Law enforcement plan : initial plan

~IIR1~n~
LAW ENFORCEMENT
PLAN

INITIAL PLAN
1969

STATE PlAN.NING BUREAU

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS, PROBLEMS, AND PRIORITIES

1

EXISTING LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS AND AVAILABLE RESOURCES

11

INITIAL ACTION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17

Upgrading Law Enforcement Personnel

18

Prevention of Crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency

23

Improvement of Detection and Apprehension of Criminals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Improvement of Prosecution and Court Activities and Law Reform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Increase in Effectiveness of Corrections and Rehabilitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Reduction of Organized Crime

29

Prevention and Control of Riots and Civil Disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Improvement of Community Relations

31

Research and Development

31

Compliance with Funding Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEM AND ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISM FOR IMPLEMENTING

THE PLAN

33

RELATED PLANS AND SYSTEMS ................................................. 36

LOCAL PARTICIPATION

37

UTIUZATION OF SERVICES, FACIUTIES AND EQUIPMENT

37

STATE ASSUMPTION OF COSTS .................................................. 37

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND SERVICES

37

USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO SUPPLANT STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS

38

SUBGRANT DENIAL OR TERMINATION

38

FOREWORD
This Initial Law Enforcement Plan was prepared as required by the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968. The plan meets the specific requirements of "Memorandum for State Planning Agency Directors-No. 10" which simplified comprehensive plan requirements for the first year.
The change in requirements for the first year plan is not to be interpreted as de-emphasizing the importance of in-depth planning-either short or long range. It recognize,; that Georgia and many other states have already spent considerable time studying crime control needs and developing plans. Because the amount of money available for fiscal year 1969 was modest, the immediate problem was to identify high priority needs for the best use of Georgia's allocation.
Planning must be regarded as a continuing responsibility. Therefore, it is important that Georgia devote considerable effort to the assessment of needs and the development of long-range planning. In the near future, the state will have developed and priced out a long-range master plan for the total improvements needed in all elements of our law enforcement systems.
The development of the plan was coordinated by the State Planning and Programming Bureau. This Bureau was designated by Executive Order of Governor Lester G. Maddox to implement the requirements of the Act.
ii

LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS, PROBLEMS, AND PRIORITIES

In order to arrive at needs, problems, and priorities of the total law enforcement system within Georgia, the staff of the Office of Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention met and worked with its twenty-two-member Planning Board and with law enforcement planners from its eighteen Area Planning and Development Commissions. To guide staff efforts, the Planning Board (described on page 35) met in committees to develop objectives for various phases of the system. A meeting of the entire Board was held April 17, 1969, to vote ftrst year priority funding under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Guiding the Planning Board in its decisions were eighteen regional plans from the APDC's; documented proposals from nine state agencies, and background information contained in the Governor's Crime Commission Report. Regional plans submitted were based on, and took into account, needs of local jurisdictions. Priorities were determined from these local needs and problems.
POLICE
The prime mission of police agencies is to act as the enforcement arm of our criminal justice system by protecting persons and property through order and justice under democratic law.
Law enforcement problems can be seen by the increasing crime rate in Georgia that follows the national

pattern. Although some authorities claim that the number of crimes against both property and persons is several times greater than those reported to police, 61,588 serious crimes were reported in Georgia in 1967an increase of 5.52 per cent over 1966. This ftgure includes only the seven crimes reported in the annual Uniform Crime Reports issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They are criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, ~urglary, larceny and auto theft. For statistical purposes they are referred to as the FBI index crimes and are shown below in Table 1 by category.
The index crimes represent the most serious law enforcement problems. They are serious either by their nature or by the volume in which they occur. These ftgures exclude offenses such as 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 other misdemeanors. The 61,588 serious crimes reported do not reflect the work load on our police and courts.
No exact statewide ftgures are available on total arrests in Georgia; however, the FBI 1967 arrest statistics received from 28 Georgia law enforcement agencies covering 1,419,815 people show a total of 138,913 arrests (not including traffic offenses) for this one-third of the State's population.

I
Murder and non-negligent Manslaughter
Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault BurJdary Larceny $50 and Over Auto Theft
Percent Increase

Table 1
SERIOUS CRIMES IN GEORGIA
1965
491 586 1,297 6,403 21,236 13,828 8,430
52,271
-

1966
504 650 1,555 6,357 24,580 16,616 8,104
58366 11.66%

1967
501 561 1,682 5,792 26,667 17,371 9,014
61588 5.52%

2

Georgia has no uniform crime reporting system which could give an accurate count of the number of crimes committed or the nature of offenses. Police records are kept so differently from city to city and county to county that comparison, for study purposes, is fruitless. In a recent Commission survey of Georgia law enforcement agencies, only 50.77 per cent of the 194 respondents replied that they submit statistics to the FBI.
Statistics from the Uniform Crime Report disclose that most crimes, wherever committed, are committed by boys and young men. Seventy-five per cent of all crimes in this country are committed by males between the ages of fourteen and twenty-nine. Figures also show that most crimes are committed in cities. In Georgia, the greater part of serious crimes occurred in heavily populated areas as shown in the table on the following page.
In addition to the Georgia State Patrol, there are approximately 550 local and county law enforcement agencies which employ 5,142 officers to combat the growing problem of crime and juvenile delinquency. With this large number of agencies, local police service is highly fragmented, with service to the public in the smaller communities suffering as a consequence. Desire for self-government and control over local law enforcement by many small communities accounts for development of such a large number of agencies for a state with less than five million inhabitants.
Some communities with as few as 200 persons have a police department consisting of one man. Many sheriffs have only one deputy. In some counties of 30,000 population or less, there is a sheriffs office, a county police department, and two or more municipal police departments. Small communities with law enforcement agencies consisting of fewer than ten officers suffer a number of disadvantages. The employment of specialists in these small departments is difficult or impossible and local training opportunities are often non-existent. A study showed that eighty-one cities in Georgia have four or less full time police officers. Of these, thirty have only one policeman and twenty have only two.
Operationally, these departments are not flexible enough to meet the present demands caused by a rising crime rate. However, exceptions do exist. For example, in the metropolitan Atlanta area, a total of 55 departments are charged with police responsibilities. Of this 55, 32 have less than 10 men. These departments formed a voluntary organization, "Atlanta Metropol," for the expressed purpose of improving training,

communications, cooperation, and law enforcement. They have been quite successful in their efforts. Basic and specialized training schools have been conducted on a regional basis at no cost to the local departments. Seventy-five percent of the area's law enforcement men have attended one or more of these schools. A modern teletype system links 13 locations in the area with the State Patrol and with the National Crime Information Center. Cooperation between departments in all facets of their work has improved tremendously. In this area, as well as in other regions of the state, criminal intelligence briefings are held on a regular basis to discuss common problems.
From the regional law enforcement plans submitted from the Area Planning and Development Commissions (APDC's), it appears that all police agencies need more qualified, trained personnel capable of performing assigned duties. The plans show that many communities lack the necessary financial resources to proVide training, for recruiting, and for selecting more qualified personnel. Recruitment of qualified personnel is considerably hampered because there are few fringe benefits applicable to local police officers (especially in smaller departments). Retirement programs are almost non-existent; few career advancement opportunities exist; and, long hours and inadequate salaries are the rule rather than the exception.
Police training, except in the larger cities and counties, is almost non-existent. This is a result of various causes, primarily: (a) lack of adequate training facilities locally; (b) lack of a sufficient number of personnel to cover a prolonged absence by an individual to attend any of the resident training courses available in metropolitan areas; and (c) lack of adequate funds to cover the cost of training. Many of the regional reports show that 80 to 90 per cent of their police officers have had little or no formal training. This situation presents an obvious problem when it is considered that few activities in modern society are more complex or call for as many skills as police work.
An unpublished report by the Georgia Study Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education showed eighty-nine percent (89%) of the respondents agreed that some type of minimum training standards was needed in Georgia. Law enforcement officers should be involved in some type of periodic inservice training, according to 95% of the responding agencies. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the agencies responding agreed that a person should have basic police training during a probationary employment period and before being placed in permanent status as a police officer. From available figures it is estimated that

3

Pop.**

CRIME RATE PER 100,000 PERSONS FOR SELECTED GEORGIA CITIES

1965 Crimes*

r Crime
Rate

Pop.**

1966 Crimes*

Crime Rate

Pop.**

Atlanta

Marietta

Savannah

Athens

Macon

Columbus

Rome

Valdosta

East Point

-1'0

Augusta

LaGrange

Decatur

Warner Robins

Metro Total

Other Cities

Rural

Total State

Violent Crime

Property Crime

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 4,357,000 4,357,000 4,357,000

13,529 846
3,185 1,134 2,741 2,184
538 379 433 841 190 198
35,057 8,339 8,875
52,271 8,777
43,494

2669.0 2473.7 2231.9 2706.4 2148.1 1643.3 1615.6 1199.3 1139.5 1071.3 739.3 773.4
1656.8 1199.9 574.0 1199.7 201.4 998.3

504,700 36,800
II 142,700 42,600 123,300 128,700 33,900 32,000 38,500 83,200 23,800 31,100 26,000 2,200,000 702,000 1,558,000 4,459,000 4,459,000 4,459,000

14,151 954
3,670 1,071 2,973 2,192
577 463 385 844 162 196 137 38,831 8,776 10,759 58,366 9,066 49,300

2803.8 2592.4 2571.8 2514.1 2411.2 1703.2 1702.1 1446.9 1000.0 1014.4 680.7 630.2 526.9 1750.0 1250.0 691.0 1309.0 203.3 1105.6

498,200 37,800 135,200 43,100 126,700
127,100 33,500 32,400 37,700 85,000 23,900 32,100 26400 2,226,000 693,000 1,590,000 4,509000 4,509,000 4,509,000

* Figures on crime from Uniform Crime Reports ** Figures on population from the Georgia Dept. of Public Health Biostatistics Service

1967 Crimes
14,612 877
4,045 1,180 3,193 2,484
572 569 699 973 205 207 174 41,739 9,406 10,443 61,588 8,536 53,052

Crime Rate
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 1365.9 189.3 1176.6

less than 1/3 of the 1,500 new officers each year receive basic police training.
Lack of adequate equipment and facilities is acute throughout the state. The larger departments have different needs, but they, too, lack newer, more modern equipment. In many smaller cities and counties, law enforcement officers are required to furnish their own vehicle, weapons, and uniforms (if used) and are reqUired to perform all repairs and maintenance of their own equipment out of their small salary. In agencies where these requirements exist, it is easy to see that the departments are poorly equipped.
A good example of a need for equipment is the Fort Gaines Police Department. Fort Gaines is a town of nearly 2,000 residents which had over 2 1/4 million visitors in 1968 as a result of its large Walter F. George lock and dam. The police department currently has two policemen working 12 hour shifts seven days a week. The only police vehicle is not radio equipped; therefore, there is no communication with any other law enforcement agency.
COURTS
Courts are the focal point of Georgia's civil and criminal justice system. 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.
In Georgia, the basic trial courts are the Superior Courts. These courts have both civil and criminal jurisdiction. The State is divided into 40 Superior Court judicial circuits with from one to eight counties in each circuit. Each circuit has at least one judge-seven of the circuits have more than one judge.
The laws of Georgia prescribe no uniform regulations or procedures for the supervision and coordination of the work of the Superior Court judges. With few exceptions, each circuit is administered independently. 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. Their jurisdiction extends to all matters concerning custody and correction of delinquent children under seventeen.

These courts may also exercise this jurisdiction over such children who are not delinquent but who are beyond control of parents or guardians. Superior Courts maintain original jurisdiction for juvenile offenders; therefore, the Juvenile Court is subject to some control by the Superior Court.
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. Notwithstanding 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 shows 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. 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.
It is evident that if Georgia is ever to have effective court administration, a unified court system is needed 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.
In addition to changes in outdated Court systems, there are other legislative changes which would advance the administration of justice. Among these is a need for better sentencing practice, including abolishment of jury sentencing and introduction of appellate review of sentencing.
Georgia is one of the few states which still grants defendants an absolute right to separate trial. This procedure causes much duplication of efforts and, to some extent, causes overcrowded court dockets.

5

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. There has been no large movement in Georgia to eliminate money bail formost defendants.
See page 11 for the breakdown of the local Courts and their jurisdiction.
CORRECTIONS
Corrections in Georgia is administered by the State Department of Corrections. In addition to State institutions, most of the counties and all except the smallest cities have detentional facilities even if they are only one or two cell jails for overnight lock-up. Each level of government acts independently of the others. The State Department of Corrections operates prisons at Reidsville, Alto, and Buford, the Jackson County Reception and Diagnostic Center, and seventeen prison branches. A description of these facilities is contained in Section B.
In May, 1968, State penal institutions confined 8,627 inmates. This population is extremely high in contrast with the national average. In fact, Georgia has the second highest per capita prison population, exceeded only by the State of Alaska. At Reidsville, the major penitentiary in Georgia's correctional system, there were some 2,500 inmates in an institution built in 1930 to accomodate about 1,800 felons.
Some 3,000 men are incarcerated in county public work camps throughout the state. Many counties are finding it non-economical to operate these camps and are phasing them out. The total of 78 county work camps in 1967 has dropped to only 63. Closing of all of these camps at one time would create a chaotic condition within the state system.
In view of already overcrowded conditions and the real possibility of the closing of county work camps, there is a need for additional institutions and practical work release programs.
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 that the median age of Georgia's prisoners is slightly over 24. At least half of the persons presently confined in Georgia's institutions should be in a planned educational and/or vocational training program, but facilities to accommodate this number are not available.

Georgia inmates test, 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 Lowndes-Troupeville Prison-median 8.0; and 72 at 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. Educational and vocational training programs are provided in a few institutions, but not nearly enough.
Georgia has not adopted many new concepts in community treatment of offenders, such as the work release program which attempts to remove some of the isolating effects of institutionalization and to ease the difficult transition back into the community. Work release programs in most other states have been successful as an alternative to total isolation.
Correctional institutions in Georgia are acutely short of qualified personnel, especially in positions charged with the responsibility for treatment and rehabilitation. An in-depth study of correctional personnel showed that the average Corrections Department employee is 46 years of age, has been employed for 4.3 years, receives an annual salary of $4,877, and has an educational level of 10.5 years. More important than the average characteristics of all employees are those of the custodial staff alone. Here it was found that the average officer is 46.9 years old, makes $4,206 per year, has 3.7 years experience, and has an educational level of 9.6 years. The study further showed that 67 percent of 281 guards had been employed for less than one year. If the department is ever to rehabilitate inmates, it will have to pay a better salary and hire more qualified personnel.
The high turnover rate, due, in part, to low salaries, has created a tremendous need for basic orientation training before entering service and continuous in-service training. Also, there is a real need for in-service training for middle and upper management at the institutional level.
The counties and cities have complete authority over their local jails and are able to set their own regulations and standards. Many prisoners are sentenced for periods of up to one year to county facilities designed for only short terms of detention with inadequate rehabilitation programs.
It is common to find the local and county jails to be over a hundred years old without functional sanitary facilities and potentially fire hazardous. In most counties no effort has been made toward joint utilization of jail facilities between the county and its constituent municipalities.

6

In summary, there is a need either for more institutions or for programs which will reduce the number of inmates. Also needed are more and better qualified correctional officers, higher salaries, more educational and vocational training programs, and an upgrading of local and county jails.
PROBATION
Adult probation in Georgia is administered by the State Department of Probation and six independent county agencies. In April, 1969, the State employed 92 supervisors to oversee 11,480 probationers, giving an average caseload of 125. This is over three times greater than the desirable caseload average recommended in "Task Force Report: Corrections," of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement. In some cases, the caseload per probation officer is over 200.
In Georgia, the per capita ratio of probationers is extremely low when contrasted with the national average. Judges do not use probation as extensively as they could. Of the 3,397 persons committed to the custody of the State Board of Corrections for fiscal year 1967, 2,362 or 69.5 per cent were first offenders. Many judges refuse to probate even first offenders because, with the high caseload of probation officers, probationers are not assured proper supervision. The cost of keeping a man on probation is approximately $83.00 per year contrasted with the cost of incarceration which is $2,348.
The operation of the county agencies varies widely from the largest, Fulton, with 25 officers handling 5,668 cases or 227 per supervisor, to Muscogee's one man handling alimony and child support collections with no supervision. The other counties with their staffs are Bibb (2), Cobb (2), DeKalb (9), and Richmond (2).
Qualifications for probation officers also vary between the jurisdictions. The average state probation officer has an educational achievement level of 13.1 years, with 62.7 per cent of the 92 officers being high school graduates only. Thirty-five per cent of Probation Department personnel have been employed from one to twelve months and 25 per cent from two to three years. This high rate of turnover in the department is probably due to low salaries which average $6,130 per year for all officers.
Very few, if any, of the present probation officers working for the Probation Department have had previous experience in the field, although many have had related experience.

With the exception of Fulton County, whose entire probation staff have college degrees and are better paid, conditions for county probation employees are the same as for the state workers-poorly paid staff, undertrained personnel and insufficient numbers.
While the state and county agencies cooperate adequately when the need arises, there is no formal exchange of information between them. Some of the counties do not participate in the interstate compact.
PAROLE
The State Department of Parole functions under the Board of Pardons and Parole. The Department is headed by a three-member board, whose members are appointed for seven-year, staggered terms by the Governor, with confirmation by the State Senate. The Board possesses almost the entire clemency power of the state. To carry out its functions, the Board has a central office staff consisting of a Director of Parole, an Administrative Associate, and an Administrative Secretary of the Board. In addition, there is a field staff, consisting of parole officers and secretaries housed in regional offices. Parole district lines are drawn to include whole judicial circuits.
Parolees are supervised from 18 district offices. There are 1,834 parolees under the supervision of 24 officers with an average caseload of 76. The best estimate available is that caseloads should generally average 35 per officer. It is evident that there are not enough parole officers in Georgia to carry out the tasks assigned to them. For example, two parole officers who cover eight counties travel a great deal in their work day. The occasion often arises when an officer will travel a great distance to see a parolee or make a pre-parole investigation to find, on his return, that another case could have been investigated at a nearby location.
Parole is not used as extensively in Georgia as in many other states. Of the 11,412 felons 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. A national survey showed that more than 60 percent of adult felons for the nation as a whole are released on parole prior to the expiration of the maximum term of their sentences. It is difficult for the State Board of Parole to release more inmates to the already over-worked parole officers.
The nature of the decision to be made when parole eligibility is considered requires persons who have broad

7

academic backgrounds, especially in the behavioral sciences. In the Georgia parole system, 42.7 per cent of the parole officers have attained high school graduation only and 12.9 per cent are college graduates. Only 36.1 per cent of the personneLhave previous related experience. Most of this experience is as police officers. Since the number of officers with the requisite education and experience is limited, training is badly needed. The Department has no training officer to help set up and implement programs for parole officers.
Under Georgia law, probation and parole programs must be maintained independently. The records of the two boards are kept separately and the personnel are housed and operate separately. Each department conducts small training programs even though the activities of probation and parole officers are analogous. A majority of states (37) combine probation and parole into one department giving more effective use of personnel and facilities.
RIOTS AND DISORDERS
Most cities in Georgia have been spared the ravages of riots and civil disorders that have plagued much of the nation. This is not to say that factors creating moods of violence are not present within the state, but, that efforts have been made to ease the tension. The larger cities, especially Atlanta, have attempted to solve the grievances causing unrest and have been largely successful in working toward a peaceful end.
The larger cities have some riot and civil disorder equipment available and personnel trained to handle these situations. Four of the larger cities (Atlanta, Savannah, Columbus, and Macon) and DeKalb County have received federal matching funds under section 307 b of the Omnibus Crime Control Act for riot control equipment.
The Department of Public Safety also has special equipment and personnel available to offer assistance to local agencies when help is needed to prevent crime or restore order.
The Georgia National Guard has established elaborate classified riot control plans and has the necessary personnel and equipment to implement these plans should the need arise.
Officials of the Department of Public Safety and local law enforcement agencies believe that additional equipment and training are needed for potential emergency situations. It is thought that a local force, properly equipped and trained, could restore order without calling out the National Guard.

City of Atlanta Police Department officials, realizing that the abrasive relationship between police and the Negro community was a potential cause of riots and civil disorders, established two programs aimed at reducing this tension: (1) a crime prevention bureau working largely in Negro neighborhoods with officers functioning as social workers in police uniforms, and (2) the community service officer programs which generally employ younger men of a minority race to work with regular officers in the high crime areas. The community service officers wear uniforms but do not carry guns or have the power of arrest.
The City of Savannah also has instituted a somewhat similar community service officer program.
ORGANIZED CRIME
While organized criminal groups are known to operate in all sections of the nation, local law enforcement authorities, except in Atlanta, do not believe that this is currently a major problem in Georgia. Officials in Atlanta believe that some organized crime, having loose ties with out-of-state criminals, does exist, particularly in connection with bootleg whiskey and gambling. These authorities fear that the same factors which have boosted Atlanta's economy will eventually attract syndicate activity (for example, gambling in connection with the newly acquired professional ball teams).
Facts have come to light which indicate more organized crime may exist than was previously estimated. The President's Crime Commission points out that organized crime flourishes where there are corrupt local officials. Georgia's recent "Report of the Governor's Commission on Crime and Justice" points to reliable estimates by federal enforcement agencies that 42 public officials are involved in the illicit liquor business in this state. The "moonshine" business may be Georgia's largest organized crime enterprise, since the state has the highest percentage of illicit liquor stills seized in the United States.
There are no state or local law enforcement agencies with sections or squads specifically designated to assess and deal with the problem of organized crime.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
The number of juvenile offenders and offenses is increasing each year in Georgia as it is throughout the entire nation. Juvenile cases disposed of by Georgia courts increased from 17,007 in 1967 to 18,284 in 1968. Unless effective prevention and rehabilitation programs can be initiated, this trend is expected to continue.

8

There are no uniform procedures for the identification, disposition, detention, or treatment of juvenile offenders in the state. These procedures have been left to the discretion of individual officials, counties, and judicial circuits resulting in a patchwork of courts. Poor communications exist between agencies engaged in similar programs. Adoption of legislation spelling out standard handling procedures could be an excellent beginning toward solving one of the most crucial problems facing the law enforcement system.
To handle this growing problem of delinquency, Georgia must rely, for the present, on its patchwork of juvenile courts (there are only three full-time juvenile judges in the state); its understaffed probation departments; its shortage of Court Service Workers; its overcrowded detention and development centers; its lack of funds for effective prevention programs; its too few trained personnel; its lack of effective alternatives to detention; its lack of funds to provide the needed academic, vocational, recreational or work programs; and its shortage of counseling, testing, and aftercare services. If its poor records system were to be improved, it could suggest additional programs in particular areas. In summary, the entire juvenile system needs revamping.
When arriving at recommended programs for upgrading the state's handling of juvenile offenders, the Planning Board recognized many problems noted from its exposure to past research and from the personal experiences of individual members. The Board realized that the absence of a standard reporting system in Georgia's 159 counties prevents the attainment of an accurate picture of the juvenile situation. It was decided that the development of this system should receive a top priority rating to provide more information about delinquents before plans for preventive programs can be developed.
The Planning Board felt that help for children suffering from mental or emotional problems was extremely important and allocated funds for psychological and psychiatric testing. Some children will be tested before they face the court (possibly reducing the number of court cases), while others already in detention will reo ceive special care. Aid to children at this stage could substantially reduce the occurence of future problems. The Board also wanted an alternative to detention and felt that the effectiveness of a group home should be tested.
To aid probation efforts and reduce the caseload of probation officers (often as many as 200 per supervisor), the Board allocated funds to employ college students on a part-time basis to test the effectiveness and potential of the project.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Research and development of new programs have been, for the most part, placed in a secondary role as far as law enforcement is concerned. Until recently, things were no different in Georgia. As a result of the rising crime rate and recognition of the need to focus on problems and solutions, funds have been spent in the field of research and development. Governor Maddox appointed a committee of experts to study problems of crime and juvenile delinquency. The end result of this study was a crime commission report which detailed problems and made 109 specific recommendations.
The Institute of Government at the University of Georgia has been very active researching particular fields of law enforcement. Some of the studies published as a result of this research include the following:
(1) A Demographic Study-Georgia Probation, Parole and Correctional Personnel
(2) A Study of the Need and Demand for Police Science Degree Programs in the Colleges of Georgia
(3) A Guide for Prisoner Classification Procedures
(4) In-Service Training for Parole, Probation, and Correctional Personnel.
In addition to this research, some law enforcement agencies have conducted research and development programs. Research, to date, has been restricted to particular aspects of the criminal justice system with no research aimed at the total system.
The eighteen Area Planning and Development Commissions are in the process of completing extensive research into man-power, equipment, and facilities available to local police agencies. The APDC's are also looking into needs and problem areas in the juvenile delinquency field.
The Department of Family and Children Services will receive $10,000 under the Juvenile Delinquency Act to conduct research into the need for and the design of a maximum security youth development center.
The Department of Public Safety, in cooperation with Georgia Tech, is conducting a study into cost and time requirements to develop a state-wide communication and criminal information system. It is hoped that the second phase of the study can be made partly with Omnibus Crime Control funds.

9

There are no structured means by which persons in the various academic institutions of Georgia can know what is being done with regard to research and development in crime and delinquency. The same is true of the practitioners in state and local agencies.
METHODS FOR PRIORITY ESTABLISHMENT AND IMPLEMENTAnON
The Allocations Committee met on April I, 1969, to discuss methods for fund allocation to the various local and state agencies. At this meeting, the committee voted to recommend to the full Planning Board that 75 percent of the local funds be allocated to the Area Planning and Development Commissions on a population basis. This allocation to the APDC's would go to county and local communities on the basis of priority and need as shown in the regional plan submitted by each APDC.
The remaining 25 percent of the local funds would be discretionary. The Board could allocate this amount as it deemed best after reviewing the various regional plans.

The Committee also voted to allocate the state's share of 25 percent to the state agencies based on need as outlined in the requests from state agencies.
On April 17, the full Planning Board met with 18 of the 22 members represented. The recommendations of the Allocations Committee were adopted by the Board.
In discussing the priorities, the Board felt that, from a review of regional plans, law enforcement training should receive first priority. It was the feeling of the Board that funding a few large programs would accomplish more than if the funds were allocated to many small projects, none of which would have a large impact. With these gUidelines in mind, the Board set the programs for the various APDC's.
The Board voted to establish a committee to set standards for training. It was the intent of the Board that, where possible, regional training would be used by the local communities.
The Board set juvenile delinquency prevention and rehabilitation as the second priority, hoping that with proper treatment the problem of criminals in later years could be lessened.

10

EXISTING LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS AND AVAILABLE RESOURCES
II

STATE PATROL
Department of Public Safety of Georgia. The Georgia Department of Public Safety was created in 1937 by the General Assembly of Georgia. A seven-man board governs the department. Its three main divisions are: (1) the Georgia State Patrol, (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. All personnel entering duty with the Georgia Department of Public Safety do so only through the State Merit Board of Personnel Administration. The 1967-1968 budget for this department was $11,229,132.
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 of 100 men each under the command of a major, who also serves as 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 for an assistant.
Development of an up-to-date, state wide communications network has been promoted by this department and by the local police in the state. To date, their efforts have been quite effective. Most large cities are now connected by a modern teletype system with all line charges paid by the state. These agencies have the added advantage of direct access to the National Crime Information Center, the Law Enforcement Teletype System and information contained in the Department of Public Safety's computer. Larger police departments and State Patrol Offices having these teletypes make them available to any of the smaller departments in their area.
Georgia Bureau of Investigation (G. B. I.). This investigative branch of the department began functioning on April 1, 1938. The legislative act creating the G. B. I. states 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. The assistance is given quite willingly but only when requested by the governing authorities of any municipality, a sheriff, a superior court judge, or the governor. Excellent cooperative arrangements exist between this state agency and the local police departments.

As of June 18, 1968, there were eighty G. B. I. Agents deployed throughout the state. These men are assigned by judicial circuits in eleven districts, each headed by a lieutenant. The director of the G. B. I., a major, has his headquarters in Atlanta.
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 card of a subject. This division also maintains a name index card file, a file of criminal history sheets, a latent fingerprint 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 releases and any items of current interest. Some 900 copies of these weekly bulletins are furnished to law enforcement agencies in Georgia and other states.
Crime Laboratory. The State Crime Laboratory performs work for the state agencies and any local law enforcement requesting its services. The laboratory in Atlanta has a staff of nineteen, including twelve examiners, and the smaller branch at Savannah has two examiners and a clerk. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, the laboratory handled 10,424 cases, a 20.4 per cent caseload increase over the preceeding year. The laboratory cost per case was $27.23.
The Georgia Police Academy. The Georgia Police Academy was established by an act of the Legislature. The purpose of the Academy is to upgrade police services by offering training to all Georgia police and other law enforcement officials.
Training offered includes recruit, in-service or advanced, specialized and technical courses for all levels of law enforcement. This includes the basic police sciences and command level management courses, as well as legal subjects relating to administration of criminal justice.
The Georgia Police Academy, headed by a Major with the Department of Public Safety, has a full-time staff of qualified instructors supplemented by outstanding police and law enforcement officials from throughout the state of Georgia. Instructions at the Georgia Police Academy are free. A nominal charge is made, however, for rooms, meals, ammunition used in firearms training, notebooks, etc.

12

The Academy offers a three-week, 120-hour basic course for police, limited to boarding students, costing $97.50 which includes room and board. A 70-hour basic police course is offered monthly for all police departments in greater metropolitan Atlanta in cooperation with Atlanta Metropol. Officers completing this course return at intervals allowing them to complete 200 hours of training.
On the last Monday and Tuesday of each month, a two-day seminar is conducted for all Georgia lawenforcement officers on some specialized subject of particular importance and interest. The specialized schools on management, fingerprints, etc., last five days.
LOCAL POLICE
There are 5,142 local police officers and 550 local and county law enforcement agencies in Georgia with a total budget in excess of 35 million dollars. With this number of agencies, local police service is highly fragmented, with service to the public in the smaller communities suffering 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 unusually large number of agencies for a state with less than five million people. Communities with as few as 200 persons have their own police chiefs and many sheriffs have only one deputy.
Jurisdictional 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 the fragmented efforts of large numbers of uncoordinated local governments and law enforcement agencies. Since crime is not confined to the boundaries of anyone locality, it is important to consider some formal coordination or consolidation of agencies in many rural areas. Atlanta Metropol, as discussed earlier, has attempted to solve many ofthese problems.
Small communities having fewer than ten law enforcement officers suffer a number of disadvantages. 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. Therefore, most of the small law enforcement agencies must depend to a large extent upon the assistance of federal and state agencies such as the F. B. I., G. B. I., Georgia State Patrol, State Alcohol Tax Unit, and the facilities of the State Crime Laboratory.

Since the amount of money spent by the local departments is not available, except for a few of the larger cities and counties, no complete accounting for local law enforcement expenditures can be established.
COURTS
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; 5 Municipal Courts; 159 Courts of Ordinary; 11 Small Claims Courts; 2 Magistrates Courts; about 2,500 Justice of the Peace Courts; and hundreds of Recorders, Police and Mayors Courts. The 1967-1968 budget for the State Court System was $3,091,000, while court budgets for most of the remaining portion of the state totaled $10,166,085. A brief description of each category follows.
The Supreme Court was created, without original jurisdiction, by the Georgia Constitution. It is restricted to correcting errors of law from lower courts, hearing appeals from cases involving interpretation of the Constitution of Georgia or the United States, title to land, equity, validity and construction of wills, capital felonies, habeas corpus, extraordinary remedies, divorce, and alimony.
The Court of Appeals was similary created by the Constitution. Its jurisdiction is also limited to correction of errors on appeal from lower courts.
The basic trial courts are the Superior Courts, which have both civil and criminal jurisdiction. The Superior Courts have exclusive jurisdiction in cases of divorce, felonly, title to land and equity. They have concurrent jurisdiction with all other trial courts in 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.
The state is divided into 40 Superior Court judicial circuits, consisting of one to eight counties each. Each circuit has at least one judge and seven have more than one judge. The Superior Court of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit ha, 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. The judge of a circuit may hold extra terms in any county whenever he deems it necessary. The laws of Georgia prescribe no uniform regulations or procedures for the supervision or coordination of the work of the Superior Court judges. Thus, with few exceptions, each circuit is administered independently.

13

Juvenilc courts arc crcatcd by statutc. Thcir jurisdiction cxtcnds to all matters concerning custody and correction of delinquent children under the age of 17. They may also exercise this jurisdiction over children who arc not delinquent but who are bcyond control of parents or guardians. Superior Courts may also insist upon trying juveniles for crimc, in which case the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court is subject to control by the Superior Court.
City Courts, commonly called "Constitutional City Courts", are not courts of the municipalities in which they arc 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. Their jurisdiction usually embraces the counties in which they are located. Since each court is created by a special act of the General Assembly, they often have varying jurisdiction, qualifications, powers, salaries, and terms of office.
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 Constitutional City Courts since they are generally successors to City Courts. Such courts are found in Troup, Fulton, DeKalb, and other populous counties.
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. Their enabling act was a special law and therefore, has not been included in any code since 1895.
Municipal Courts are created by special statute and are whatever the statute defines them as being. 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, such as the Health Code and certain tax laws. They may try misdemeanor cases arising through the Georgia State Highway Patrol and they have power over probate of wills, administration of cstates, supervision of mattcrs of guardian and ward and guardianship matters relating to insane persons.

Small Claim Courts have jurisdiction over civil actions where the principal amount claimed docs not exceed S 1000. Such jurisdiction is concurrcnt 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 Peacc, since statutes creating Magistrate Courts have abolished the Justicc of the Peace Court in the same county. The civil jurisdiction is the same as that of Justice of the Peace, cxcept that the maximum amount is increased to SI 000. Its criminal jurisdiction is limited to specified misdemeanors whcre the defendant has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere or where the defendant has waived trial by jury.
Justice of the Peace Courts are created by the Georgia Constitution as civil tribunals 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.
Recorders', Police, and Mayors' courts arc usually created by the 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 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 which produce confusion and delays. The operation of the many courts in Georgia involves an expenditure of millions of dollars per year. The courts do not keep any official statistics concerning the number and nature of cases terminated. Because there is no way to forecast need, congestion in the trial courts in this state has become one of the major problems of judicial administration. Notwithstanding the usual rule that criminal cases have priority over civil cases, therc are many serious delays in the administration of criminal justice.
CORRECTIONS
The State Department of Corrections (total 19671968 budget of $11,259,075) is administered by a Director of Corrections who is responsible to the Board of Corrections for the operation of the Department. The following facilities are under thc jurisdiction of this departmcnt.

14

Reidsville. The state prison at Reidsville, Tattnall 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. Within its overcrowded confines are packed some 2,500 men, at least 12 per cent to 15 per cent of whom are regularly kept locked in either disciplinary or protective segregation. An additional 350 to 400 prisoners are confined in a building one-half mile south of the main prison which formerly served as a large prison dormitory for women. Some 350 of the Reidsville population are misdemeanants. Eleven to twelve hundred of the 2,400 to 2,500 inmates currently available for full program participation are assigned to outside operations, chiefly farming and pasturing some 8,000 acres of prison land. Prison industries produce auto license plates, matresses, clothing, printing, canning, and soaps; but, employment of prisoners totals only about 250 of the proposed top quota of 700 or more assignees.
Alto. The Georgia Industrial Institute at Alto is making what appear to be serious efforts to modernize a badly dilapidated facility which was converted into a reformatory in 1951. It houses some 900, 12 to 20 year old youths. Programs for accredited instruction through high school are staffed by the State Department of Education. The Vocational Rehabilitation Administration provides an excellent multi-faceted counseling service. The State Department of Vocational Education has approved proposals for staffing 10 of the 13 trade-training shops that are mostly equipped and awaiting occupancy.
Buford. The Georgia Training and Development Center at Buford provides professionally-administered, tradetraining oriented programs for 200-250 selected young male prisoners. Manpower Development Training, in collaboration with the State Department of Corrections, is planning, staffing, and operating the project. A supervisor, two vocational counselors, and five instructorsforemen spearhead the formal training areas.
About one-half of the total population is assigned to full-time vocational training in five areas-welding, masonry, auto mechanics, building maintenance, and drafting-with intensive instruction for four months in welding and twelve months in each of the other four areas. Shop instruction consumes six hours per day with a period of two hours per day of academic instruction in areas most needed by the trainee. Another one-third 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 often possible for enterprising trainees to acquire trade skills and high school equivalency certificates during a single span of institutional confinement.

Jackson (Butts County) Reception and Diagnostic Center. This facility is expected to begin operations in the near future even though only about 50 per cent of the planned three-phase complex is approaching readiness for occupancy. Partial staffing has been assigned and assistance has been engaged to draw up procedural guidelines for the operation of a classification program.
Prison Branches (17) and Public Work Camps (63). In addition to the aforementioned four major prison facilities, the State Department of Corrections confines prisoners in 17 prison branches and 63 county public work camps. Three of the prison branches are loosely camouflaged public work camps. Battey Hospital, Milledgeville State Hospital, and the Stone Mountain Memorial Association furnish all local official supervision and plan the work programs for these three branches.
The remaining 14 prison branches have work programs geared primarily to supplying contract labor to the State Highway Department. The reimbursement rate for this labor is only a fraction of the national minimum wage and is insufficient to defray the current prisonerconfinement costs. With the possible exception of the Putnam County Branch at Eatonton, which is being expanded to a capacity of about 150 prisoners, the prison branches are much too small to approach the most economical per capita daily operational costs.
PAROLE
The parole system is headed by a three-member board, whose members are appointed in seven-year staggered terms by the governor with confirmation by the Georgia Senate. The State Department of Pardons and Paroles operated under a $994,389 budget during fiscal year 1967-1968. The Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles possesses almost the entire clemency power of the state. To carry out its functions, the Board has a central office staff consisting of a Director of Parole, an Administrative Associate, and an Administrative Secretary to the Board. In addition, there is a field staff consisting of parole officers and secretaries housed in 18 district offices around the state. Parole district lines are drawn to include whole judicial circuits. As of May, 1968, the state had 2,065 parolees under the supervision of 24 officers. The cost of supervising a man on parole in Georgia is approximately $200 per year. Present qualifications for appointment as a parole officer are two years of college and experience in a related line of work.
PROBATION
The state-wide probation system is administered by the State Board of Probation. As of May, 1968, the state

IS

employed 91 probation officers who supervised 10,225 probationers through 48 field offices. The state spends approximately $100 per year to supervise one probationer. The budget for the last fiscal year was $1,247,816. Probation officers are not under the Georgia Merit System but are appointed by the judge of the Superior Court for that circuit. In addition, there are five county-operated probation systems: Bibb, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Muscogee. There is great variation in these probationary services, including size of caseloads, standards for salary, and employment qualifications.
JUVENILE SYSTEM
Even though 18,284 juvenile cases were disposed of in 1968, there is no uniform procedure in Georgia for the identification, disposition, detention, or treatment of youthful offenders. The result has been the growth of a patchwork of courts, overlapping services, differential processing of offenders, and poor communications between agencies supposedly engaged in similar programs.
Under the Juvenile Court Act of 1951, Juvenile Courts were established with original jurisdiction in counties having a population of 50,000 or more. In those counties having less than 50,000, the law stipulated that Juvenile Courts could be established upon recommendation of two successive grand juries. In counties without Juvenile Courts, "the judge of the Superior Court shall sit as the Juvenile Court judge and hear all cases coming within the provision of the Juvenile Court Act". As of August, 1968, there are 34 Juvenile Courts in Georgia.
In most counties which do not have a special court, the State Division of Children and Youth assigns courtservice workers at the request of the Superior Court judge to perform the regular duties of a probation officer and 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. To carry out its functions, the Division's 1967-1968 budget was $9,730,000.
There is a great variation 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 entrance qualifications and services are spotty. 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.
Probation and aftercare service can come from a variety of sources in the state. In counties where there is a juvenile court, juvenile probation officers are responsible for pre-hearing investigations and probation supervision.

In such cases, state court service workers are responsible for the aftercare of juveniles returning to the county from Youth Development Centers. In counties where there is no Juvenile Court or in counties having a Juvenile Court but no juvenile probation officers, court service workers are responsible for both probation services and aftercare. 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 to the 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/or vocational community.
The State Division for Children and Youth was organized in 1963. Its goal is to provide local services for juvenile offenders. 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.
The facilities for confinement of the youthful offenders in Georgia fall into one of the following categories: county and state detention centers, Regional Youth Development Centers, or State Department of Corrections facilities. In some counties, juveniles are confined unofficially in jails pending their transfer to these facilities. Less serious delinquency cases may be temporarily housed in unofficial foster homes.
There are two major categories: urban detention centers (7) and Regional Youth Development Centers (6).
Seven urban counties operate their own detention 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 Court. These centers are supported by county and state allocations with free detention service proVided to nearby counties. The seven urban centers are located in Bibb, Chatham, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Muscogee counties and vary in facilities, staff, programs and capacity, which ranges from 26 in Muscogee County to 144 in Fulton County.
The state Youth Development Center program consists of three institutions with a fourth, the Macon Center, under construction. Boys aged 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 overcrowding at Adamsville.

16

INITIAL ACTION PLAN 17

GENERAL STATEMENT:
CURRENT STATUS OF STATE PLANNING EFFORT
The problems of the various components of the criminal justice system have been frequently studied and numerous programs for improvement have been recommended at the state and national levels within the past few years. Examples of these studies are the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, the Atlanta Commission on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency, and more recently, the Governor's Commission on Crime and Justice. Until now, funds have not been available for implementation of the findings of these studies. Under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act, planning and action funds are available to encourage improvement of the entire range of the criminal justice system.
With the limited funds available this first year, only token measures can be taken to initiate long-range reforms. The state's eighteen regional planning commissions requested 5 11,841,800 for fiscal year 1969 and state agencies asked for 52,327,915 this first year. The broad objectives set by Georgia's Planning Board on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention (hereafter denoted as the Planning Board) will require massive funding over a long period of time. As a beginning, the Planning Board decided to touch as many geographical and topical areas as it could in order to encourage local support in the future for broader projects, even though this meant spreading the funds rather thinly.
Charged with the responsibility for providing and coordinating local law enforcement planning are the eighteen Area Planning and Development Commissions (APDC's). These agencies have become operational periodically since 1960. For the initial phase of this continuing planning and action program, they have conducted basic research in gathering information never before collected at one time. Interviews with heads of local and state law enforcement agencies, as well as with elected governmental officials, have revealed existing and anticipated problems in the field. These problems and the necessary supporting data have been submitted to the State Planning Bureau for incorporation into the state's comprehensive plan. Action grants for these areas of the state have been allocated on the basis of priorities indicated by these Area Planning and Development Commissions and in accordance with the Planning Board's objectives.
The following pages itemize these objectives and allocations on a program by program basis.

UPGRADING LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL
A criminal justice system is only as efficient as the personnel employed within each of its components. Providing the citizens of Georgia with effective law enforcement requires highly trained, qualified personnel. Every law enforcement agency must reach a higher level of professionalization.
Training for Law Enforcement Personnel:
One of the major problems facing Georgia law enforcement has been the lack of trained personnel. Except in the metropolitan areas, too few police departments can afford the expense or time for training courses. Increased local in-service training and region ally based training facilities will be encouragcd. For this first year plan, training has been given a top priority rating by the Planning Board and most of the APDC's.
Higher Salaries to Law Enforcement Personnel:
Throughout most of Georgia, police salaries are extremely low and only a few departments provide fringe benefits for personnel. By offering higher salaries and more fringe benefits, law enforcement agcncics would attract and retain the higher calibre personnel they need. In conjunction with increased salarics, each department must develop promotional policies offering periodic pay increases. Higher salaries would also enable agencies to exercise higher recruitment standards. No funds are being requested to implement this objective for fiscal year 1969.
Minimum Recruitment Standards:
Methods and requirements for recruiting law enforcement personnel should be improved to attract better qualified applicants. Mental, physical, and social qualifications should be standardized so as not only to make enforcement more effective, but to improve its public image. The Georgia Study Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education is currently working to achieve this goal by legislative enactment.
Orient New Officials to Their Duties:
Throughout Georgia new police chiefs and sheriffs are continually taking office with little or no law enforcement experience or instruction in their particular duties. On the other hand, officials experienced in law enforcement, but having no administrative background, may find themselves in similar positions. An orientation program designed especially for new law enforcement administrators, and provided to them locally, would benefit them as wcll as the community.

18

ACTION PROGRAM Number 1

a. Title of Program: Increased training opportunities for all Georgia law enforcement officers.
b. Objective: In the larger cities and counties, designated training activities have been and are being performed. However, the police officer in the rural community suffers greatly from a lack of training opportunities due to financial and geographical handicaps. The objective of this program is to train some 3,100 law enforcement officers faced by this situation. Training programs must be provided which are readily accessible to each law enforcement officer. Minimum basic training will be the first year's concern, with advanced and refresher courses to be funded in future years.
c. Implementation: Sixteen of Georgia's eighteen Area Planning and Development Commissions listed increased police training as their first priority. Since each APDC region is unique, its needs for training are unique. Therefore, these sixteen regions are to receive funds to offer training in accordance with the needs of the 142 of the state's 159 counties that they represent. The Planning Board has asked these APDC's to submit detailed training projects which will be reviewed by a sub-committee before action funds are released. In this manner, each region will institute a training program that will best suit its individual needs. The purpose of this type funding is two-fold. Each area will be afforded the opportunity to establish a program best suited to its needs. In addition, each law enforcement agency will have the opportunity to work in harmony with its Area Commission.
In coming years it is hoped to establish regional training facilities for all areas in Georgia to provide each officer with the opportunity to gain the professionalism necessary to perform his job.

d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amount of $133,732 to 16 APDC's for training. Grants to units of local government will be made on a regional basis with each APDC being required to submit a detailed training proposal which must be approved by the Planning Board's sub-committee before funds will be released.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested Local Support
Program Total

$133,732 89,154
$222,886

Applicable Federal- Local Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% Local

ACTION PROGRAM Number 2

a. Title of Program: To provide training for new police chiefs and sheriffs throughout Georgia.
b. Objective: There are approximately 550 separate law enforcement agencies throughout Georgia. Considering the conditions under which many of the departments must function, there is a significant turnover of personnel. Elections every four years result in placing new sheriffs in office. Many new administrators have little or no experience in fulfilling the responsibilities of their new position. Hence, the Planning Board has approved a training program to orient new administrators.

c. Implementation: At the present time there are no formal provisions for preparing a new law enforcement administrator for the demands of his office. A team composed of one member of the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police and one member of the University of Georgia Police Science Division staff would conduct a minimum of two days training and orientation for each newly appointed chief of police and sheriff within the state. It is estimated that this training and orientation will be given to 25 new chiefs and sheriffs each year. It would be made available immediately upon their appointment or election and
conducted at a location within the chiefs' or sheriffs' jurisdictions, preferably their office.

d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amount of $5,000 to the Institute of Government to conduct a cooperative training program with the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police and the Georgia Sheriffs Association. The results of this program will directly affect approximately 5 per cent of the law enforcement officials in Georgia each year. Improvement of administration as a result of this program would affect far more personnel than those actually trained, since the chief or sheriff would use this orientation consciously or subconsciously to improve the work of his men. The funds provided for the program will cover such items as travel, lodging, and subsistance for the training personnel involved, as well as the cost of developing the training content itself.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested State and local support
Program Total

$5,000.00 3,334.00
$8,334.00

Applicable Federal-State and Local Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% State and Local

19

ACTION PROGRAM Number 3
a. Title of Program: A regionally sponsored law enforcement education program at Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College (ABAC), Tifton, Georgia.
b. Objective: Law enforcement departments in the Coastal Plain area are unable to give the new recruit the proper basic, specialized, and in-service training necessary to prepare the individual to function as a law enforcement agent.
The most effective course to follow in establishing training in the region is to use the central facilities and faculty at ABAC. To be of maximum service to the region, the program will implement courses designed to meet the training needs of personnel at several levels of police service and at various points in the career scale.
c. Implementation: The Coastal Plain Area Planning and Development Commission, in cooperation with officials from Abraham Baldwin College of Tifton, has developed a tentative plan, contingent upon the granting of federal funds, to offer training to some of the 800 in-service law enforcement personnel in the surrounding APDC's and basic training for approximately 100 new officers each year. The training function will be under the college's Department of Adult Education in complete cooperation with the Department of Law Enforcement. Text materials, instructional aids, library facilities, and other related college services will be offered by the college and shared between these two departments.
The college has applied for grant and loan assistance from the applicable Section 406 (b) of Public Law 90-351 for the use of full or part-time, in-service police officers. A complete 2-year Associate of Arts degree with a concentration in law enforcement will be available for this area's police personnel and students interested in entering the field.
No funds granted for the training program will be used in the college's education program. It is desirable and logical to take advantage of existing facilities and personnel from the education program to complement and function in the training program.
It is the intent and desire of this project to absorb, as a part of the grant, the cost of text materials and other expenses incurred by student police officers enrolled in the training program.
d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amount of

$20,000 to the Coastal Plain APDC for a pilot training facility on condition that it be available to all law enforcement personnel throughout the southern portion of Georgia. The Coastal Plain APDC will work together with other APDC's in that part of Georgia to increase the scope of this project and, thereby, provide law enforcement training for forty or more counties.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested Local support
Program Total

$20,000 13,333
$33,333

Applicable Federal-Local Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% Local

(Projected Budget)

2nd Year:

1. Director 2. Part-time faculty 3. Text materials-
student police 4. Tranportation costs of
student police

$ 7,000 3,000
250
1,200 $11,450

Federal Share Local Matching Share

6,870 4,580
$11,450

3rd Year:

1. Part-time faculty 2. Text materials -
student police 3. Transportation costs -
student police

$ 3,000 250 600
$ 3,850

Federal Share Local Matching Funds

$ 2,310 1,540
$ 3,850

4th Year:

No Federal Funds Required Program Will Be Fully Assumed by College and Local Resources.

20

ACTION PROGRAM Number 4
a. Title of Program: Conversion of law enforcement television video tapes to 16 mm black and white sound film
b. Objective: The objective of this program is to provide each law enforcement agency throughout Georgia access to 80 half-hour television video tapes developed at a cost of approximately one quarter of a million dollars. These tapes must be converted into films in the near future or they will deteriorate into an unusable condition. Investment of $33,500 will preserve and make better use of $250,000 worth of training material.
c. Implementation: In response to the vital need for some form of police training which could be used by both large and small agencies, the University of Georgia's Institute of Government last year developed and broadcast a 40 hour police training program over the State Educational Television Network. This project was conducted in cooperation with state law enforcement agencies and was funded under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965 (LEA Grant No. 032). The program was designed to provide basic training in the field of police science for men who are new in the field, for those persons who have not had an opportunity to receive such training, and as a refresher course for experienced officers. Unfortunately, not all the men who needed this training were able to view it, and many new men have been hired since it was broadcast. Thus, conversion to films which can be shown on standard home-type projectors would enable these men to view the tapes at times suiting their normal workday schedule.
Each of the video tapes should be converted onto 16 mm black and white sound movie film and three copies should be made of each. These films would be loaned to any of the state's 550 law enforcement agencies for a specified length of time at no cost. While the films are not intended to compete with existing training programs, they would provide a very valuable supplement to them.

d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amount of 520,100 to the Institute of Government to provide local agencies with training films.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested $20,100

State support

13,400

$33,500

Applicable Federal-State Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% State

ACTION PROGRAM Number 5

a. Title of Program: Specialized training of law enforcement personnel

b. Objective: To provide special or unique agencies of law enforcement at both state and local levels with special training they need to improve their effectiveness.

c. Implementation: Two state agencies will be encouraged to give advanced training in detection and investigative techniques concerning their respective areas of law enforcement.

d. Subgrant data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amounts of: $7,032 to the State Department of Revenue's Alcohol Tax and Control Unit to train its 113 investigators in the detection and apprehension of illicit producers and/or vendors of alcohol; and $1,200 to the State Comptroller General's Fire Marshall Office to train twelve of its arson investigators in the latest techniques for performing their duties, especially as they concern arson resulting from riots or civil disorders.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested State Support
Program Total

$ 8,232 5,488
$13,720

Applicable Federal-State Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% State

PREVENTION OF CRIME (including public education)
To improve justice and discourage criminal activity, crime prevention should receive major emphasis. Many crimes, as well as much other anti-social behavior, could be prevented by instructing the public in methods for the protection of life and property, strengthening the normal operations of law enforcement agencies, detecting and treating potentially criminal juveniles at an early stage, and by other means.

Arouse the Public of its Stake in Crime Prevention:
The public must be made aware of its responsibility in the prevention of crime and motivated to take an active part in the reduction of crime. Since public co-operation with the police can be a major factor in deterring criminal activities, well-informed citizenry constitutes a key element in the reduction of criminal behavior.

21

Public education programs geared to encourage citizens to exercise precautions against crime would considerably reduce the loss of property and the risk of personal injury. These education programs should be conducted by existing police personnel who will speak to civic groups, community leaders, professional organizations, and schools.
To Encourage Public Correction of Factors Contributing to Criminal Activity:
The federal government has enacted many programs aimed at eliminating poverty, slums, unemployment, poor housing, and unequal opportunities. Civic leaders, community organizations, and schools should be encouraged to support these programs and to adopt new programs at the community level. Law enforcement agencies throughout the state will be encouraged to promote such public support. (See Action Program 9-Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency and Public Education).
Increase Police Personnel:
One of the greatest factors in deterring criminal activity is the presence of a patrolman. Many police departments throughout Georgia are understaffed. Due to this shortage of personnel, many areas are inadequately patroled. In the interest of overall community safety the expansion of police coverage will be promoted in future stages of the Safe Streets Act program. In this initial plan no funds are being requested to implement this goal.
Focus Attention on Juvenile Delinquency Prevention:
Juvenile and youthful offenders account for the majority of crimes committed in the United States. Crime prevention programs would not be complete without emphasis on this age-group. Programs geared specifically toward youth are already being instituted throughout Georgia but need to be expanded considerably within communities and extended to all parts of the state.
Promote Greater Cooperation Between the Public and the Police:
It is the responsibility of every citizen to report any crime or suspicious activity to the proper authorities. Because few people cooperate with the police in this sense, many crimes go undetected. An informed citizenry would considerably reduce this problem.

Increase the Role of the Community Service Officer:
Community service officers play an important role in establishing good relationships between the police and the community. They are instrumental in promoting respect for law enforcement, which is an important step toward reducing crime. Many cities throughout Georgia do not have officers designated for community relations, nor do they have the manpower available to appoint one. In instances where this is the case, every police officer must promote a better police image. Police agencies will be encouraged to promote better relations within their constituencies by improvement of behavior and attitude which can be achieved through sociological education of officers.
In this initial plan no funds are being requested to hire any community service officer: but, it is felt that this Junior Deputy Sheriffs' League will help in establishing better police-community relationships.
ACTION PROGRAM Number 6
a. Title of Program: Junior Deputy Sheriffs' League
b. Objective: To put this program on a sounder financial basis and to extend its operation so as to adequately gauge its effectiveness.
c. Implementation: The Junior Deputy Sheriffs' League, undertaken by a few sheriff departments in the Middle Georgia Area, has resulted in a phenomenal decrease in juvenile crime rates. In one county the Junior Deputy Sheriffs' League, with a membership of some eight thousand boys, is attributed to be the main factor causing a drop of sixteen percent in the actual number of cases heard in the County Juvenile Court over a six-year period. These programs normally operate on a low budget appropriation with the assistance of limited funds from local business and civic organizations.
The operation of the league has been limited in the past to the nine months of the school year. There is a need for continued supervision and leadership for young people throughout the summer months. Also, young girls should not be left out of such a successful program as the Junior Deputy Sheriffs' League. This is not to say that the girls should be afforded membership in the league; however, an organization, similar in nature and purpose could be undertaken for young ladies.
Since the program operates on a low budget appropriation with limited and variable assistance from local business and civic organizations, putting it on a sounder basis and extending its operation seem warranted as a pilot project for possible application throughout the state.

22

d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amount of $10,000 to expand and extend the operation of the Junior Deputy Sheriffs' l..eague in the Middle Georgia APDC to increase its scope and test its full potential. Five counties will benefit from funds for this program and it is estimated that an additional 5,000 boys and girls will be enlisted.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested Local support
Program Total

$10,000 6,667
$16,667

Applicable Federal-Local Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% Local

PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF HNENILE DELINQUENCY

Youth in our country are responsible for a substantial part of the national crime problem. The President's Crime Commission in its 1966 report, "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society," points to the fact that one in every nine youths is referred to Juvenile Court in connection with a juvenile act before his eighteenth birthday. Rehabilitation efforts to date have not been very effective as recidivism rates for juveniles are higher than for adults. Initiation of programs aimed at preventing, reducing, or controling this problem is desperately needed in the state of Georgia.
Improve the Use of Detention:
Waiting time in local detention should be reduced to a minimum by providing adequate space in the development centers to accommodate youths as soon as they are committed. Until this can be accomplished, youths should not be left idle in local detention, but should be afforded schooling and other activities. Pilot projects aimed at resolving this problem will be initiated.
Make Rehabilitation More Effective:
Improved programs of vocational training, group therapy, psychological and psychiatric testing, as well as experimental projects must be initiated in the development centers and other detention facilities. Adequate teaching personnel and facilities must be provided to assure the child of continued educational opportunities. An adequate number of trained probation officers (with workable caseloads) is needed to handle youths not committed or to proVide guidance for those released.

Develop Preventive Programs:
Community efforts should be aimed at detecting and reducing the causes of delinquency. Cooperation and coordination with local and/or federal programs geared to this end are extremely important. Effective crime prevention programs need to be expanded and new approaches to prevention should be developed.
Standardize Handling Procedures:
Because procedures vary Widely in the handling of juveniles, new statewide legislation should be adopted not only to protect the youths involved, but also to earn their respect for the justice system. The feasibility of merging local agencies handling juveniles with those at the state level should be investigated. In this initial plan no funds are being requested to conduct this research.
Expand Training and Educational Opportunities:
Training programs for probation officers, community service workers, court service workers, and others dealing directly with juveniles should be developed and offered on a regular basis. Improvement of the capabilities of these persons in their line of work should be encouraged by making advanced formal education attractive to them.
Develop an Efficient Record System:
Because so little factual data exists on juvenile delinquency, a uniform reporting procedure and a centrally located records collection need to be established to improve administration and research.
ACTION PROGRAM Number 7
a. Title of Program: Psychological and psychiatric services for juvenile offenders before and during detention
b. Objective: To identify and provide treatment for children whose problems stem from mental or emotional disturbances.
c. Implementation: Two similar activities are planned involving psychological and psychiatric servicesone provides for the youths already committed and the other provides for pre-trial treatment. An anticipated 1200 children will be directly affected by this program. In the State Department of Family and Children Services' Division for Children and Youth, additional professional service in this field is needed to identify those youths in detention who are suffering from mental or emotional disturbances. An appropriate facility to provide for their treatment is recommended.

23

As a part of providing this service to the children, personnel employed in the detention facilities could be given special training in elementary psychology and social pathology.
In the five"co'unty metropolitan Atlanta area psychiatric screening and treatment of juveniles will be tested. In this process mental or emotional problems of juvenile offenders will be determined prior to their cases going to trial. It is anticipated that 300 children will be tested and 75 treated. Should such problems be detected, outpatient treatment by professional psychiatric personnel will be given. This process would relieve overcrowded court dockets and detention facilities. The effectiveness, benefits, and costs of such handling of offenders could be measured against present handling procedures and the advantages of such a project could then be determined.
d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amounts of: $20,248 to the State Department of Family and Children Services' Division for Children and Youth for psychological and psychiatric services, and $8,000 to the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments for psychiatric screening of juveniles.

e. Budget:

Federal Support requested State and local support
Program Total

$28,248 18,832
$47,080

Applicable Federal-State and Local Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% State and Local

ACTION PROGRAM Number 8

a. Title of Program: Group homes for juvenile offenders

b. Objective: To provide a better environment for youthful offenders who may not warrant commitment to Youth Development or Regional Detention Centers.

c. Implementation: Since not all juvenile offenders are best served in an institutional setting, the group home approach promises an excellent alternative to incarceration and could, following evaluation, prove to be an effective and efficient approach to rehabilitation. The initial approach would be small until its overall effectiveness could be evaluated. Initially, one group home in the Metropolitan Atlanta Region would be developed to house 7 or 8 youths whose acts were not severe enough to warrant commitment to a Youth

Development Center. It is anticipated that a total of 16 children will be served during the period of a year in this setting and under the supervision of trained staff. These youthful offenders would attend school or take vocational training, have part-time jobs, and become re-integrated into the community.

d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amount of $29,120 to the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Government for the staffing and equipping of a group home for juvenile offenders.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested Local support
Program Total

$29,120 19,413*
$48,533*

Applicable Federal-Local Support Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% Local

*Subject to change if personnel are needed (requiring a 50-50 match).

ACTION PROGRAM Number 9

a. Title of Program: Prevention of juvenile delinquency and public education

b. Objective: To initiate, improve, or expand programs which have the promise of reducing juvenile offenses over a broad area in a short time.

c. Implementation: The Planning Board was impressed by an APDC proposal to offer special courses in the public high schools aimed at discouraging experimentation in criminal acts. It was also impressed with the success achieved by the Savannah Police Department's Juvenile Section and wished to encourage and extend its activities in the field of juvenile delinquency prevention.

d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amounts of: $10,879 to the Georgia Mountains APDC region to initiate a crime preventive educational program and $6,489 to the Savannah Police Department to expand its juvenile delinquency prevention activities.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested Local support
Program Total

$17,368 11,579
$28,947

Applicable Federal - Local Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% Local

24

IMPROVEMENT OF DETECTION AND APPREHENSION OF CRIMINALS
National crime statistics have shown that only 22.4 per cent of the reported crimes were cleared by police in 1967. Research in Georgia has revealed a similar conclusion that a great many crimes go undetected. In view of these findings the need for major improvements in the detection and apprehension of criminals is obvious.
Provide Specialized Training for Law Enforcement Personnel:
Specialized training geared to emphasizing methods of crime detection and preservation of evidence will provide the individual law enforcement officer with more ability to perform his duties. Training in the use of scientific detection devices and techniques should be made available to individual officers in each agency.
Provide Police Agencies with Detection Equipment:
Many police agencies throughout Georgia lack the equipment to conduct a proper and thorough investigation. Essential items such as cameras and fingerprint kits are available in only a limited number of departments. To make law enforcement more effective, more police agencies should have such equipment and the trained personnel to utilize it.
Provide Improved Communications:
There is a need for vast improvements in the communications facilities of law enforcement agencies throughout Georgia. A complete, well-coordinated communications system is essential to efficient law enforcement and criminal justice.
Encourage Use of the State Crime Laboratory:
Recent court decisions and the corresponding increase in Georgia's crime rate emphasize the need for law enforcement agencies to rely more than ever on scientific crime detection devices and techniques. Law enforcement agencies throughout Georgia must utilize more frequently the State Crime Laboratory, either by making this facility available locally as a mobile unit or by making more agencies aware of its capabilities.
Install or Improve Record Keeping Throughout Georgia:
Georgia lacks accurate police and court records. Many of the rural communities have no record keeping system of any kind. Many of the larger cities and some of the state agencies have recognized a drastic need for

revision of their existing record systems. Installation of new record systems and improvement of old ones will close a key gap in the state's criminal justice system.
ACTION PROGRAM Number 10
a. Title of Program: Improvement of Crime Detection and Criminal Apprehension
b. Objective: To supply the men, training, equipment, and facilities needed to expedite, expand, or initiate the detection of criminal tendencies or activities and the apprehension of felons and misdemeanants.
c. Implementation: Many of Georgia's communities have no police radios. Research has shown that several metropolitan areas do not have sufficient communications equipment to keep in touch with all officers. Many Area Planning and Development Commissions' requests to rectify these situations were rejected by the Planning Board because a study is being conducted by the Georgia Institute of Technology for the Department of Public Safety to develop a communication system for the entire state. Once this study is completed and the results reviewed, the exact needs of the state and its localities will be determined. In future years, the Planning Board expects to accord the improvement of communications a higher priority. In the meantime, some local conditions are drastic enough to warrant supplying radio equipment as a stop-gap measure.
Part of the detection-apprehension deficiency stems from the lack of speedy access to records, inadequate records, the lack of investigation devices, and the lack of knowledge about utiliZing such records and equipment. Projects to remedy these defects will be encouraged.
d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amounts of $45,600 to the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments to extend radio communications to 80 police cars in at least seven departments in the region which are converting to one-man patrolling; $537 to the Coosa Valley APDC for a two-way radio for Fairmont City in Gordon County, which presently has none at all; $6,489 to the Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission to extend and improve radio communications within the Georgia Southern APDC region; $1,296 to the Lower Chattahoochee APDC for radio communications in Fort Gaines, Clay County; $1,350 to the Chattahoochee-Flint APDC to establish records and identification files in cities presently without them; and $600 to the State Comptroller General's Fire Marshall Office for arson investigation equipment.

25

e. Budget:

Federal support requested State and Local support
Program Total

$55,872 37,248
$93,120

Applicable Federal-State & Local Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% State and Local

IMPROVEMENT OF PROSECUTION AND COURT ACTIVITIES AND LAW REFORM

To expedite and improve prosecution and court activities, changes need to be made in the law. Also, the number of prosecutors, judges, public defenders, and court facilities needs to be increased-a feat which will involve the expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars.
The Planning Board felt that with limited funds available for fiscal year 1969, it would limit its actions in court reform to seeking changes in the laws. In future years, when more money is available, such projects as computerized court calendars and a central criminal information system can be initiated.
Improve Court Records and Achieve Speedier Disposition of all Cases:
A unified court system would eliminate duplication of parallel courts, enable judges to sit where they were actually needed, grant the speedy trail to which every defendant is entitled, and establish a uniform case record system. Georgia should pass a law unifying its present court arrangement.
Provide Uniform Sentences:
Jury sentencing in non-capital cases should be abolished, a sentencing institute should be adopted and there should be appellate review of sentences and joinder of defendants.
Two of the disadvantages of jury sentencing are (1) repeaters elect jury trials because the jury does not see the accused's prior record and therefore usually imposes sentences not having any relation to previous conviction and (2) the jury is often confused about conviction and punishment and therefore it creates doubts concerning guilt by issuing a light sentence.
The use of sentencing institutes would help reduce the imposition of unequal sentences for the same offense

or for offenses of comparable seriousness. Sentencing institutes would allow judges to discuss their own sentencing attitudes with other judges and could be the first step toward standards in sentencing.
The adoption of appellate review of sentences would considerably reduce the disparities in sentencing practices. 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 for the appellate court to seize on such errors for the reason that justice was denied by too severe a sentence. Many experienced appellate judges admit that this factor has contributed to numerous reversals. By permitting review of the sentence, the effect will be to focus the appeal on the real issue and thus reduce the number of cases the courts would have to hear.
Another 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. Although it would not totally eliminate the problem of disparity, appellate review would contribute to the development of a rational policy which could serve as the basis for future sentencing.
Georgia is one of the few states which still grants defendants an absolute right to separate trial. Most jurisdictions allow joinder of defendants when there is some good reason for subjecting them to trial together. The absolute right to separate trial is one of the causes of overcrowded dockets since it contributes to duplication of efforts.
Georgia should adopt a law similar to the federal law or should adopt the model Joinder of Offenses and Defendants Act, drafted by the American Bar Association. Such a law would allow, at the discretion of the trial judge, a single trial for one or more defendants accused of the same crime.
To Force Testimony Which can be Used to Prosecute the Guilty:
In Georgia a grand jury can subpoena and compel the attendance of a witness with his books and records; but, once the witness claims the fifth amendment privilege of remaining silent to avoid 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 therefore of little value unless the witness gives testimony.

26

Since it is constitutionally permissible, under proper conditions,to displace this right against self-incrimination with a grant of immunity from criminal prosecutions, many other states and the federal government have passed statutes to compel the testimony of witnesses. Georgia needs a similar law.
Bail Reform:
Money bail is an essentially unfair and ineffective device which discriminates against the poor. 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 or jail sentence than an accused who has been free on bail. 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 affecting 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. Georgia needs to adopt legislation reforming the present bail system.
Improve Police Agencies' Record of Convictions by Keeping them Posted of New Laws and Court Decisions Affecting their Work:
The Planning Board assigned to the State Planning Bureau's Office of Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention the task of working out with the State Attorney General's Office a system of notifying and explaining in laymen's terms new laws and court decisions affecting criminal cases to police and sheriffs' departments.
ACTION PROGRAM Number 11
a. Title of Program: Part Time Probation and Supervisory Personnel for Juvenile Courts
b. Objective: To provide more investigatory and supervisory assistance to the juvenile courts.
c. Implementation: In the three counties of the Chattahoochee-Flint Area Planning and Development Commission that operate juvenile courts (Carroll, Coweta,

and Troup), more supervision and study is needed prior to adjudication to ascertain if the juvenile should be brought into court at all. A pre-trial investigation of the individual child, his parents, home life, and general attitude to determine why he is becoming a delinquent should be made. Frequently, close association, counseling, and a display of interest in his problems bring about the desired changes without the juvenile being brought into court.
Post-sentence supervision is most desirable and frequently is helpful to the probationer as probation supervisors with formal training can exert a marked influence on young people.
There are in this area two ideal sources for procuring part-time probation supervisors to serve the juvenile courts. laGrange College presently has approximately forty students majoring in sociology or social work. Their schedules could be arranged to allow them to perform duties in the Juvenile Court of Troup County. At West Georgia College in Carrollton a greater number of students are enrolled in similar courses and some would be interested in part-time work in the juvenile courts in Coweta and Carroll counties. Only those students who have completed two or more years of college work will be utilized. On-the-job training would be beneficial to the student and would also enable the courts to have near-professional probation officers at a minimal cost.

d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amount of $3,000 to th.e Chattahoochee-Flint APDC region for hiring part-time probation supervisors to assist several juvenile courts.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested Local support
Program Total

$3,000 3,000
$6,000

Applicable Federal-Local Contribution Ratio:

50% Federal

50% State-Local

INCREASE IN EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION (INCLUDING PROBATION AND PAROLE)

All the effort spent in detecting, apprehending, and convicting the criminal is a waste of money, manpower, equipment, and time if the prisons and probation and parole supervisors cannot deter the offender from

27

returning to criminal activity. Much that should have been done decades ago to make corrections more effective needs now, more than ever, to be put into practice. Without this action, the improvements made in other aspects of law enforcement wiII be rendered ineffectual in the long run. Georgia's correctional system (including parole and probation) has been studied and restudied; but, for reasons largely financial and political, the findings have never been tested or implemented. Now the state has the opportunity to make its penal system the model for the country, instead of the national scandal it now is.
Consolidate Jail Facilities Wherever Feasible:
Combining city and county jails on a county or multi-county basis will accomplish a more economical operation and wiII provide cleaner, safer, and more diversified facilities which will enhance the rehabilitation of inmates. Because a long-range goal of the state is to reduce incarceration by increasing probation, the total number of existing facilities should be reduced, their total capacity revised downward, and their location oriented to stable or expanding population centers.
Enhance and Expedite Convict Rehabilitation:
Until now, Georgia's penal system has released its inmates with little or no preparation for re-entry into civilian life. Since the crucial stage for inmates returning to the community is their first few weeks spent finding means of self-support, the state must provide more of a helping hand in this transitional period. This should affect recidivism and afford localities more safety from criminal acts. The Corrections Department, the Public Works Camps, and city and county jails should provide the wherewithaIl for a person released to survive until he can find employment, guarantee him a job before he is released, or offer work release programs.
Improve and Expand the Use of Parole and Probation:
The training of personnel in better methods of investigation and supervision, the provision of orientation for new personnel, the improvement of record keeping, the conduct of research in risk analysis and offender rehabilitation, and the reduction of caseloads by hiring additional supervisors are needed in order to increase the use of probation and parole as alternatives to incarceration.
ACTION PROGRAM Number 12
a. Title of Program: Work release/pre-release program.

b. Objective: To experiment with, demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitating the public offender during the last six to twelve months of his incarceration by exposing him to the problems of self-support, family support, motivation and behavior modification.
c. Implementation: A work release/pre-release program will represent an alternative to the traditional "work-security" type of incarceration.
Forty to fifty percent of all men incarcerated in the Georgia system come from the Greater Atlanta area. The high probability is that the vast majority wiII return to this area.
The Department of Corrections, in concert with "guidelines" contained in State Planning Agency Grants (S.P.A. Guide 96---Nov. 1968) envisions a model, smaIlunit correctional institution for a flexible communityorientated treatment program.
Not only would such an institution provide innumerable benefits for participating inmates, it would also offer the opportunity to train employees in the concept of such a program, the administration of same, and the net-end results to be accomplished.
It is envisioned that the Georgia Department of Corrections would rent or lease a motel, large house or houses and/or other suitable facilities which could be made available due to expressway bypassing such properties or as a result of changes brought about by urban renewal projects.
Prison candidates wiII be carefuIly screened and evaluated before being placed in the program. Therefore, security in such a setting would be minimal.
With specific reference to the screening process, all inmate candidates for work release/pre-release will be provided with transportation to the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center. There they will be given exhaustive tests to determine educational levels, mechanical aptitudes, and work experiences. In addition, they wiII be given psychological evaluations in order to uncover any "hidden hostilities" and determine if attitudes, actions and reactions justify participation in work release/ pre-release.
The Georgia Department of Corrections has reasonable assurances that a proper facility or facilities can be secured in the Atlanta region to house a work release/ pre-release center.

28

Work release/pre-release will be designed as a pilot project and encompass much more than just getting a man a job, letting him work in private enterprise during the day, and returning him to the institution for incarceration during non-working hours. This pilot program will be designed to incorporate such things as: instilling good work habits; assumption or re-assumption of family responsibilities; setting aside a "nest egg" for release date; and providing a well-rounded counseling program, which would, in turn, bring about (a) behavior modification (b) provide motivation and (c) give inmates a new sense of purpose, direction, and meaning for their lives.

The program would also involve community resource persons in such specialized fields as personal money management, legal rights, referrals for additional training opportunities, family and community responsibilities and rewards and many other appropriate topics.

Arrangements have been made with the Department of Psychiatry at Emory University to assure proper guidance and counseling on an individual and group therapy basis.

All personnel involved in the operations of the center will be treatment oriented; for example, correctional counselors, not officers, will be used.

Assurances have been received from several sister agencies of state government, the United States Bureau of Prison's Region III Community Services Office of the U. S. Department of Justice and other appropriate organizations, associations and agencies that assistance appropriate to the enrichment of such a program will be forthcoming.

A pilot program in work release/pre-release for Georgia will help inmates to successfully bridge the gap from incarceration to a successful re-entry into society. It is also the intention of the Department of Corrections to prove that through such a program the incidence of recidivism can be materially reduced.

d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amount of $54,000 to the State Department of Corrections to conduct a pilot work release/pre-release project in the AtlaI1ta region.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested $54,000

State support

45,272

Program Total

$99,272

Applicable Federal-State Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% State

ACTION PROGRAM Number 13
a. Title of Program: Improvement of Parole and Probation Supervision

b. Objective: To make parole and probation supervisors more efficient and more effective by supplying them with increased training and education.

c. Implementation: The publication of certain basic manuals which proVide essential background information has been long overdue and will be printed. Although the University of Georgia's Institute of Government has provided occasional workshops for parole and probation personnel, they have never been exposed to a thoroughly planned, regularly-held, training program. Implementation of the recommendations set forth in the Institute of Government's "A Plan for Action" is proposed.

d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amounts of: $1,200 to the State Department of Probation for the codification and publication of the state's probation laws with the provision that this manual be made available to the independent county probation agencies, $600 to the State Department of Pardons and Paroles for the publication of a field operations manual, and $9,736 to the same agency for the hiring of a full-time training officer.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested State support
Program Total

$11,536 7,691
$19,227

Applicable Federal and State Contribution Ratio:

~ Federal

40% State

REDUCTION OF ORGANIZED CRIME

On the national level the problem of organized crime is tremendous. Fortunately for Georgia, however, the syndicate has not made substantial in-roads into this state. Yet, the Atlanta Commission on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency points out that "the existence of organized crime on a local level is, in the committee's opinion, a situation which, if not immediately remedied, will lead to the affiliation of existing local organized criminal elements with national organized crime syndicates."

29

Eradicate or at Least Curtail Local Organized Crime before it can Merge with the National Syndicate:

A concerted effort must be made to both eliminate the conditions which encourage locally organized crime to flourish and to detect and convict the people engaged in such activity.

Prevent the Intrusion of Nationally Organized Crime:

Special squads at both state and local levels should be created and trained to prevent, detect, and/or combat the invasion of this state by the Mafia or other organized crime syndicates.

ACTION PROGRAM Number 14

a. Title of Program: Metropol Squad for Organized Crime

b. Objective: To conduct research into the feasibility of forming a special squad in the Atlanta Metropolitan area to detect, prevent, and combat organized crime.

c. Implementation: The requirements for forming a squad-legal, personnel, and equipment-will be investigated. The proposed squad would be formed with six to eight highly trained men who would have regional jurisdiction and the necessary sophisticated equipment. The plan is to research the problem, implement any temporary stop-gap measures, and get needed legislation enacted this year and then create the squad in the following year. Staff work will be supplemented by legal assistance in researching laws and drafting any needed legislation.

d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amount of $1,200 to the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments to study the formation of an organized crime squad.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested Local support
Program Total

$1,200 400
$1,600

Applicable Federal-Local Contribution Ratio:

75% Federal

25% Local

PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF RIOTS AND CIVIL DISORDERS
Mass disturbances do not occur spontaneously. The proper and adequate surveillance of potentially violent neighborhoods should reveal the causes of friction and allow preventive measures to be taken. Because riots and civil disorders cause so much destruction of life and property and threaten the security of the entire community, their causes should be analyzed with a view toward eliminating or reducing the matters causing grievance. Since preventive measures are not likely to be developed or to be effective for several years, communities must be safeguarded in the interim by the judicious training and equipping of law enforcement personnel in the control and containment of disorders.
Prevent Riots and Civil Disorders by Detecting and Resolving Inflammatory Issues:
Employing community service workers and others trained in police-community relations work in areas having strife-potential characteristics (as determined by previous experience with riots) could at least proVide warning of, if not a deterrent to, pending riots and civil disorders.
Contain and Control Riots and Civil Disorders by Swift Deployment of Men and Equipment:
Training police officers in metropolitan areas in riot control techniques, making available to them special equipment for this purpose, and preparing plans for inter-agency communication and cooperation should provide the emergency service that will be needed if the objective mentioned above fails or does not become effective at an early date.
ACTION PROGRAM Number 15
a. Title of Program: Prevention and Control of Riots and Civil Disorders
b. Objective: To provide basic equipment, training, personnel, and research in the prevention and control of riots and civil disorders.
c. Implementation: State and local agencies will be prOVided with the equipment needed to achieve this objective. At least one Area Planning and Development Commission region which will obviously soon undergo a boom in population will receive miscellaneous riot control equipment of a limited nature to determine whether providing such equipment to other areas is justifiable. State agencies already responsible for this activity will be encouraged to upgrade their capabilities.

30

d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amounts of: $28,500 to the Department of Public Safety for purchase and equipping a Mobile Command Post Communications Unit, $1,500 to the State Fire Marshall's Office for protective equipment to be used in arson investigations resulting from riots and civil disorders, and $1,890 to the cities and counties in the Chattahoochee-Flint Area Planning and Development Commission territory for helmets, tear-gas, gas masks, etc. as requested in their plan.

e. Budget:

Federal Support Requested State and Local Support
Program Total

$31,890 10,630
$42,520

Applicable Federal State & Local Contribution Ratio:

75% Federal

25% State-Local

NOTE: In accordance with Section 307(b) of the Safe Streets Act action funds totalling $97,875 for riot equipment were awarded in 1968 to five local governments: Atlanta, $52,714; Savannah, $13,887; Macon, $13,Ql0; DeKalb County, $10,905; and Columbus, $7,359.

IMPROVEMENT OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS
A public unsympathetic to the problems and purposes of law enforcement agencies can greatly hamper the performance of duties which are difficult enough to handle under ideal conditions. Moreover, an antagonistic or indifferent public encourages or at least abets crime by not reporting misdeeds, volunteering as witnesses, rescuing Victims, etc. As a step toward overcoming citizen apathy and distrust, programs are needed to educate the public about the roles of various law enforcement agencies, clear up misunderstandings about their intentions and functions, solicit active cooperation in certain endeavors, and win support for financial assistance and/or legislative enactments.
Initiate, Improve, or Expand Community Relations Projects:
Large communities or agencies presently lacking community relations programs will be encouraged to adopt such, those having only modest or partial projects will be aided in expanding same, and those having full-fledged programs in need of revamping will be funded accordingly.

ACTION PROGRAM Number 16

a. Title of Program: Community Relations Activities of Law Enforcement Agencies.
b. Objective: To strengthen or extend existing programs which have promise but lack secure and prolonged backing, or which should cover a wider area, to initiate pilot programs in areas having high crime rates or agencies relatively unknown to the public, and to study the reasons for antipathy toward police in communities experiencing unusually antagonistic attitudes toward law enforcement.

c. Implementation: State and local agencies which have community relations programs that are lacking in steady financial support, which desire to inaugurate pilot programs in this area, or which need to improve their public image are to be supported under the Safe Streets Act for the purpose of testing or discovering practical techniques for use elsewhere in the state.

d. Subgrant Data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amounts of: $12,212 to the city of Savannah to acquire additional personnel for the Community Relations Unit of its Police Department so that its pilot project can be extended to other neighborhoods in the city, and $900 to the State Department of Revenue's Alcohol Tax and Control Unit for the initiation of a public relations program to solicit citizen assistance in reporting illegal activities and to discourage participation in same.

e. Budget:

Federal support requested State and local support
Program Total

$13,112 12,812
$25,924

Applicable Federal-State Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% State & Local

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

One serious drawback to effective law enforcement has been the limited analysis and evaluation of existing procedures, resources, and potential improvements in the criminal justice system. Although some areas of Georgia's law enforcement field have been studied abundantly, most have not received the basic or applied research that could considerably enhance their effectiveness. Therefore, studies aimed at supplying an accurate representation of the situation, developing novel approaches to perplexing issues, or supplying the data for later possible research will be encouraged.

31

Initiate and Coordinate Basic and Applied Research in All Fields of Law Enforcement:
This program wiII support innovative individual projects, update studies several years old and in need of revision, and encourage pilot projects in techniques and problems in manpower, facility, and equipment utilization, criminal behavior and criminal rehabilitation, crime prevention, cooperative functions, data collection and retrieval, and any other short or long range investigation having the promise of practical application.
ACTION PROGRAM Number 17
a. Title of Program: Data Collection and Research Development
b. Objective: To create and accumulate a solid base of information about criminological behavior, law enforcement practices, and novel approaches to problemsolving within the criminal justice system.
c. Implementation: State, regional, and local government agencies will be granted funds to develop research capabilities, undertake special analysis, and/or initiate information systems containing data of use in future research projects.
d. Subgrant data: The Planning Board has provisionally allocated federal funds in the amounts of: $1,200 to the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments to study the best way for its region to

upgrade law enforcement personnel (which may be subcontracted to outside consultants); and $13,140 to the State Department of Family and Children Services' Division for Children and Youth to develop a system of data collection and record keeping (which in part may be sub-contracted to outside consultants).

e. Budget:

Federal support requested State and local support
Program Total

$14,340 9,560
$23,900

Applicable Federal-State and Local Contribution Ratio:

60% Federal

40% State and Local

COMPLIANCE WITH FUNDING LIMITATIONS

A. Funds Available to Local Units

In compliance with Section 303(2) of the Safe Streets act, 75 per cent of Georgia's action grant has been allocated to units of local government through their respective multi-county Area Planning and Development Commissions and 25 per cent has been allocated to the state agencies (for projects which for the most part wiII have a direct impact on local areas-especially the Atlanta region, which for example will be the site of the State Correction Department's $99,272 work release program):

Federal to local Local matching
Subtotal Federal to state State matching
Subtotal Federal Total Georgia Total Program Total
Category
Local State
Local State
Federal Other

Planning
$236,175 26,242
262,417 167575
18,619 186,194 403,750 44,861 $448,611
I Planning
58.5 41.5
I 58.5 41.5
I 90.0 10.0

FUNDING-FISCAL YEAR 1969

307 (b) $ 97,875
32,625 130,500 ------------
------------
-----------.
97,875 32,625

Action Other $318,094 216103 534 197 138656 91,710 230,366 456,750 307,813

$130,500

$764,563

Total $415,969
248,728 664697 138656
91,710 230,366 554,625 340,438
$895,063

I L307 (b)

Action

Other

I

Total

Per Cent of Federal Funds

69.6

75.0

30.4

25.0

Per Cent of Matchin

I I 100.0 00.0

70.2 29.8

I 73.1 26.9

Per Cent of Total Program Funds

I I 75.0 25.0

59.7 40.3

I 62.0 38.0

Grand Total $ 652,144 274970 927 114 246231 110,329 356,560 958375 385,299
$1,343,674

I

Grand Total

68.0 32.0

I

71.4 28.6

I

71.3 28.7

32

B. Construction Costs
The Planning Board has not allocated any federal funds for the construction of buildings or other facilities for this fiscal year.
C. Special Expenditure Ceilings
The estimated total expenditures from federal funds being requested for the following categories:

(I) Section 301 (b) (3) Public Education

$ 900

(2) Section 301 (b)(5) Organized Crime (may not exceed $1 million)

$ 1,200

(3) Section 301 (b) (6) Riots and Civil Disorders

$ 31,890

(4) Correction, Probation and Parole

$ 68,536

D. Personnel Compensation

Section 301 (d) limits the use of Federal funds for personnel compensation. The following items are totals for all programs.

(I) Estimated total personnel compensation in all programs (exclusive of compensation for time engaged in conducting or attending training programs).

$ 86,056

(2) Estimated expenditure from federal share for personnel compensation (may not exceed 1/3 of federal grant).

$ 43,028

(3) Estimated increase in total personnel compensation of implementing agencies resulting from these programs (include salary increases for existing personnel. Exclude compensation for time engaged in conducting or attending training programs).

$ 86,056

(4) Estimated expenditures from federal share for increased personnel compensation [may not exceed 50 per cent of (3) above] .

$ 43,028

ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEM AND ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISM FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
The Georgia State Planning and Programming Bureau was established in April, 1967, as a division of the Governor's Office with the Governor serving as exofficio director. The purpose of the Bureau according to Chapter 40-29 of the Georgia Code Annotated is to promote "the orderly growth and development of the state of Georgia" and to "make available such planning and programming service, technical assistance, information, and advice . . . to departments, agencies and institutions of state government, to the General Assembly and to local and joint units of government and other public bodies." By executive order, Governor Maddox designated this Bureau to administer the requirements of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968.
One of the four divisions comprising the Bureau is the Office of Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention, which is headed by Charles Cory, who formerly served as chief consultant-analyst to the Governor's Commission on Crime and Justice. His staff will be composed of four planners and two stenographers. Two of the planners will be responsible for consulting with local law enforcement officials and regional planning officials, preparing plans, proViding information, auditing expenditures, and reviewing reports. The other two planners will serve primarily as their administrative assistants. Other staff members will be added as required and as funds become available.
Staff members of the Office of Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention are covered by the Georgia Merit System. Therefore, all jobs and positions are covered by state regulations applicable to all state employees.
Staff Administrator (Charles Cory)
The Staff Administrator is responsible for the overall management and administration of the Office of Crime and Juvenile Delinquency and for coordinating law enforcement planning activities of the APDCs. Cory has a masters degree in economics and also a Juris Doctorate (law) from the University of Florida.
Two Planning Research Coordinators (positions filled):
These persons must be professionals with Masters Degrees and experience in fields related to the criminal justice system. Their responsibilities will include the collection, analysis, evaluation, and presentation of

33

facts, trends, and proposals in the form of published reports, plan studies, and programs. They will also be assigned to assist theAPDC's. These persons are already on board and background descriptions are as follows: James Starbuck 'has a Doctor of Philosophy Degree in the History of Urban Problems from the University of Chicago. He worked for three and one-half years with the Oakland County Planning Commission in Pontiac, Michigan, before coming to the State Planning Bureau and has knowledge of the causes and problems of urban crime. James Higdon has an AB degree in Journalism from the University of Georgia. Prior to being employed by the Bureau, he had three and one-half years experience in law enforcement planning and project coordination with the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments.
Two Project Assistants: (one position filled)
Persons fIlling these positions will be college graduates with work experience in a field related to the criminal justice system such as police, courts, correction, probation, pardons and parole, and juvenile matters. Their duties will include the collection, analysis, evaluation, and presentation of facts, trends, and proposals in the form of published reports, plan studies and programs as well as oral presentations to community bodies and public officials. The one project assistant currently employed is Benjamin P. Counselman, who has a B. S. Degree in Criminology and Corrections from Florida State University. He has had previous experience in public safety and law enforcement.
Two Secretaries (positions filled):
These persons would be charged with the general secretarial duties and responsibilities.
Organization and Functions of the Planning Board
The Planning Board on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention was appointed by Governor Maddox by executive order.
The Board elected a chairman and vice chairman at its initial meeting on December 4, 1968. Future meetings will be held as needed at the call of the chairman or vice chairman. It is anticipated that meetings will be held more often during the initial and final stages of the planning period. A majority of the members in attendance constitutes a quorum.
The Planning Board may delegate to anyone or more of its members, agents, or employees such powers and duties as it may deem proper.

The Planning Board has the responsibility of reviewing, approving and maintaining general oversight of the State Plan and its implementation. It also sets priorities for sub-grants or allocations to localities and administers other planning agency functions.
More specifically, the Planning Board will meet once a month and/or at the request of the planning agencies to resolve policy issues and settle complaints, appeals, or reviews. At such meetings, the Board will:
evaluate the local application for planning funds and award funds to local units of government;
evaluate comprehensive regional plans;
establish priorities for law enforcement improvements in the regions (action grants);
oversee and evaluate state plan implementation and law enforcement improvements;
establish priorities for law enforcement improvements in the state.
It will insure that there is coordination between the state's law enforcement plan and other federally supported programs relating to, or haVing an impact on, law enforcement. The Planning Board can play an important role in the development of the plan, especially relating to their respective areas of competence.
The Planning Board is divided into the following committees: (1) Allocations Committee, (2) Appeals Committee, (3) Police Committee, (4) Corrections Committee, (5) Pardons, Parole, and Probation Committee, (6) Juvenile Committee, and (7) Courts Committee.
The Allocations Committee, composed of the chairmen of the other committees, is charged with hearing and making decisions on appeals from local units of government, APDC's and/or other state agencies. Each of the other committees is composed of a chairman and at least three other members. A majority of each committee constitutes a quorum and each meets at the call of its chairman. Each committee reviews that portion of the comprehensive plan which deals with its respective field and reports its findings and recommendations to the entire Planning Board. Each committee suggests methods and types of research that will be helpful in the creation of the Comprehensive Plan. Committees which have overlapping problems can meet together. For example, the Juvenile Committee can meet with the Courts Committee when the subject matter is juvenile courts. Each committee can set up an advisory subcommittee, if it desires, or can call upon guest panelists.

34

The following are the standing committees of the State Planning Board on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention:

Allocations

Appeals

Ray Pope, Chairman R. H. Burson Robert Croom Robert Garren J. Bowie Gray Norman Shipley Charles Watt

Charles Watt, Chairman Arthur Bolton Emmet J. Bondurant Branson Dalton James Gillis, Jr. J. Bowie Gray Ray Pope Richard Ray

Police

Corrections

R. H. Burson, Chairman Dwayne Gilbert William Moss Harry Schmid

Robert Garren, Chairman Robert Carter James Gillis, Jr. Neil Satterfield

Pardons, Paroles and Probation

Juvenile Delinquency

Robert Croom, Chairman Norman Shipley, Chairman

Arthur Bolton

William H. Borders

G. J. Hearn

Robert Croom

J. Carrell Larmore

Wellborn Ellis

Harry Schmid

J. S. Langford

Norman Shipley

Neil Satterfield

J. Bowie Gray, Chairman Arthur Bolton Emmet J. Bondurant Robert Garren J. S. Langford
Composition of the Planning Board
The Planning Board is composed of 22 members, four of whom represent state law enforcement agencies, three represent general units of local government, five represent major law enforcement functions, six represent juvenile delinquency concerns, and four represent the general public interest. Several of these members have overlapping or dual representation. Their selection satisfies the requirements of both the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968. This Board was selected according to state and local fmancial commitments to law enforcement.

The members of the Planning Board on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and their qualifications are:
Arthur Bolton, State Attorney General
Emmet J. Bondurant, Member of and representing the Georgia State Bar Association
Reverend William H. Borders, Pastor of the Wheat Street Baptist Church in Atlanta, representing juvenile delinquency prevention and the general public interest
Colonel R. H. Burson, Director of the State Department of Public Safety
Robert Carter, Director of the State Department of Corrections
Robert Croom, Assi~t Chief Probation Officer of the Fulton County Juvenile Court
Branson Dalton, member of the Governor's Advisory Committee on Area Planning and Development
Wellborn Ellis, Director of the Division for Children and Youth of the State Department of Family and Children Service
Dr. Robert Garren, Chairman of the Department of Sociology at Georgia State College
Dwayne Gilbert, Sheriff of Spalding County
James L. Gillis, Jr., President of the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (from Truetlen County)
Judge J. Bowie Gray, Superior Court Judge in the Tifton Judicial Circuit
Major-General George J. Hearn, State Adjutant General and Director of the State Department of Defense
Judge John S. Langford, Fulton County Juvenile Court Judge
J. Carrell Larmore, Chief Probation Officer of the Fulton County Court
Chief William Moss, President of the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police
Chief Ray Pope, Waycross Chief of Police and President of the Law Enforcement Section of the Georgia Municipal Association

35

The Honorable Richard Ray, Mayor of the City of Perry and President of the Georgia Municipal Association
Neil Satterfield, Associate Director, United Community Services, Savannah, Georgia
Captain Harry Schmid, President of the Georgia Peace Officers Association
Judge Norman Shipley, Cobb County Juvenile Court Judge
Charles Watt, Chairman of the Georgia Committee of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency
RELATED PLANS AND SYSTEMS
Eighteen Area Planning and Development Commissiems in Georgia have the responsibility for conducting comprehensive planning at the regional level. To conduct a sound co-ordinated planning program and

insure meaningful results, these commissions have developed a close working relationship with groups responsible for administering other federal programs including urban renewal, health planning, and poverty programs. Within five of these APDC's, Model Cities projects are either in full operation or are beginning operation. In the applicable areas, meetings were held with Model Cities personnel to coordinate the law enforcement planning activities and avoid duplication of effort. The Atlanta and Gainesville Model Cities plans have been reviewed by the staff and their objectives complement this plan.
Recently completed reports dealing with the total law enforcement system within a specified area included "The Governor's Commission on Crime and Justice," and "The Next Move: Planning for Less Crime." The second report mentioned was conducted by the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments and was funded by the Urban Development Assistance Administration of the Department of Housing and Urban

APDC

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ALLOCAnONS

Headquarters

1968 Population Estimate*

Planning Grants

Action Grants

Altamaha Central Savannah River Chatham County-Savannah Chattahoochee-Flint Coastal Coastal Plain Coosa Valley Georgia Mountains Heart of Georgia Lower Chattahoochee McIntosh Trail Metropolitan Atlanta Middle Georgia Northeast Georgia Oconee Slash Pine Southwest Georgia West Central Georgia

Baxley Augusta Savannah LaGrange Brunswick Valdosta Rome Gainesville Dublin Columbus Griffin Atlanta Macon Athens Milledgeville Waycross Camilla Ellaville

Institute of Government

Athens

Subtotal 307 (b) riot funds emergency planning reserve

77,500 297,100 235,100 198,300
87,300 141,200 370,500 197,200 107,000 185,600
96,200 1,321,500
256,300 159,700 91,700 113,100 273,900
89,300
4,298,500

$ 10,500 13,500 12,000 11,250 11,250 11,250 13,500 12,750 11,250 11,250 9,000 33,750 13,500 12,750 12,000 11,250 12,000 11,250
$234,000
2,175

$ 4,270 16,389 25,190 10,950 4,819 27,801 20,446 10,879 5,893 10,235 6,704 85,120 24,147 8,803 5,057 6,251 15,102 4,938
25,100
$318,094 97,875

STATE TOTALS

4,414,200

$236,175

$415,969

*Does not include the population of certain state institutions and federal military bases. Figures are those devised by the State Department of Health.

36

Development. Full use was made of information contained in these reports and the experience gained from conducting such studies.
LOCAL PARTICIPATION
To encourage local initiative in the development of this statewide law enforcement plan, the State Planning Bureau of the State of Georgia made use of eighteen already existing, well established and functioning Area Planning and Development Commissions. Planning Funds in excess of that required by law (a total of 58.5%) were made available to these regional agencies to begin development of coordinated projects for law enforcement improvements in their area. In addition, planning grants were made to the State Department of Corrections and the Department of Public Safety for special studies affecting the entire state. Each APDC which received planning funds submitted a regional plan which had the participation of its local law enforcement agencies. The local needs, as reflected in the regional plan, served as a base upon which the Planning Board set priorities.
To assure an appropriately balanced allocation of action funds between the state, the APDC's and the local governments within the APDC's the State Planning Board on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention allocated action funds in the following manner:
(1) By law, 75 per cent of total action grant goes to local governments;
(2) Of local governments share, 75 per cent was distributed according to APDC population-the remaining 25 per cent of their share was distributed according to need as determined from the plans submitted. This method assured that all the funds were not concentrated solely in a few large cities, but were spread throughout the state.
(3) Action funds for the state agencies (25 per cent of the total) were allocated based on need as determined by the Board.
To insure proper allocation from APDC's to local areas, specific projects within the APDC's were funded by the Board. The chart on the preceeding page presents a breakdown of funds allocated to APDC's for project implementation at the local level.
UTILIZATION OF SERVICES, FACILITIES, AND EQUIPMENT
Planning at the regional level depends largely upon cooperation with the local communities and full utili-

zation of existing facilities, services, and equipment. Georgia is unique in that local governments and Area Planning and Development Commissions had established cooperative working arrangements prior to passage of the Omnibus Crime Control Bill. These cooperative efforts have been enhanced, however, through joint development of the regional law enforcement plans.
Training will be provided by the Georgia Police Academy in cooperation with local agencies. The University of Georgia and Abraham Baldwin College, with existing facilities and equipment, are also participating in the training effort. In conjunction with training, other colleges throughout Georgia are offering degree programs in Police Science. Regional, in-service training programs are also planned.
The Institute of Government of the University of Georgia will convert one quarter of a million dollars worth of video tapes designed for police training into 16 mm movie film to be used by local police agencies. The State Department of Public Safety and the National Guard are prepared to assist local agencies in the event of civil disorder or disaster. Since Georgia is predominately rural, regional cooperation must exist in order for law enforcement to be effective.
STATE ASSUMPTION OF COSTS
Many of the planned programs this first year are designated as pilot projects and their results will require careful evaluation. Hopefully, these projects will warrant legislative consideration in future years, thereby allowing the state or local government to assume their expense. History of programs show that, once the major cost of initiating a project has been met, the agency involved will absorb its operational costs. The cost of new programs and systems may ultimately be absorbed through acts of the Legislature or through a simple agreement with the agency involved.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND SERVICES
The State Planning Bureau maintains close contact with each Area Planning and Development Commission in all phases of criminal justice planning. The State Planning Bureau, in conjunction with the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech, has devised an extensive set of questionnaires to be completed by each area commission. They will provide each commission with an inventory of their respective criminal justice system. In an effort to coordinate the activities of the eighteen Area Planning and Development Commissions, the State Planning Bureau periodically sponsors seminars to acquaint the law enforcement planners with recent developments and to discuss problems of mutual concern.

37

Each staff member of the State Planning Bureau's Office of Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention has been assigned a number of APDC's for purposes of coordination and technical assistance. The Legislature has approved the addition of four professional staff members for the Office of Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention. It will be their responsibility to help implement the planned programs within each of these regions. The State Planning Bureau also aids the various state agencies in developing their plans and programs in conjunction with the programs of the APDC's.
USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO SUPPLANT STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS
Government spending at state and local levels in Georgia has been steadily rising during the past few

years, and forecasts indicate that this trend will continue indefinitely.
All grants made under the Safe Streets Act are to be used for new programs, and these funds cannot be used to supplant state or local funds. To insure this, the Planning Board and its administrative staff will maintain close contact on each project to see that federal funds are expended for the intended purpose and are not abused.
The certification below is to be signed by each agency receiving action funds to assure that local expenditures meet the non-supplanting requirement.

CERTIFICATION

In conformance with Section 303 (10) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,

I do hereby certify that

(city, county, state agency) accepts $

_

(action grant award) for the purposes set out in the grant award and that these funds will not be used

to supplant local funds but used to increase the amount of money available for law enforcement improvements.

(Agency Head)

SUBGRANT DENIAL OR TERMINATION
If an application from an APDC or other unit of local or state government is rejected or approved in a lesser amount than requested, the commission shall notify the applicant and shall give the applicant a chance to appeal. Should a local government disagree with the action of an APDC, it will appeal to its APDC for an adjustment of the dispute. If not settled, the local government and the APDC can then appeal to the Appeals Committee of the State Planning Board. If not settled at this level, the appeal is made to the State Planning Board. An appeal from an APDC itself is directed to the Appeals Committee of the Planning Board. If there is no satisfaction, the appeal is heard by the entire Board. The order of appeal will be the same for both planning funds and implementation funds. All appeals shall be made in writing to the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Law Enforcement Planning Board. Written notice stating the time and

place of hearing will be sent to the applicant at least seven days before the scheduled hearing.
If the Planning Board finds substantial failure of an APDC or other planning agency to comply with the regulations governing grant awards or the plan applications submitted to the Board, the Board shall notify the applicant that no further payment shall be made until there is substantial compliance. The grantee shall have a right of appeal to the Appeals Committee. If a grantee is still dissatisfied with the findings and determinations of the Board foUowing the notice and hearing already prOVided, a request may be made for a rehearing under such regulations and procedures as the Board may establish, and such applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to present such additional information as may be deemed appropriate and pertinent to the matter involved. The findings and determinations of the Board following such rehearing shall be final and conclusive upon all parties concerned.

38