Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Mr. Dowdy. I think we will make a copy of the report a part of the record at this point and then you can outline these matters for us. (The report referred to follows:)

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

Washington, D.C., April 10, 1967.

The Honorable JOHN L. MCMILLAN,
Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, United States House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MCMILLAN : The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have for report H.R. 6143, 90th Congress, a bill “To provide a comprehensive program for the control of drunkness and prevention and treatment of alcoholism in the District of Columbia."

The Commissioners note that the bill, a far-reaching and enlightened effort to deal with the grave chronic drunkenness offender problem which exists in the District of Columbia, expresses, in titles II and III, but in considerably more detail, the philosophy contained in title VIII of the proposed legislation jointly sponsored by the Administration and the Commissioners and introduced as H.R. 7327 and H.R. 7422. As does title VIII of these bills, the purpose of titles II and III of H.R. 6143 is to allow public intoxication to be handled as a public health problem rather than as a criminal offense. The Administration-Commissioners' bill deals with this problem by amending existing law to provide that public intoxication alone, without danger to person or property, shall not be considered a criminal offense, and the bill further provides that a person in such condition may be taken into protective custody and be detained in a facility staffed and equipped to provide appropriate medical services until he is no longer intoxicated. Any such detention is not to be recorded as an arrest or be considered as such. H.R. 6143 in title II amends existing law relating to public intoxication so as to constitute such condition an offense only if it be coupled with danger to the safety of another person or property, or with a public disturbance which the intoxicated person refuses to terminate uopn a request by the police to discontinue his drinking and such disturbance. This title further provides that intoxicated persons are not to be charged with the offenses of disorderly conduct or vagrancy. Finally, the title authorizes the police, in lieu of arresting an intoxicated person, to take or send him to his home or to a public or private health facility.

Title III, discussed in greater detail later in this report, establishes a comprehensive program for the prevention of alcoholism and the rehabilitation of alcoholics. This title, rather than providing for taking intoxicated persons into protective custody until they are no longer intoxicated, as does the Administration-Commissioners' bill, spells out in considerable detail the procedures whereby intoxicated persons, regardless of whether they are charged with an offense, are to be processed.

The Commissioners are fully cognizant of the need within the District of Columbia for a comprehensive program to treat alcoholism and lessen the deleterious effects of this illness on the community. Many of the provisions of the bill will provide the basis for needed services to deal with the problem of public intoxication, and will furnish a constructive approach to the problem which other jurisdictions might do well to emulate. In principle, therefore, the Commissioners support the purpose of the bill.

The Commissioners are greatly concerned, however, that certain of the provisions of the bill are so detailed or so inflexible as to make it likely that they will operate to create more problems than they will solve. Accordingly, the Commissioners recommend that the bill be generally revised so as to vest in them authority over all of the aspects of the chronic drunkenness offender problem, without imposing any hard and fixed requirements concerning facilities to be furnished or functions to be performed. For example, the Commissioners consider it inadvisable that the legislation require the establishment of one or more detoxification centers having a total capacity of "at least 200 beds", an inpatient extended care facility having a capacity of "at least 500 beds", and outpatient after care facilities having a total capacity of "at least 2,000 beds." The Commissioners believe that it should be recognized that changed circumstances

or changes in the techniques of handling the chronic drunkenness offender may make the specified mandatory minimum number of beds unnecessary.

Another inflexible provision, appearing in section 6-1412, specifies that the Bureau of Alcoholism Control "shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining, in cooperation with the Department of Corrections, a program for the prevention and treatment of alcoholism and the rehabilitation of alcoholics in correctional institutions." The Commissioners are informed that since the decision in the case of DeWitt Easter v. District of Columbia, decided on March 31, 1966 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, those chronic alcoholics who are charged only with the offense of public intoxication are committed directly to the District of Columbia Department of Public Health, and it is only those alcoholics convicted of some criminal offense other than public intoxication who are committed to the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. In the case of the members of this latter group, alcoholism is usually just one of many factors which contribute to their criminality. The Commissioners believe that if the Department of Corrections is to continue its operation of balanced penological programs aimed at the eventual rehabilitation of its inmates, it is necessary that the department maintain primary responsibility over programs involving inmates. For this reason, the Commissioners believe that section 6-1412, requiring, as it does, that the Bureau of Alcoholism Control shall be responsible for a program for the prevention and treatment of alcoholism and the rehabilitation of alcoholics in correctional institutions, is undesirable and should be deleted from the bill.

The Commissioners feel that the legislation should be made more flexible, but at the same time give them the necessary authority to deal with the problem of the chronic drunkenness offender. In this connection, the Commissioners believe it desirable that the Congress be informed as to the action which presently is planned. The 1968 Budget estimates submitted to the Congress include a request for funds for plans and specifications for a facility for alcoholics. The Budget justification for this facility, estimated to cost a total of $4.8 million, reads in part as follows:

"This building will accommodate approximately 200 alcoholic patients in a hostel setting, housed in 50 rooms, 4 patients per room. Approximately 20 beds are to be reserved for female occupancy. In addition, two 50-beds dormitories will be reserved for patients being held for detoxification and for diagnosis and classification. The total capacity would be beds that if necessary could be expanded under emergency conditions to a total of 400-450. It is anticipated that patients would spend not more than seven days in the Diagnostic and Classification area and then would transfer to an outpatient unit, the hostel area, a hospital or the Rehabilitation Center for Alcoholics. The facility would provide day rooms and meeting rooms for group therapy and patient relaxation. Arrangements for indoor and outdoor recreation would be provided. A 200 patient capacity food serving and dining area will be provided. A few private rooms for resident staff are included.

"The program which would be located in this new building, i.e., hostel, diagnosis and classification, detoxification and offices for supportive staff services, would enable the Department to provide services consistent with those adopted by the Board of Commissioners in the Comprehensive Mental Health Plan for the District of Columbia, required by the Alcoholic Rehabilitation Act of 1947; and recommended in the Report of the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia. This would also enable the Department to remove the diagnosis and classification activities from the already overcrowded Rehabilitation Center for Alcoholics, permitting the facility to carry out its primary program more effectively."

Title III of the bill, providing for the prevention of alcoholism and the rehabilitation of alcoholics, repeals the existing Alcoholic Rehabilitation Act of the District of Columbia approved August 4, 1047 (61 Stat. 744; D.C. Code, sec. 24-501 et seq.), and adds to title 6 of the District of Columbia Code a new chapter 14 relating to the same subject. Some of the sections of this new chapter 14 also contain provisions which are of concern to the Commissioners, as follows:

1. Section 6-1403 establishes a "Bureau of Alcoholism Control" within the Department of Public Health, and provides that the bureau shall be responsible for interagency coordination of activities related to inebriates and chronic alcoholics. The Commissioners are firmly of the view that the better organizational practice involves vesting in them all of the functions which the bill requires be performed,

with authority to make appropriate delegation of such functions. They therefore strongly recommend that in this section and throughout the bill all references to a "Bureau of Alcoholism" and to the Department of Public Health be deleted, and all functions which the bill vests in any such bureau or in the Department instead be vested in the Commissioners, with authority to delegate.

2. In addition to the comments set forth in the preceding paragraph concerning the undesirability of establishing a Bureau of Alcoholism Control, and the Commissioners' earlier comments with respect to the provisions requiring the furnishing of a minimum number of beds, section 6-1403, in subsection (b), contains language which would prevent the use of a part of a correctional institution for the establishment of an inpatient extended care facility. The Commissioners believe such a limitation to be undesirable and accordingly they recommend striking, in lines 16, 17, and 18 on page 7, the language "and shall not be part of or at the same location as a correctional institution".

3. The proposed new section which is denominated as "Sec. 6-1401. Detoxification" properly should be denominated "Sec. 6-1404. Detoxification". One feature of this section which is of concern to the Commissioners is the requirement, in subsection (c) that in any case involving a chronic alcoholic in which a medical officer recommends to the Corporation Counsel that a criminal charge be filed against an individual in order to institute civil commitment proceedings under section 6-1407, a decision not to follow the recommendation of the medical officer "may be made only by the Corporation Counsel and may not be delegated." The Commissioners believe that requiring the Corporation Counsel himself to review every such recommendation made by a medical officer is an undue burden on that official, and they recommend the striking of the sentence beginning in line 23 on page 9 and ending in line 2 on page 10.

4. In subsections (c) and (d) of section 6-1404 use is made of the term "summons" in connection with a person's being charged with the offense of intoxication. The use of this term imports a further proceeding against the individual to whom it is issued, in the nature of a hearing, rather than a trial, with a trial possibly occurring after such hearing. If this be the intent, then police officers will be spending more of their time in connection with the prosecution of cases of intoxication, than under the present procedure. If, however, the term "summons" is intended to mean "violation notice", allowing the person to whom it is issued to forfeit collateral rather than to appear in court, then there would be less demand on the time of the police officer in connection with the prosecution of any such case. In the belief that the term "summons" properly should be "violation notice", the Commissioners recommend that the latter term be substituted for the word "summons" wherever it appears in section 6-1404, in line 15 on page 9, in lines 4 and 7 on page 10, and in line 1 on page 11.

5. Subsection (d) of section 6-1404 makes it mandatory that a person "charged with violation of any criminal provision other than section 25-128 of the D.C. Code and who appears to be intoxicated shall first be brought by the police to a detoxification center where he shall be admitted as a patient for an immediate medical evaluation of his condition." (Emphasis supplied.) (This language requires apparently intoxicated persons charged with the gravest of crimes, such as homicide, rape, or robbery, to be taken to a detoxification center. The Chief of Police is of the view that this procedure would create serious problems of security in detaining the prisoners. Accordingly, the Commissioners recommend that in this subsection the phrase "shall first be brought" be changed to "may be taken", and that the word "shall" where it appears in line 13 and line 17 on page 10 be changed to "may".)

6. Subsection (e) of section 6-1404 provides that the police "shall be available to assist a detoxification center whenever such help [to protect the health and safety of an intoxicated person] shall be required". Since the police are always available to give such protection, this requirement appears unnecessary, particularly if the recommendation in paragraph numbered 5 be accepted. Accordingly, the Commissioners suggest that the comma in line 5 on page 11 be changed to a period and that the balance of the first sentence of subsection (e) be deleted.

7. Subsection (e) of section 6-1404 also limits the disclosure of information available in a detoxification center to "medical personnel for purpose of diagnosis, treatment, and court testimony" and then only at the request of the patient. The Chief of Police states that this limitation prevents the disclosure of reg

istration and other records of detoxification center to police personnel for purpose of investigation of criminal offenses and of complaints against police actions. Accordingly, the Commissioners recommend that the last sentence of subsection (e) of section 6–1404, appearing in lines 10 through 14 on page 11, be amended to read as follows:

"The registration and other records of a detoxification center shall remain confidential, and may be disclosed only to medical personnel for purposes of diagnosis, treatment, and court testimony, to police personnel for purposes of investigation of criminal offenses and of complaints against police actions, and to no one else."

8. Although the Commissioners generally favor section 6-1406, they believe that the requirement contained in subsection (a), that there be a central outpatient treatment office open 24 hours every day to coordinate operations of all outpatient facilities, is unnecessary and a duplication of services which would be provided in the mental health centers and detoxifications units.

9. Subsection (d) of section 6-1407 also provides, in connection with the application of a committed person for a writ of habeas corpus, that "no more than one such petition may be filed in any six-month period." The Commissioners question whether any such prohibition is constitutional.

10. The Commissioners question the provisions of section 6-1411 which prohibits any punishment or penalization of employees of the District of Columbia who are afflicted with alcoholism. While the Commissioners do not believe that any employee of the Government of the District of Columbia should be deprived of the beneficial aspects of alcoholism rehabilitation programs, they nevertheless question the advisability of prohibiting by statute the punishment or penalization of District of Columbia employees who may, by reason of alcoholism, fail to perform their duties in the manner required of them. Rather, the Commissioners believe that this section should be revised in such manner as to indicate a Congressional policy on the question of alcoholism among the employees of the Government of the District of Columbia, leaving the administration of that policy to the discretion of the Commissioners.

11. Section 6-1415 requires a special, somewhat autonomous, advisory committee to be appointed by the Commissioners. This section, in the view of the Commissioners, should be modified to authorize the establishment of a definitive alcoholism advisory committee, perhaps within the Public Health Advisory Council, and reporting to that Council, rather than to the Commissioners, in like manner as the existing individual advisory committees.

As a final comment on the bill, the Commissioners believe that is is essential to point out that while they favor the legislation in principle, and believe that in many respects it is desirable, it fails to authorize any appropriations to implement the very broad program it would require. The Commissioners estimate that the cost of the bill in its present form would amount to some $15 million in capital outlay, and $3.8 million in annual operations.

As the Commissioners have indicated several times in the course of this report, they believe the principle of the bill to be excellent, and that it is necessary that some effective program be established to deal with the problem of chronic drunkenness offender. They are of the view, however, that the high degree of specificity contained in H.R. 6143 and the inflexibility of some of its key provisions, renders it necessary that the bill be revised generally along the lines set forth in this report before they can give it their support. If the bill be so revised, then the Commissioners would favor its enactment.

The Commissioners have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress.

Sincerely yours,

(S) WALTER N. TOBRINER, President, Board of Commissioners, D.C.

Mr. ROBINSON. The Commissioners feel that H.R. 6143 is a farreaching and enlightened effort to deal with the grave drunkenness problem which exists in the District of Columbia. They are fully cognizant of the need within the District for a comprehensive program to treat alcoholism and lessen the effects of this illness on the community.

Many of the provisions of the bill will provide the basis for needed services to deal with the problem of public intoxication and will furnish a constructive approach to the problem which other jurisdictions might do well to emulate.

In principal we heartily support the purpose of the bill, therefore. They are concerned, however, with some of the provisions of the bill which they believe are inflexible and may create some problems.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

For one thing the Commissioners recommend that the bill generally be revised so as to vest in them authority over all of the aspects of the chronic drunkenness offender problem without imposing any hard and fixed requirement concerning facilities to be furnished or functions to be performed.

One of the provisions to which they allude is the one appearing in Section 6-1412 (p. 19 of H.R. 6143) which specifies that the Bureau of Alcoholism Control "shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining, in cooperation with the Department of Corrections, a program for the prevention and treatment of alcoholism and the rehabilitation of alcoholics in correctional institutions."

The Commissioners believe that if the Department of Corrections is to continue its operation of balanced immunological programs it is necessary that that Department maintain primary responsibility over programs involving inmates. For this reason the Commissioners believe that Section 6-1412 should be deleted from the bill.

There are a number of specific provisions in Title 3 to which the Commissioners wish to comment:

Section 6-1403 (p. 6) establishes a Bureau of Alcoholism Control within the Department of Public Health.

The Commissioners are of the view that the better organizational effort involves vesting in them the operations which are to be performed with the authority to make appropriate delegation of such functions. They therefore strongly recommend that in this section and throughout the bill all references to a Bureau of Alcoholism into the Department of Public Health be deleted and all the functions which the bill vests in any such bureau or in the Department instead be vested in the Commissioners with authority to delegate those functions. In Section 6-1403, Subsection (b) (p. 7) there is language which would prevent the use of a part of a correctional institution for the establishment of an in-patient extended care facility.

The Commissioners believe such a limitation to be undesirable and accordingly they recommend striking, in lines 16, 17, and 18 on page 7 the following language "and shall not be part of or at the same location as a correctional institution."

Mr. Dowdy. What was the recommendation there? You want to delete

Mr. ROBINSON. Delete words which would have the effect of preventing treatment centers.

Mr. DowDY. I am in favor of that. You agree with Dr. Grant about that?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, sir.

« ForrigeFortsett »