State has in turn the right to establish its own priority through its own planning?

Mr. ROGOVIN. If I may respond on that latter point: I do believe that your assumptions reflect my view. I think the approach is precisely that. There has to be an articulation of national direction. I think this can be accomplished through the articulation, if I may use the term again, of a set of standards that the Nation wants to see established for the discharge of criminal justice responsibilities. One could well say there are, and it is obvious, significant disparities between the levels of quality, productivity, effectiveness, of components both intrastate and interstate. This means that some States, in certain regards, have further to go than others. The point is, if you set a goal toward which progress should be made, so that we have in fact a system for criminal justice in this country, then the States have an opportunity to move toward it.

I would suggest that the approach be adopted which says to the States, here are the standards that you should achieve. Again I return to the one that was mentioned earlier. Provide a baseline of dollars for progress, but tie additional dollars to the question of whether or not the State is in fact seeking to achieve that level of performance and create mechanisms through which their progress can be measured. I do not mean to oversimplify but it seems to me that is the

answer.

Mr. FASCELL. How about this concept? Would it make sense to establish, not only the standards, but also the national priorities?

Mr. ROGOVIN. Precisely.

Mr. FASCELL. Perhaps a system could be established whereby States in the formulation of their comprehensive State plan, would have the opportunity or the right to readjust the priorities by some very simple mechanism which would give them the right to establish a priority different from the national priority.

This would provide flexibility, and yet maintain some real semblance of national direction, goals, and standards, and not in any way affect block grants.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I think that is possible, Mr. Fascell; illustratively, California, as I know all subcommittee members are aware, has made tremendous progress in terms of police improvement. Its police officers, standards and training and commission is one of the best in the country. It may well be that the emphasis in California-their priorityshould be other than the police, but that is not true of another jurisdiction. The national agency should provide the guides; certainly States should have some flexibility to make variations.

Mr. FASCELL. I am sorry the gentleman from Arizona has left. I am about to make a statement with which I am sure he can agree. I am pleased that you had courage enough to quit when you were in the administration of this program because of your conviction and finding that a three-person administration with diffused authority made effective management impossible. Your resignation brought the issue to a head and Congress changed the law to provide for a single administrator.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Thank you.

Mr. FASCELL. The three-headed monster Congress created originally

was an administrative nightmare. The fact that you brought the whole thing to the forefront by resigning was a vital step in the progress and life of LEAA.

The suggestions that you have made today merit very serious consideration. I have been wondering myself if we in the Congress have not overreacted to the very serious problem of crime in this country by being simplistic and pouring money in hoping that something better would happen.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to follow the lead of the present administration with respect to other programs and hold LEAA funding to last year's level. This would give Mr. Leonard some time and opportunity to achieve the direction he wants before he is faced with the very difficult problem of massive additional funding. The appropriated funds could very easily be withheld by OMB and released as Mr. Leonard was able to effectively expend them.

This would not hurt the program.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I cannot speak for Mr. Leonard, obviously, but that would certainly relieve some of the pressures.

Mr. FASCELL. That is right. Mr. Leonard is under fantastic pressure. We in the Congress are anxious, and we cannot administer, neither can the American people, but all of us are demanding and expecting prompt and effective action, which does place an awesome burden on the Administrator.

I see no partisanship in this. There are no personal references made by me. Yet, I think I am just as interested in this program as anybody else on this committee. I think that is the kind of spirit we need to approach it.

Mr. STEIGER. That is a good close.

Mr. FASCELL. Thank you.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Thone.

Mr. THONE. Mr. Chairman, I shall be very, very brief. Mr. Steiger suggested that I do so because he took quite a bit of time on his interrogation.

Mr. MONAGAN. You may take whatever time you need.

Mr. THONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree this is a most radical proposal suggested here, especially your statement. I thought your interrogation brought up some specifics rather than the generalization of the statement which, frankly, when I read it in my office last night seemed to be nothing more than sour grapes after you could not take the heat in the kitchen and quit. I do not know that I view your resignation in the same light as Congressman Fascell does. You are with the police foundation?

Mr. ROGOVIN. That is correct.

Mr. THONE. Who funds the foundation?

Mr. ROGOVIN. Ford Foundation.

Mr. THONE. How long have you been there?

Mr. ROGOVIN. The foundation was created in August 1970.

Mr. THONE. Do you think that there has been an overreaction to crime in America by Congress?

Mr. ROGOVIN. An overreaction?

Mr. THONE. Yes.

Mr. ROGOVIN. When you say in the Congress, if I may answer it somewhat more generally, I think there has been a hysteria about the

problem of crime. I think there have been too often simplistic notions about the problems of crime. One is that dollars alone are going to solve the crime problem. I share that concern.

Mr. THONE. Has this been a change in your thinking from when you were down in the Department?

Mr. ROGOVIN. No.

Mr. THONE. Not at all.

Mr. ROGOVIN. No; I do not believe so at all. I have on occasion before said there is a hysteria in the country about the problem of crime. What it needs is a kind of rationality, which leads, as Mr. Steiger pointed out, to an emphasis for the first time in areas that have a possibility of dealing with the phenomena of crime. For example, corrections. I think that is a rational kind of response.

Mr. THONE. I think Mr. Steiger pointed out 32 percent of the block grants were given to correction in the last fiscal year; that was $100 million. I think another $45 million under the new part E program was directed in that direction. What is your observation regarding this?

Mr. ROGOVIN. I am delighted. My concern goes to what the dollars are being spent for.

Mr. THONE. I understand you are second-guessing most of this. Mr. ROGOVIN. If there is a recitation or record of what the money has gone for, I would be delighted to look at it. The point is if it goes only to bricks and mortar, there is a problem.

Mr. MONAGAN. I think he ought to have a chance to respond when you ask a question.

Mr. THONE. You will have a turn again. Mr. Chairman. In the correctional field we have had some testimony before the committee earlier that the LEAA program was getting too far afield; juvenile delinquency in particular. Do you agree with this argument at all? Mr. ROGOVIN. That the LEAA program is far afield if dollars pr into juvenile delinquency control work?

Mr. THONE. They were getting too liberal in their grants?

Mr. ROGOVIN. The States were determining the nature of the grants. The general problem is that LEAA has not been providing guidanc... to the States at all in terms of the utilization of the dollars. I do not know the specific references.

Mr. THONE. The GAO questioned some of this.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I see. To the extent that it begins to appear that dollars are going into program areas otherwise being serviced by other Federal programs, like HEW, or HUD, or Office of Education, I would agree with that expressed concern.

Mr. THONE. That is one of the criticisms.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I would agree with that concern. My view is that a focused program use of LEAA dollars for delinquency work is highly appropriate, in view of the fact that juvenile offenders make up more and more of the gross number of criminal offenders in this country. It makes sense I would suggest, respectfully, to use LEAA for delinquency control. I do not know that you disagree

Mr. THONE. I agree very much.

Mr. ROGOVIN (continuing). To focus in that area.

The nature of the undertaking under the rubric of delinquency con

trol activity is the point I am concerned about. I do not disagree about the general idea.

Mr. THONE. I do not want to replow this ground too much. I take it you do agree with the block grant concept here.

Mr. ROGOVIN. As I have said to your colleague in response I think the block grant program can work. I do not think it has worked to date. May I, also, because of the comment with regard to sour grapes, with your permission respond?

Mr. THONE. Sure, absolutely.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I do not suffer from a case of sour grapes. My resignation was volitional. As Congressman Fascell pointed out, it was intended and I hope it was successful, to accomplishing a purpose.

I feel to some degree the Congress, following my resignation addressed itself to an issue which I thought was important, which was the capacity for intelligent direction of the agency. I am hopeful that is now the result. I do not tar Mr. Leonard, as I said before, and may the record be absolutely clear on that point. The man has only been in his position a short time. That has nothing to do with the question of the overall evaluation of the program. I do not suffer from sour grapes. I am very happy in what I am doing now, sir.

Mr. THONE. That is probably a subjective test you are making. I would agree and reemphasize what Mr. Steiger pointed out, the statement you made before the science symposium in Chicago in 1970, and I cannot say but your testimony just aggravates the situation. At that time you said some critics of the LEAA program are working to scrap the block grant concept before it has a real chance to work. If they succeed, the national crime program would be set back immeasurably.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Could you provide the date? I recall the address. Mr. THONE. In 1970 October.

Mr. ROGOVIN. It is now October 1971. You will recall I think, sir, there was a substantial conflict between the city interests and the State interests at the time of that address.

Mr. THONE. That is the truth.

Mr. ROGOVIN. The issue now, in my view, is not one returning to the battle over the block grant. What is being accomplished and how can it be better addressed, given the fact we are in the fourth year of this program? If you happen to have the impression that I am attacking the block grant structure, that is not my purpose.

Mr. THONE. I am glad to hear that. When I read your statement I had the impression that that was about all you were doing without any specifics.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I am glad that has changed your impression. I wish it had accomplished more.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. St Germain.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. You were Administrator for 2 years.
Mr. MONAGAN. No, sir; about 16 months.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Recognizing the fact that you did resign for a specific purpose, that you did not feel as though there was enough authority in the Administrator, nonetheless, I am sure that while you were in office those 16 months, because you are evidently a dedicated man in this field, and an experienced man-your biography and your

success in the field are well known to us-I would assume that you foresaw and were grappling with this problem of evaluation at the time you were in office.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, early in the program one of the hard decisions that had to be made was the question of whether or not in the first year's submissions from the States-the first full year's submissions such a requirement should be imposed. The decision was made in the then Troika that a waiver should be authorized, recognizing the incredible difficulty the States were having in trying to gear up the program planning, and the distribution mechanisms, and so forth. But thereafter the issue, I would have hoped, would have been addressed through the Institute and other vehicles.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. As we all know, the Congress, and I am sure you are aware of the fact, has had experience in this field before, particularly with OEO.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. We went in like Gangbusters to solve all the problems of poverty in this country. What we did was pour unprecedented sums of money into these programs, and then after a few years began the process of evaluation; we found that funds were being misused; in some areas criminally they were stealing funds from the program. As a result thereof, there has been a tremendous evaluation process developed. In some instances they have just wiped out particular local agencies and said, you better start all over again. Before you start again, you have to show us where you are going to do the job properly. But that came from years of experience.

As a matter of fact, this really began to happen about a year and a half or 2 years ago. Getting back to your 16 months in office, you say at the end of the first year there was a discussion as to evaluation, but it was recognized that you had to give the States an opportunity because at that time they had $60 million they had spent, but it was done on a crash basis, if we can use that word. It was decided to give them a waiver. The Troika was in existence, and I assume from the way you have been talking here this morning, you were probably the proponent of an evaluation program at that time.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I do not want to treat my then colleagues unfairly, Congressman, but I cannot specifically say I was a proponent as against their being opponents. I think that would be unfair to them. The pressures were such that the conclusion

Mr. ST GERMAIN. I probably did not pose the question properly. Let us just say that as a result of listening to you here this morning, you perhaps, I would assume, had an evaluation program in mind at the time this discussion was held or that an evaluation program was discussed by the Troika.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Yes; there were discussions generally of the problem, of how does one measure what kind of progress we are making, what vehicles might be adopted for it. That was the general conceptual discussion over time.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. We all admire your evident ability and intelligence, but I am sure in your own mind you had a concept of evaluation or an evaluation process.

Mr. ROGOVIN. To this extent, and I do not mean to reiterate your comments about the failures of other programs in this regard or