth to ascertain if these Camps are either economically feasible or contribute anything of worth to the correctional process. If it is found that they are wanting in either, time should be allowed for the necessary conversion of some of the larger, better constructed Public Works Camps to State Department of Corrections Prison Branches.
The reimbursement rate of inmate workers should be more realistic. There should be provided opportunities for satisfactions that derive from one's earning and providing funds for personal keep, family support, fines and costs, and eventual release needs while being constructively engaged in prison programs. These incentives, incidentally, may also be withheld or lost by prisoner defaults.

Classification
(3) With the opening of the Reception and Diagnostic Center, those now in the Central Office who are attempting to perform classification, reclassification, and transfer duties should be moved to the Butts County facility where they can address themselves directly to those tasks, but under the supervision of a review officer in the central office.
Staff Development
(4) Through the years, there has evolved a practice of low pay and long hours for the uniformed correctional officer, and as a consequence many in the present corps of officers are ill-equipped to work in a correctional setting. There is no quick and easy solution to these problems, but real progress can be made by effecting a fair wage scale, recruiting on a merit basis, and top-level participation in, and emphasis on, service-wide staff and officer training (initial, quarterly , and advanced). These need to be accompanied by promotions based upon merit and progress.

Prison Industries
(6) Regardless of the courses that follow-up actions in this direction take, it is only good planning to provide soon for the establishment of at least one prison industry at each Prison and Prison Branch, and more if needed for full prisoner employment. Further accentuating of good programming could result from work-release placements of cases that have achieved sufficient progress to warrant such action. By such program expansions it might follow that capacity at Prison Branches should be increased in most cases to at least double present accommodations, or to 150-200 inmates, with the resulting lowering of percapita daily costs.
Camp Modifications
(7) Construction of new food service areas and conversion of current ones into dormitories might be beneficial at most of the Prison Branches. The areasnow used in most of these facilities for segregated dining rooms, separated by a kitchen, appear to lend themselves to fairly simple, relatively inexpensive conversions that would transform them into dormitory space of 35-60 bed capacity. Timely plans and preparations might well begin . now. Completion of such an undertaking, along with

160

assignment of better classified prisoners to the Prison Branches, could accommodate enlarged inmate populations with little, if any , increase in custodial staffing.
Good Time Awards
(8) The team observed what appeared to be a rather meaningless, incentive-defeating, service-wide administration of both statutory good time grants and extra good time awards. These awards are intended to stimulate industriousness, good conduct, and other prisoner progress. But, as they are now being credited routinely through clerical, lump-sum calculations and notifications shortly after the prisoners are confined, the incentive impact is minimized, if not destroyed.
These good time awards can accrue into reduction of confi nement of up to 50% for misdemeanants and long-term felons. Once calculated by clerks who seldom, if ever, see the prisoner, they can only be lost through rarely used forfeiture procedures for serious prison offenses. This procedural short cut was in all probability instituted to bypass a never-ending flow of routine. However, such efforts having the weight of clemency are still to serious to be handled with finality so early and so lightly. The extra good time , at least, should be calculated and granted only as it is earned.

T earn Approach
(9) Coordination of custodial, training, and treatment services into an interdependent team approach was found in only one Prison Branch. The general climate of this facility's accomplishment could well serve as a demonstration project to show that custody, training, and treatment, well administered, will assist each other toward fuller, smoother, and more effective institutional operations.

Racial Integration

(10) Linuted efforts to plan and prepare for early,

court-ordered racial integration of all prison facilities were

observed . Although the problem was presented at a

service-wide wardens' conference several weeks before, local

officials still react as though they feel it just cannot happen .

Sudden ill-prepared, apologetically enforced change could

be less smooth and orderly than a properly arranged

transition, firmly but unemotionally and unequivocatingly

instituted.

.

Project Improvements
(1 1) Such new program enriching instruments as work release and incentive pay, both recent legislative enactments, apparently fail to evoke wide and enthusiastic acclaim . Consequently, plans for their implementation seem to be very much in a nebulous state. Whatever measures are necessary ought to be taken to translate them from theory into practice.

Inmate Records
(12) With rare exception , files and records that are kept on individual inmates are in need of substantial development. Most so-called " security" files in the central office contain little of value except inmate photographs and fingerprint-supported, unassembled criminal history abstracts .
A suggestion that more complete and meaningful inmate records might result from consolidating the files of Corrections and Parole evokes a quick protest and resistance on the grounds that two separate files are needed for two separate purposes. When the Reception and Diagnostic Center begins functioning, the pattern will be laid for better record keeping throughout the Department, but implementation at field installations will require guidance from the Central Office.
Communications
(13) Machinery for more effective communication between the Central Office and the institutions and between and within institutions is needed. Reliance on word-of-mouth and telephone transmitted instructions on important matters of program policy and procedure does not suffice. At only one institution were there systematically assembled files of Central Office policies that appeared to be fairly complete and available for staff review and reference. Efforts need to be devoted to this area in supplying clear, concise, meaningful policy issuances, with up-to-date revisions, and with such follow up as is needed to assure prompt and effective implementation . A system-wide, cataloguing-type inventory with a view toward consolidating, modernizing, clarifying, harmonizing, and publishing a current policy would be both well received and helpful.
Increase in Educational Opportunities
(14) Whereas the median age of all incarcerated persons in the United States is said to be 28, random samplings from Reidsville and three Prison Branches (Chatham County, Lowndes-Troupeville, and Wayne County) indicate the median age of Georgia's prisoners to be only slightly higher than 24 . Nearly 800 inmates at Alto , most of whom are between 16 and 19, and approximately 200 at Buford, most of whom are between 18 and 25, are not included in this sampling.
At least half of the persons presently confined in Georgia's institutions belong in a planned educational and/or vocational training activity. Were these same young men still residing in their home communities or were they in Military Service, they would more than likely be attending highshool, or college, or some techincal school in preparation for the life ahead of them. If they are to be prepared for life in the free community, they need not fewer but more educational opportunities than their peers who do not have the stigma of institutionalization to overcome and with whom they will have to compete eventually for legitimate employment.

161

There are two random samplings from which we can evaluate the learning capacity of Georgia's inmates. Both of these (one at Reidsville - 214 examinations, the other at Alto - 62 examinations) indicate a median I.Q. of 84 on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale . This is in the low average range , yet it is sufficiently high to indicate educability and trainability.
Educationally, Georgia inmates function on the average at about the 5th or 6th grade level. This observation is based on three test samplings: 255 at Reidsville , median 4.9 ; 84 at the Lowndes-Troupeville Prison Branch, median - 8.0; and 72 at the Wayne Prison Branch, median .- 5.8 . The educational retardation indicated here would measure as much as five grades below the level at which these individuals should function.
Some educational and vocational training programs are provided in some of the institutions - but not nearly enough. Further, there is no assurance that the right people are being provided the right education and training.
One of the things sorely needed is more and better education and training, endorsed and supported by total staff. It might be well to have education and training provided by other State agencies better equipped to provide these services - Vocational Rehabilitation, the local public schools, the local trade schools, for example, as is the case now at both Alto and Buford.
Summary and Conclusions
The penological ills of the State of Georgia seem to differ only in degree from those of other jurisdictions that have shown a reluctance to abandon invariably inefficient political controls before eventually having to undertake what are usually, at best, lengthy and difficult, professionally-operated upgradings. Correctional progress is unalterably equated with sophisticated management and programming. Plans for future special financial outlays for new facilities or services should be cautiously weighed in
terms of the availability of pj:~~r...~taffing.
The best of planning .:~:dt iqstall and maintain an enduring and progressi~~\ ~c~rrecponal system on a
foundation that includes eY.eil-rerri6te political involvement J. -.
or interference. Toward, and:. ift consonance with, this indispensible prerequisite, the following recommended actions are summarized:
(1) That consideration be given to the abolition of the present State Board of Corrections or that it be changed into an advisory body only.
(2) That the Director of the State Department of Corrections be given complete authority over his departmental operations and responsibility for the success or failure of the service. This authority must encompass recruiting, promoting, and separating personnel.
(3) That careful professional staffing of the Reception and Diagnostic Center become a top-priority project as soon as operation guidelines are complete.
(4) That recent and long-overdue efforts at staff training be encouraged, intensified, and expanded.

(5) That steps be taken to enlarge the populations and programs of the Prison Branches, so as to permit the phasing out of the assignment of felony offenders to County-operated Public Work Camps.
(6) That growth and diversification of Prison Industries be fostered until work is available for every prisoner.
(7) That there be initiated effective service-wide programs of preventive maintenance that will assure future avoidance of neglected and deteriorated physical plants such as have faced Alto and Buford.
(8) That the procedure currently employed for awarding Good Time, both statutory and extra, be subjected to a serious and searching official scrutiny to ascertain if it is achieving even limited success in fostering the incentive-producing objectives that were intended to result from the legislation that authorized such action .
(9) That there be constant and relentless upgrading of the most important single resource in corrections - staff through the processes of recruitment , training, periodic evaluation of employee progress, and through the provision of a career ladder within the service.
(I 0) That realistic efforts toward conditioning both staff and inmates to court-ordered racial integration be made.
(I I) That there be early implementation of both work release and the incentive pay program.
( 12) That greatly improved prisoner classification and progress records be accomplished.
(13) That an improved system of policy issuance be created and put into effect.
(14) That the small, but impressive starts in both academic education and vocational training be accorded service-wide expansion wherever possible, with the full support of such community agency allies as the State Department of Education , VRA , and NMDTA that have provided real program enrichment at Buford and Alto.
Appendix I
Reidsville
The State Prison at Reidsville , Tatnall County, is the major penitentiary in the Georgia Corrections system. It is a huge masonry-constructed , cyclone-fenced prison complex that was erected by Federal WPA funds in the mid-1930's for the State of Georgia. Within its chronically overcrowded confines, that were constructed to accommodate about 1800 felons , are now packed some 2,500 men, at least 12% to 15% of whom are regularly kept deadlocked in either disciplinary or protective segregation. An additional 350400 prisoners are confined in Building No. 2, a fenced, locked, gun-guarded, slovenly-maintained facility about one half-mile south of the main prison in a building that formerly served as a large prison dormitory for women.

162

Some 350 of the current Reidsville population are misdemeanants. This 12% figure represents a ratio much higher than was observed in the Prison Branches and Public Work Camps where long-term felons abound and life termers sometimes comprise more than 25% of the small populations. With reasonable allowances for medical transfers to Reidsville, this figure for accumulation of misdemeanants is much higher than it should be.
Some 1,100 to 1,200 of the 2,400-2,500 inmates currently available for full program participation are assigned to outside operations chiefly cropping and pasturing some 8,000 acres of the more than 10,000 acres that comprise this beautiful, agriculturally advanced reservation. The work performance of prisoners in the closely-grouped, gun-guarded, small crews is poor at best, as is evidenced by the present assignment of one inmate for every four acres of harvest crops and three acres of pasture. Such operations could hardly survive as civilian enterprises.
Once modern programs of prisoner classification are seriously undertaken , Building No. 2 should be thoroughly cleaned and refurbished. It could then easily and comfortably house more than enough full trusty prisoners to carry on currently provided services in even improved fashion , and without gun guards and without the present contraband-vulnerable steady traffic of prisoners in and out of the main institution.
Prison industries are already in operation for production of auto license plates, mattresses, clothing, printing, canning, and soaps and detergents, but at this time employment of prisoners totals only about 250 of the proposed top quota of 700 or more assignees. As expansion occurs, constant harmonizing of supply and demand will have to be observed and never failing attention to high quality products exercised. Service wide protests have already been heard about the deficiencies noted in mattresses and canned goods.
Inside the fenced area of the prison, Reidsville has more inmate-administered activity and fewer officer-supervised areas than any other major prison ever observed by the team. Most of the offices for those staff members of captain's rank or above are located in front of the main gate, and those high ranking officials who are stationed in that area do .not visit or inspect occupied inmate quarters sufficiently often, unless, as one official stated, they can do so with a "show of force."
Such a system of maneuverings lends itself to vulnerability for an abundance of contraband, strong-arm harrassment, bartering in privileges, and numerous other disruptive and threatening rackets and pressures. No doubt these conditions contribute markedly to causing those in constant lockup to comprise almost five times as many as would generally be said to constitute an acceptable minimum. Study at an early date by professionals into this potentially explosive situation should be begun and continued until meaningful officer-administered controls are reinstituted and functional. Case-by-case evaluations and dispositions appear urgently needed.

Work crews that operate inside the fenced and building enclosures appear almost invariably to perform in overmanned, loosely-supervised groups, but virtually all assignees to outside projects are supposed to remain constantly under the gun. This represents a position diametrically opposed to the usual operating procedure, whereunder trusties are employed outside fences without armed guard, or often without even constant official surveillance . Such selections, however, would involve exercises of some basic skills in prisoner classification that the present staff is obviously not employing.
Reidsville is suffering from serious problems, and potentially more serious ones, however their resolution can be effected. A good place to begin would be with a penetrating study of the cases that comprise the unbelievably large group who are being retained indefinitely in dead-lock status. This barometer of prison pulse should yield some interesting and meaningful readings for future therapies. At the same time, there should emerge suggestions as to how these immobilized persons, who are in varying degrees victims of the system, might emerge to status of fuller program participation at Reidsville or elsewhere in the State Department of Corrections.
Early installation, or resumption, of around-the-clock officer inspections and on-the-scene surveillance of all inmate quarters is proposed. Restrictions of such attention to "show-of-force" occasions merely lends confidence and boldness to devious inmate actions. It might also pay dividends to consider the advisability of moving some of the primarily custodial and production officials back inside the prison where they can remain more constantly alert to significant goings on. Female employees could still operate from a clerical pool that would remain at the front.
If early, intensive treatment is launched, its long-range potential is much more exciting than frightening or foreboding. True, there will continue to be problems but none that enough correctionally trained specialists can't handle. The farm, properly staffed with knowledgeable official planners and 250-350 well-classified, full-trusty inmates, might reasonably be expected to produce sufficient meats, grains, dairy products, vegetables, eggs, fruits, and syrups, for the entire prison system, and perhaps also other state institutions and agencies under a prison-industries-coordinated distribution arrangement.
Prison industries, when expanded to employ 700-l 000 prisoners at productive and progressively responsible undertakings, can be expected to cause a near vanishing of the huge present "idleness-mischief' prisoner reservoir that serves as a veritable incubator for persisting serious management problems.
Installation, cultivation, and expansion of facilities for classification, education, vocational training, group and individual counseling, and other time-tested treatment instruments can be supplied as competent supervising practitioners can be found and engaged. Improved personnel can be attracted and retained by continuation of salary upgradings and by greatly increasing staff housing

163

that is otherwise not available under present conditions and the adverse location of the prison in an area that obviously doesn't appeal to investors in rental property.
Firm, persisting, professional leadership and planning must be generously applied toward, and allied with, unwavering top-level support if this facility is to be restored to a status of full and functional correctional respectability. The price of delay and indecision can be expected to mount at a rapidly accelerating rate even if we are fortunte enough in the meanwhile to avert major incidents of violence and destruction.
Appendix II
Alto
The Georgia Industrial Institute at Alto is making what appears to be serious efforts to modernize a badly dilapidated facility that was not originally designed as a reformatory and, at best, poorly converted to one in 1951 . Old buildings for both staff and inmates are having to be stripped, gutted, and rebuilt in operations that may be actually as expensive in time and money as complete new construction.
Additionally, a new 250-capacity, single-room cell block is well on the way toward completion, and a recently completed educational-vocational-counselling service complex that is nearly fully operational. Facilities for accredited academic instruction through high school graduation are staffed by the State Department of Education. The Vocational Rehabilitation Administration provides an excellent multi-faceted counselling service, and the State Department of Vocational Education has approved proposals for training and staffing for ten of the thirteen trade training shops that are now mostly equipped and awaiting occupancy. Apparently delays are being encountered in engaging the services of a coordinating supervisor and the thirteen or more instructor-foremen that will be needed to set the plan in motion .
As would naturally be surmised, a regular state of flux results from both the scope and intensity of all these concurrent actions. When some 900 already maladjusted 12-20 year olds and a cadre of 25-35 adult offenders are incarcerated in an area where there is a near constant shuttling in and out of construction workers, often of unknown character, things are bound to happen, and often do. Accordingly, we feel it is much to the credit of the young, alert, enterprising superintendent and his staff that they have been able to carry on a semblance of program while facing the frustrations and privations that necessarily attend such widespread upgradings of physical plant. These operations are expected to continue for at least two more years.
Once the physical plant has been modernized and the excellent array of fine treatment services are well functioning, the administration will need to continue its efforts toward providing effective coordination and

teamwork between services that are manned by persons with wide variances of culture and few common off-job interests. This problem can be lessened by upgrading the correctional officers through better recruitment, transfers from other institutions of officers with demonstrated treatment interests, and staff development programs.
Inasmuch as Negro inmates regularly comprise about 75% of the Alto population, racial integration should be accomplished here with comparative ease . There are still hangings on of segregation in living quarters, assignments to athletics teams, and other areas where enforced groupings leave the appearance of being actually more bi-racial than truly integrated.
Despite the wealth of counselling, testing and investigative machinery , no really systematic admission classification and intensive case follow-up programs are in operation. Perfunctory assignments are made by a regularly constituted classification committee but without benefit of case histories or much else in the way of background material. Furthermore, short-term cases apparently often remain unclassified and unassigned for months, only to be brought up for superficial attention just a few days prior to release.
Although there are several Vocational Rehabilitation counsellors available at all times , only one is apparently authorized to perform classification work and because of his being regularly overloaded with other work and detail suggests he will need help if a really modern classification program is to be operated. The records are not at all complete, and additional assistance is essential for their improvement.
Although the hodgepodge of inmate clothing observed at Alto may result in a small operating economy, it weakens both the self respect of the inmates and institutional security .
High level staff expressed the desire that committments of offenders 16 years of age and under to Alto be discontinued. These younger offenders should go either to Youth Development Centers or to area training schools, because, with rare exception, they are not yet ready to cope with 17-20 year old sophisticates who comprise a substantial majority that fill Alto. Another proposed project that would seem to deserve top priority consideration is the suggested enclosing of the institution compound with a new 14h foot high chain link security fence to replace the near uselss 5-foot barrier now there. Most of the youths can clear the 5-foot barrier without even breaking stride.
Appendix III
Buford
The Georgia Training and Development Center at Buford is now functioning to provide professionally-administered, trade-training-oriented programs for 200-250 selected young male prisoners. Manpower Development Training with the use of Federal funds is collaborating with the State

164

Department of Corrections in planning, staffing, and

operating the project. There are a supervisor, two

vocational counsellors, and five instructor-foremen that

spearhead the formal training areas.

A mere five years ago the old sadistic, widely-infamous

Rock Quarry program for so-called incorrigibles was in full

operation here , and regrettably some present staff members

persist in maintaining the old Rock Quarry philosophy.

In the face of this, the very survival of the new program

is significant. It can now be regarded as something of a

demonstration project that shows what good community

resources in harmonious teamwork with a semblance of

prisoner classification practices can accomplish. As is the

case at Alto , there is a wide cultural and philosophical gap

between the correctional officers and treatment staff and

l

this will require a constant , careful bridging if good communication is to be established.

Except for a cadre of 25-40 ordinary adult prisoners who are sent to Buford specifically for maintenance assignments, all other inmates there are selected designees for accelerated academic or vocational training. About half of the total population are assigned to full-time vocational training in five areas - welding, masonry, au to mechanics, building maintenance, and drafting, with intensive instruction for 4 months in welding and 12 months in each of the other four areas. Shop instruction consumes six hours per day, and to this is added a period of two hours per day of academic instruction in areas most needed by the trainee. Another 1/3 of the inmates are enrolled in civilian-taught evening high school equivalency classes that are designed to culminate in graduation of the enrollees. It is , therefore , often possible for enterprising trainees to acquire trade skills and high school equivalency certificates during a single span of institutional confinement. This is certainly no bad accomplishment.

Although by its very nature Buford would be expected

to present about the best setting in the State Department of

Corrections facilities for racial integration, an institution-

wide effort in that direction was officially terminated

following a widespread violent weapon-wielding fight that

inflicted numerous critical injuries and emphasized glaring

need for better control of contraband. Now , with

court-ordered, mandatory integration facing them officials

are aware that compliance will be all the more difficult by

reason of the previous failure .

That Buford has been able to survive, and even in some

ways thrive, during the early, trying days of unsystematic

prisoner selection, residual staff deficiencies, and trial and

error exploration, is rather convincing testimony of its

program worthiness. When better trainee selections are

(

made at Jackson and improved reclassification screening

practices at other institutions, these actions will translate

into improved , more specialized operations and even greater

eventual success of the Buford program .

Meanwhile, generous high level official and public

support should {1) recognize and applaud the objectives of

the program, {2) allot needed funds to repairs, refurbish-

ings , and replacements of the wretchedly run-down plant and furnishings , and (3) fully support and arrange meritorious placements of deserving graduate trainees in private industry via parole or work-release.
Of all State of Georgia prison facilities , perhaps only the Reception and Diagnostic Center at Jackson has greater potential than Buford for exercises in , and experimentation with, modern, correctional practices on a so-called proving-ground basis.
Appendix IV
Jackson (Butts Co.) Reception and Diagnostic Center This facility is expected to begin operations in the near future even though only about 50% of the planned three-phased complex is approaching readiness for occupancy. Partial staffmg has already been assigned, and assistance has been engaged to draw up procedural guidelines for the operation of a classification program. There is no need for duplication of effort in this area. Even with the most skillfully formulated guidelines, the final success or failure of the project will be 90%, or more , dependent upon trained and experienced personnel assigned to the staff. It is important that early, costly mistakes be avoided.
Appendix V
Prison Branches (17) and Public Work Camps (78)
In addition to the aforementioned four major prison facilities , the State Department of Corrections confines prisoners in 17 Prison Branches and seventy-odd County Public Works Camps that are scattered over the entire State. Three of the Prison Branches are in actuality just loosely-camaflouged Public Works Camps that are operated, under somewhat detached and obviously limited State Department of Corrections controls, by the Battey Hospital, The Milledgeville State Hospital, and the Stone Mountain Memorial Association, which agencies furnish all local official supervision and plan the work programs.
The remaining 14 Prison Branches have work programs that are geared primarily to supplying contract labor to the State Highway Department at a reimbursement rate that is . only a fraction of the national minimum wage and insufficient to defray current basic prisoner confinement costs. With the possible exception of the Putnam County Branch at Eatonton, being expanded to a capacity of about 150 prisoners, all these Prison Branches are much too small to be expected to approach the most economical per capita daily operational costs. Most of them would have to double their present census and expand program proportionally to achieve that goal.

165

When modern classification practices once become a reality, it could be expected that these branches would rather promptly begin to assume proper roles as camps for confinement of prisoners who have earned, or demonstrated worthiness for , promotion to such a status, camps should utilize steady, systematic decompression as one of the several agents for better preparing inmates for release. The present miniature-penitentiary climate observed there would go the way of the gun guards, and program growth could proceed more steadily and rapidly in the improved climate that would result.
The Public Works Camps observed presented numerous shortcomings as regular places of confinement for even misdemeanants and should not be considered at all suitable for felons . This judgment was reached from observations made just a few months after the current inspection program was initiated and the stipulations of a new and comprehensive rule book were being more rigidly enforced.

There is no logical justification for continuing the indiscriminate, hodgepodge "rationing" of offendersmisdemeanants, felons, and numerous life timers alike into conglomerate labor pools that are managed by persons who have little knowledge of and often even less patience with, modern correctional concepts. The only classification practice noticed in Public Works Camps which had near service-wide application was racial segregation .
Programs of education and self-improvement were not present in organized form at Public Works Camps inspected, even though functional illiteracy among inmates was estimated as substantial. On the contrary, several of the Prison Branches have soundly organized school programs that show indications of vitality . Public Works Camps, with their undisputed local political management controls, whether direct or indirect, will become increasingly difficult to inspect, defend in the courts, and justify as work-release, prisoner pay, and other innovations emerge.

166

.JO HN B. STANLEY CH AIRMAN
R . .JACK KENNEDY VI CECHAIRMAN
STETSON BENNETT, .JR. SE CRETARY
.J ACK T. RUTLEDIJE ME M81:R
LEE ARRENDALE M EJo48ER

Appendix J
~tate inarb nf <t!nrrertinus
1 1Jtar~tt j;trtrt .Atlanta. Citorgta lDlDl

August 20, 1968

ROBERT .J. CARTER DIRI:CTDR
WALLACE LAMBERT A88DCIATI: DIRECTOR

Honorable J. C. Holmes, Chairman Governor's Commission on Crime and Justice Room 620, 10 Pryor Street Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Holmes:
The Georgia Prisons Facilities Study prepared by the Institute of Government of the University of Georgia has been comprehensively reviewed. There are many areas of mutual concurrence on the findings of this report, and particularly on the ultimate goal of sound penal progress for Georgia.
There are, however, several points on which as a conscientious administrator I feel I must register some reservations. Rather than allow these recommendations passage in toto by the Commission on Crime and Justice, it is not only appropriate, but sound administrative policy to voice these reservations now, rather than at the eleventh hour when such critical matters are under consideration by the General Assembly, which in the fmal analysis, must make the ultimate decision on the feasibility of these recommendations.
It is noted that the Institute of Government makes fourteen recommendations on page 19 on its report. I herewith provide the Commission members my observations and conclusions on each of these points:
(1) I cannot, in any measure, agree that the State Board of Corrections, a Constitutional board, should be abolished. To suggest a fifteen member advisory board in lieu of the present board does not constitute a logical alternative.
This department has enjoyed excellent cooperation from the State Vocational Service, Manpower Development Training Program, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, State Department of Labor, State Department of Vocational Education, etc. I therefore see no reason why this beneficial relationship should not continue and do not deem it necessary that these agencies serve in an advisory capacity.
(2) As Director I have experienced no lack of authority in administering the affairs of the Department of Corrections. The Board of Corrections has accorded full cooperation, and I do not require, nor seek, additional authority to efficiently administer this department.
(3) Careful professional staffing of the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center is, and has been, a priority item in the development of our department. To achieve this goal, adequate personal services funds have been incorporated in past and future budget proposals.
167

(4) Concentrated efforts have been made in the area of staff training. To cite but a few - 191 officers have attended a 40 hour formal program of basic correctional training, plus "on-the-job" training. Sixteen administrative employees have received 32 hours of workshop training; 78 supervisory employees have received 46 hours of training; 94 administrative employees have completed a 10-lesson correspondence course in correctional management; 43 correctional officers have received eight hours in riot and disturbance control training, and 58 state and county officers have received 7\.2 hours fingerprint and identification training.
(5) The recommendation to enlarge the existing state prison branches is considered an unrealistic approach which would only create a series of makeshift institutions. Rather than an improvisation , a rational plan for district institutions (which include specific facilities for academic and/or vocational trades programs) has already been formulated. A contract has already been let for the construction of the Wayne Prison Branch (175 capacity) which is the prototype for district institutions to be constructed in the future .
(6) Every effort is being made to expand and diversify Prison Industries. Continued emphasis will be placed on this priority item; however, it is fantasy to envision that every inmate in the Correctional System will be employed in industry. No Correctional System has achieved this as many inmates are not eligible or suitable for such assignments.
(7) A program of preventive maintenance of facilities is already in effect. A Departmental Engineer now coordinates this program.
(8) The proposal relative to awarding statutory and extra good time is not practical to implement. With 92 institutions reporting to this office the method proposed would be an administrative impossibility with the present staff. A more effective method has already been devised by this department and is scheduled for implementation in the near future. Upon computation of an individual's sentence, he will be issued a record sheet indicating his release date without statutory or extra good time. His release date with statutory and extra good time will also be indicated so he will be aware how his time can be reduced if he maintains a good record . This method has more impact.
It is observed on page 14 of the report that "forfeiture procedures are rarely used." This is erroneous. All disciplinary reports are reviewed, evaluated and appropriate action taken.
(9) A concentrated effort to upgrade the staff of this department is a matter of import which will continue to receive emphasis.
(10) Through a series of scheduled conferences with appropriate officials this department is already involved in an orderly procedure to achieve racial integration.
(11) Implementation of work release and the incentive pay program is a complex procedure which requires extremely thorough evaluation. A request will be made to the Attorney General for a construction of the incentive pay legislation enacted at the last session of the General Assembly. In the Biennium Budget this department is requesting $1,000,000 for the first year and $1 ,750,000 for the second to implement the incentive pay program. Staff meetings are scheduled to establish procedures and policies relative to work release.
(12) The Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center will set the pattern for record management and classification procedures of this department. These procedures are formulated and will be updated and revised as required. The reference on page 15 of the report to present records and fJ.les is inaccurate. The proposal to consolidate the inmate fJ.les of Corrections and Parole is completely unrealistic.
(13) Departmental policy communications are not as pictured in the study. Obviously, this is an area which requires constant re-examination. New procedures will continue to be sought to improve existing methods.
168

( 14) Academic and vocational training programs are constantly expanding. On September 1, professional teachers from local school systems will teach academic courses at the primary and secondary levels in the state institutions. Approximately 500 youthful offenders have already attended a fully accredited highschool at the Georgia Industrial Institute. One hundred and twenty-five other inmates have successfully completed the GED test and were awarded certificates by the State Department of Education. A $303,000 MDTA program is scheduled for implementation within 60 days at Georgia State Prison which will involve 200 inmates in a wide variety of technical training. This program incorporates incentive pay in its framework. I have dealt with the 14 recommendations made in this study. There are other points which warrant comment, but fo~: the sake of brevity I have not touched on these points. However, there is one point upon which I must make an observation. I believe that stern but fair discipline is essential to the operation of the correctional system. A balanced program of discipline, work, religion, recreation, etc. is the very foundation on which rehabilitation must be based. Unless this is the case, the rehabilitation programs will be fruitless. Another point which warrants comment is found on page 4, paragraph 2. I am in full accord with the statement " ... Further investigations should cease until proposals now on record can be implemented." It is my recommendation to the Commission that this report from the Department of Corrections be adopted by the Commission and made part of their recommendation.
169



I
t'

H. OLIVER WElCH Sto le Plattning OHice

, OFFICE OF THE GO VERNOR
stat planninG BURau
J 16 MITCHElL STREET, S. W. / ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303