other, it was certainly clear-and I hold this as a matter of high importance in evaluation-to let those who conduct a project evaluate it is of little utility. It becomes a matter of self-serving interest. One rarely wants to confess one's failure. It became important that there be "objective evaluation." But what was probably even more important was the fact that for an effort of this kind, which had never heretofore been undertaken, the measurement devices and tools, the methodology had never been developed. That is to conduct objective and rational evaluation, as opposed to what I am sure is familiar to you, subjective after-the-fact assessments. The kind of evaluation in which I place little faith. I recall that the then Director of the Institute spoke with State planning agency directors at a meeting on research needs. He talked to them with regard to the importance of evaluation and exhorted them to create programing to do this kind of thing and include it in their general research efforts. Those kinds of concepts were operating.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Then you remained in office for another 16 months The waiver had been granted for a first year. It was decided there would be no evaluation in the first

year.

Mr. ROGOVIN. No requirement for an evaluation, that is correct. Mr. ST GERMAIN. So you go into the second year. You go from $60 million to $268 million. During that period of time, once again with high regard for your ability and capability, did you then develop, as the Administrator-though you had two other coequal heads of the agency-an evaluation process. In other words, were you preparing and girding for an evaluation process that would improve upon the self-assessment process?

Mr. ROGOVIN. I would have to respond to that in this fashion. Given the fact that in a then Troika arrangement, the policy decisions important to the operating elements of the agency required unanimity, this as well as other matters, were never resolved while I was there. There was that kind of difficulty.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. I do not think you understood the question, or if you did, I do not understand the answer.

Mr. ROGOVIN. If you do not, let me try again.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Let me repeat the question in simple terms. You are an intelligent and able man.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I thank you.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. True you had two other people whom you were working with. I am sure you are not the type of man, just as I have 434 colleagues and I am sure they do not wait for me to develop something, they develop it individually and we get together and we hope we can agree. You state that you recognized this problem of evaluation. True, you had two other people working with you. But in your own mind I am sure, recognizing the problem, that you were developing some concept, some methodology or means of evaluation other than the self-assessment.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I understand your point.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. In the law it is impossible to know really what intent is, and to read the mind. So you do not know what your colleagues are doing, but you know that you yourself feel certain steps should be taken, the only way to bring it out is that you bring it forth. I am asking you if you had developed any, and if so, would you at

this time give the committee the benefit of your thoughts. Would you tell us what you had developed at that time as an evaluation process.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I cannot say that I had developed an evaluation program, given the nature of the executive side of operations and one assigns or encourages activity in operating elements of the agency. As you know, I was the Administrator. The hope would have been at the time that the Institute would have incorporated an activity on evaluation within its program. But the decisions as to programmatic activity within the Institute was a matter that the Troika had to reach agreement upon. I am trying to suggest to you that the complexity which I recognize in terms of evaluating progress in criminal justice requires a substantial amount of research effort. There were no measurements other than the simplistic crime statistics which one could articulate and say here are the measures you will use. There was an early step needed. As part of the institute research program a policy decision had to be made that the institute would invest substantial funds in developing precisely these measures in determining how one goes about measuring criminal justice improvement, alternative measures of police performance, correctional improvement. All right.

Mr. ST GERMAIN, OK, fine. At the time that the three directors sat down together and decided that there would be no evaluation, there would be a waiver at the end of the first year, did you then advocate to your colleagues that the Institute begin work in this area. Mr. ROGOVIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. You were evidently overruled.

Mr. ROGOVIN. It is not so much a question of overruling, it was rather a lack of agreement upon directions for the Institute. You cannot say overrule, because that would imply a different degree of authority. There was rather not a consensus achieved as to what the nature of the research effort should be.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. In my family, there are four of us, and if I want to go someplace and my two daughters and my wife want to go someplace else, we reach a consensus, but you can bet your life I have been overruled.

Mr. ROGOVIN. In my family we generally go where my wife wants to go.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. I agree.

Mr. ROGOVIN. That is not forced consensus.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. What I am trying to state here is that here we are in the third action year, looking forward to the fourth action year, and throughout these hearings I have attempted to be as fair as possible to the people administering the agency. That includes the present and the past administration of the agency. The Congress and this committee and the LEAA are all headed in the same direction. We recognized the problem just as the people of this country recognized the problem. Some say that perhaps there is a hysteria about crime. If there is, there is a darn good reason for hysteria about crime.

It is pretty tough when not only in the major cities but in the small communities and the hamlets and the villages people are afraid to go outside at night. People are afraid to leave their homes for a week or two at a time. It is not only organized crime; it is the crime on the

streets. There seems to be a thread going through the entire fiber of the Nation as far as our youth is concerned. It is a very frightening one. This is why there is a hysteria; whereas when you and I were growing up. we saw policemen on the street, and when there were four or five together and he told us to move along, we moved along. Now they spit at him and use nasty language and probably hit him. We do have a big problem. I feel there is a reason for this hysteria. So we put a lot of funds in as we did in other programs. I think we are a little late, but thank God we finally recognized the fact we had to move. Evaluations are absolutely necessary, I agree. This has been proven in the hearings. In fact, I am of the opinion in some instances it was ironic that in some States the manner in which the funds were used to prevent crime was darned near criminal. So we do have problems. It goes to show how bad this situation is. Yes, we have need of an evaluation process. We have need of direction. But I still think we are groping for this.

Mr. ROGOVIN. There is no question about that. The question is the intensity with which we conduct the search, if we conduct it at all. That is my point.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Let us look to that. I am thinking of your term of office and the intensity with which you pursued this.

Mr. ROGOVIN. I am the first one to acknowledge there was no intense pursuit.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Let me conclude my remarks by stating that we appreciate, or I appreciate your testimony. You have pinpointed what you feel is a very major problem, and it is a major problem in so many of our programs where we hope we are doing the right thing by infusing funds and putting money into the fight against poverty and the fight against hunger and the fight against what have you.

Certainly it is agreed that after we start putting these funds in we should take a good hard look at the program and determine, are we wasting the funds, or is there a better way to use the funds? There is no doubt about that. But by the same token, I would say I have seen many examples of achievements. As we go along by evaluating results of experiments in the different States and different communities, we will see some expenditures brought no results. Others probably brought tremendous results; not as a result of the amount of money poured in but as the result of the way it was spent, whether it be for hardware or improved education or methodology.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Rogovin, there was some reference about the increased auditors. at LEAA, and we had previously requested a statement as to just what the increase was. It showed that the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) allowed 19 LEAA auditors in fiscal 1971, 30 in the supplemental 1971, and 38 in 1972. All of these OMB requests were approved by the Congress. There also is a statement of the audit division's request, the LEAA request, departmental request, and the OMB allowance. The audit request of 1971 was 40, and the ultimate result was 19. The audit request in 1972 was 94, the ultimate result was 38. Congress approved each of the ultimate requests. So without objection I would like to put this in the record so that when we are talking about increase, we know just what we are talking about.

(The material referred to above follows:)

SEPTEMBER 13, 1971.

Mr. ROBERT R. DONLAN,

Executive Assistant to the Associate Administrator.

ALLEN J. VANDER-STAAY,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Operations Support, Budget Requests of Office of Audit.

In response to your memorandum of September 3, 1971, the following information on audit positions is provided.

• Task force reduced audit to total of 40. Therefore, the professional audit staff was reduced to 32. Sources: LEAA.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman, there is one important thing I should have mentioned if I might have the indulgence of the committee. In measuring achievement and evaluating achievement, as you stated, statistics are not always the thing, because even though the rate of crime increases, it could be that some of these programs that are directed at the younger element, you are not going to see any results from these programs for 5, 6, 8, or 10 years. So this question of evaluation and appraisal of the value of some of these programs, I agree with you when you said that it needs an in-depth study, how you will develop this process.

Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you.

Mr. Rogovin, was there a period after you resigned that there was no administrator of the program?

Mr. ROGOVIN. Yes; I think there was a vacancy for approximately 10 months before Mr. Leonard was either nominated or confirmed. Mr. MONAGAN. Would this have any effect on the intensity that we are talking about?

Mr. ROGOVIN. I would tend to think that the absence of the Administrator could have had that kind of effect. I do not know how it might be specifically ascertained. It poses a difficulty for personnel where the top position is vacant, and that kind of thing.

Mr. MONAGAN. Once again I do want to emphasize the fact that these hearings certainly do not indicate any lack of concern with the problem of controlling crime. In fact, the objective of controlling it and improving the administration of the system of justice is fundamental to the concern of the committee. We believe in overseeing the efficiency of the agencies that are concerned with this, and we are going to improve that administration. That is no reason not to inquire whether or not intensity of effort exists today. So I want to thank you for your willingness to come here and to joust it with members of the committee. Reference has been made to heat in the kitchen. I do not see that you appear to have been singed in any way by your experience, Mr. Rogovin.

I do not know whom we would call upon for advice and suggestions any more quickly than a former head of this agency. I think you have been fair, and I think you have stated your beliefs clearly and well. So thank you for coming and making your contribution to the improvement of this program.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MONAGAN. Our next witness is Mr. Henry S. Ruth, Jr., who has been Deputy Director of the President's Crime Commission in 196769, a member of the Governor's Criminal Justice Planning Commission for LEAA in New York and Pennsylvania, Director of LEAA's National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, and is presently director of the Mayor's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council in New York City.

Mr. Ruth, it is a pleasure to have you with us. I am grateful to you for your willingness to come here and speak of your experience and your appraisal of the LEAA program.

We will be happy to have you proceed with your statement at this time.

STATEMENT OF HENRY RUTH, DIRECTOR, NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL

Mr. RUTH. Thank you, sir. I am grateful for your invitation. I did not submit a statement in complete narrative form. I think there were so many issues that I just relegated myself to submitting an outline of what I thought were some of the basic problems involved in such a Federal aid program, going through the States and then down to the cities.

I would much rather answer questions. But first, I would like to highlight a few things.

Mr. MONAGAN. Are you going to read this statement that you have submitted?

Mr. RUTH. No, sir.

Mr. MONAGAN. If not, the statement may be made a part of the record at this point, if there is no objection.

(Mr. Ruth's statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HENRY RUTH, DIRECTOR, NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL

My name is Henry S. Ruth, Jr., and I am director of the Mayor's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council in New York City. The council is the city's designated planning group for funds available from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. As further background, I was Deputy Director of the President's Crime Commission in 1967-69, a Federal organized crime section attorney, a member at separate times of the Governors' criminal justice planning commissions for LEAA funds in New York and Pennsylvania, and Director of LEAA's National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.

Since there are so many possible issues for discussion, I would like to submit this written presentation in outline form and discuss at greater length during oral testimony those portions of the outline which subcommittee members feel are most appropriate. The basic subjects covered here are based upon the subcommittee chairman's letter of invitation that specified particular areas of interest.

1. Comprehensive planning

(a) For the first time, States and cities are actually attempting criminal justice planning.