Mr. ROGOVIN. No; it did not.

Mr. STEIGER. It is a very strong arm of LEAA now. It has a set of requirements that allow it to work virtually independently of the program section of LEAA. It is designed to do exactly what you are talking about. I think it would be very unfair for you to take this broad negative overview of LEAA and not be aware

Mr. ROGOVIN. I am aware of the existence.

Mr. STEIGER. I guess I want to know, do you really want to shoot this thing down, or do you just want to say it would be better if you were still running it?

Mr. ROGOVIN. Oh, no.

Mr. STEIGER. That is an honest question.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I will give you an honest answer. You have said it is an honest question. I will give you an honest response.

No. 1, I do not by implication or in any other way suggest it would be better if I were running it now.

Mr. STEIGER. Fine.

Mr. ROGOVIN. No. 2, I thought I made very clear, during my earlier comments, my regard for Mr. Leonard. That is not for public consumption alone. That is something I accept. I think he is a dedicated, interested man.

The point, however, is my concern about an opportunity to upgrade and improve criminal justice which may never come again, and that is what this program represented. That is not what it is achieving. That is my concern.

Mr. STEIGER. All right. You are concerned, but what you have said here is that we are going to have to stop this program unless your concern is resolved. I really want to get at the heart of what you are saying.

Are you saying that the block-grant concept is all right, but it has been badly administered? Is that No. 1?

Mr. ROGOVIN. I am saying the block-grant format conceptually is all right, but that it has not been effective to date. I do not reiterate the arguments about categorical versus block grants. What the Congress might do on another go-round is irrelevant for this purpose.

Mr. STEIGER. But, don't you see, we are dealing with the block grant. You have said it does not work, and yet you say we should have better evaluation, which we have now, at least in my opinion. We have this inspection and review arm whose whole purpose is to evaluate and to observe performance. Apparently we have complied with that, although you are unaware of that.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I would differ with you on it. I am not unaware of it. I am aware of the inspection and review group from the task force report, if that is what you speak of. My recollection is that it is a 5-man group.

Mr. STEIGER. It is not effective?

Mr. ROGOVIN. I did not say that, I will say one can hardly gage its effectiveness, since Mr. Leonard only had an opportunity to implement that group since his ascent to this office.

Mr. STEIGER. Is this the right approach, in your opinion, then? Are we headed in the right direction? Are we going where you think we should-toward better evaluation?

Incidentally, speaking of specifics

Mr. MONAGAN. May he answer that question?

Mr. STEIGER. As soon as I load him up with another one.

Mr. MONAGAN. This is a basic question, and I would like to hear his

answer.

Mr. STEIGER. I would like to prepare him, though, because he mentioned the fact that the corrections were insufficiently funded-I am sorry I do not have your specific comment. I cannot find it. Mr. ROGOVIN. I think you will find it on page

Mr. STEIGER. You make a passing reference to corrections.
Mr. ROGOVIN. On page 3 at the bottom, sir.

Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, yes.

"... investment in the correctional system which might in the long run make a real difference."

I happen to concur with the whole thrust of your comment-our corrections are neglected. However, LEAA has expended in this last fiscal year 32 percent of its funds on correctional efforts. I do not know that you can make a quantitative application or a quantitative judg

ment.

Mr. ROGOVIN. That is precisely my point, Congressman. I applaud the increase. As you possibly are aware, I was equally interested in upgrading the amount of money for corrections when I was the Administrator. But unless you are in a position to know, one, the nature of the use of that new corrections money and two, the impact-in terms of evaluated results-it is having, one cannot measure the value in having had forceful leadership to increase the money going to corrections.

That and organized crime, as I pointed out, are two of the areas where I think the agency has been effective.

Mr. STEIGER. OK. Let us get back to the inspection and review program and the other reforms which have been implemented since Mr. Leonard's administration. Are you aware of most of them-the increased auditing and, as the chairman pointed out, I think, inspection and review? You do not want to shoot down the program. You think it has potential. The block grant concept can be worked. It has to be worked better.

Are the inspection and review approach and the increased attention to auditing going in the direction that you would recommend? Mr. ROGOVIN. Clearly, sir, as I understood what was proposed with the inspection and review group, I think that is a forward step. What it has done, I do not know. The emphasis upon improving the States' audit capability, I certainly agree is an important step.

These hearings have amply demonstrated the inadequacy of auditing capability in the States. Obviously, then, I suggest that I view favorably those kinds of steps.

My question is, Where are they and how fast are they moving and what is happening?

Mr. STEIGER. Whether the quality of the direction is adequate is obviously a judgment that we and the rest of the Congress will have to make, but given the fact that the direction is now correct, do you still subscribe to a freeze of the funds, recognizing that, obviously, some programs, both good and bad, will suffer as a result of the freeze? Mr. ROGOVIN. I would respond by saying to you that just the creation of an inspection and review group and declarations about audit by no means meets all the concerns I have tried to express in my opening

statement. I think the track record in terms of expenditure of dollars for the nature of kinds of things undertaken does not augur well for the additional expenditure of approximately $170 million.

Mr. STEIGER. I will try again.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Maybe I will have to try again.

Mr. STEIGER. I would assume that it is not just a cosmetic attempt, that all the people engaged in inspection and review and increased audits are able people, well motivated, and let us assume they will proceed. My question was: Is it still your opinion, that we should continue to freeze the level of funding of LEAA in spite of the existence of this apparent new direction with an emphasis on evaluation and planning?

Mr. ROGOVIN. Yes; in essence, my response is "Yes.”

Mr. STEIGER. To what point?

Mr. ROGOVIN. Until the agency, in effect, commences the articulation. of standards and ties dollar utilization to achieving those standards. Until there is a capability to intelligently distribute dollars in the States, until, in fact, criminal justice planning is a reality.

I do not want to see the States prejudiced in terms of the preexisting level of appropriations. They have programed for those dollars, basically at the level of $528 million, but you are going to engorge them with $170 million of new funds, and they haven't demonstrated a capability to effectively utilize what they had before.

It is one thing to make declarations. It is another thing to see progress in a real sense being made.

Mr. STEIGER. Just one more question.

You said you would like to see the freeze to evaluate the new direction, and yet-you made a statement before the Appropriations Committee in which you said, in effect--I am sorry I do not have the exact language that we cannot wait another decade, we cannot even wait another day. I think those are the exact words. You amplified that by saying this is a very pressing problem, and we must press on it. This is really a very valuable quote, I happen to believe it. I happen to agree with you.

You have also indicated, both before the Appropriations Committees and in speeches, that you recognize there will be failures. You had no illusions that this was going to be a panacea. It is very tough for me to equate, therefore, what has been clearly the result of your experience and many of your recommendations, that is, the upgrading of direction of this thing, and your willingness to jeopardize, in my view, the continuance of the program by an arbitrary freeze when you say you do not know whether or not the inspection and review is effective, and you do not know if the audits are effective, but are basing your findings on this committee's hearings. You indicate that is a part of the basis of your judgment. I do not think you are being fair, Mr. Rogovin. I really don't. You obviously feel that you are fair.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Let me respond, Mr. Steiger. The implication in your question is that I may be unfair to you. The implication seems to be that I am recommending that the program be abandoned. That is erroneous. One is hardly abandoning a national effort to upgrade criminal justice if one continues to expend better than half a billion dollars of new Federal money together with the additional match

65-812-72-pt. 2-2

ing funds. That is an enormous number of dollars. If we may, let us set the base.

Nobody is recommending that the program be abandoned. Half a billion plus the matching funds is tremendous new money in this program.

I am saying, let us create a rational effort to improve criminal justice among other things, a forced program to generate-I use the term "forced" advisedly-a forced program to generate what Congress has said here is necessary. That is, more and better educated "criminal justice people." I am speaking of the law enforcement education program, with which you are familiar.

As far as I can tell, there has not been one dime's worth of significant curriculum development effort to produce the very people that the Congress said had to exist-criminal justice planning people. You know the chaotic state of "planning efforts." If you do not, perhaps it is because you happen to be from a jurisdiction-I know it is Arizonawhere you have an effective, in overall terms, program. That is no sop to Arizona. I happen to know the planning director. I have known him for years. He is a dedicated, hard-working guy. But that is not the nature of what is happening in the rest of the country, and it is not the nature of what this Nation needs if we are to upgrade to a standard of justice.

There is no such thing, in my opinion, as minimum justice. Either you have justice or you do not. I do not think we are effectively dispensing justice. I do not think we are doing an effective job in terms of crime.

You share my view that we are not doing an effective job in corrections.

To suggest to me that the creation of a six-man group is an answer to the problems of measurement is not, to me, a very impressive one. I am not criticizing Mr. Leonard for having taken steps that I think are intelligent and good steps. I said before, decentralization means putting the agency close to the people. That is a forward step. But there are other requirements. Those are standards.

Where does this Nation want to go in terms of its improvement? Do we want to buy more and more hardware? That is what we are doing.

I respectfully suggest you know as well as I, partisan debates and others aside, that hardware is not the answer to criminal justice. More and more dollars go into that kind of activity. That is my point. I am sorry if it sounds like a speech.

Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate your indulgence. I do not think Mr. Rogovin is far from the desires of the rest of us, as he indicates by his last statement. I do not think anybody knows the value or merit of the existing evaluation program, the existing LEEP program. I do not know it.

You have said you do not know. You do not know what the results of the inspection and review board are. I suspect we will learn that when we hear from Mr. Leonard.

I would say what you have called for is a new direction. I suspect that is exactly what we are getting. I suspect this committee has perhaps played a role in that, or perhaps LEAA has anticipated this committee's concern.

I want you to leave here with some feeling that this is not a stagnant program or that the Congress is not unaware of the need for a change of direction, because I think certainly this committee shares your view that there is a need for a shift, and there is a need for the application of standards. I happen to think they are being applied. You have indicated you do not know whether they are being applied or not, but you are familiar with the specifics of the situation.

Mr. Chairman, you have been very indulgent with me, and I appreciate it.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I did not suggest I do not know whether they are being supplied. I stated I do not know that they are being articulated and there is a difference.

Mr. MONAGAN. I wish you had started your questioning the way you finished up. I think as far as fairness is concerned that the witness has been extremely fair to the Administrator personally and to those involved in the program. What we want to talk about is how the program is getting along and what the standards are, and if we come to the conclusion that reforms are being implemented-and perhaps this committee has had something to do with it-that the funds are being spent more effectively, nobody will be happier than myself and the members of this committee. So with that, Mr. Fascell, you may proceed with your questions.

Mr. FASCELL. Thak you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rogovin, I am going to start with some assumptions.

I am going to assume first of all what you say is true and that you are not biased or prejudiced about Mr. Leonard who has had only 3 months in his very difficult job. As far as I am concerned, he is an outstanding man and has a tough challenge.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Absolutely. I appreciate that assumption.

Mr. FASCELL. I assume you are not biased or prejudiced about the structure of the program, the Republican Party, or the State of Arizona, and that you are not going to be overly concerned about any reaction to whatever you say.

Mr. Rogovin, I am also going to assume that you are an expert witness having been at one time part of the administration of it, which together with a long and distinguished career in the law enforcement area, entitle you views to serious consideration whether anyone agrees with you or not.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. FASCELL. The discussion of the basic philosophy about the structure of the organization and the nature of the grants, is secondary to the principal question, as I understand it, and that is the very difficult one of national leadership. The main issue is the scopes and the leadership given to the administration of the program.

Unless we have national leadership in the crime field, which can then be directed to various field components and orchestrated in an efficient and effective manner, we are going to have an extremely difficult job, if not impossible job, no matter how much money is in the program. Is this what I understand you are talking about?

Mr. ROGOVIN. This is precisely my point.

Mr. FASCELL. How are we going to establish a national priority under the present structure and get it directed to the 50 States if each