(b) Historical background-such planning as unprecedented step.

(c) Difficulties in establishing relationship between any one factor or group thereof as a direct link to raising or lowering crime rate.

(d) Difficulties in establishing long-range, realistic goals.

(e) Difficulties and national variations in establishing planning regions. (f) Difficulties between State, county, city, and regional levels of government. (g) Inherent difficulties presented by necessary separation of powers among executive, legislative, and judicial branches of Government.

(h) Difficulties in establishing priorities with so many parts of the system competing for relatively small dollar amounts.

(i) Philosophical approaches and goals in criminal justice become wrapped in emotional appeals that hide wide basic agreement on approaches.

(j) Can the power necessary for change really reside in planning groups that offer only a small percentage of funds actually expended upon the criminal justice system?

(k) Need at State and local level for coordination with all agencies of government whose actions affect criminal justice operations.

(1) The absolute need for planning groups at the State, regional, and large city levels of government.

(m) The Federal Government can never adequately establish specific program priorities but should establish areas of emphasis.

2. Priority programs

(a) The myths of crime prevention and the causes of crime.

(b) The need to avoid use of scarce funds in anticrime programs for programs of general social and economic improvement.

(c) The need to focus upon reduction of crime, whether or not that involves funding of the criminal justice system.

(d) The need to avoid mere subsidy of existing system.

(e) The need to avoid dispersion of funds in too small quantities in too many different areas of activity.

(f) The need to join with other funding programs in order to have major impact.

(g) The need to focus upon the postarrest process.

(h) The need to provide actual services to criminal offenders if rehabilitation is ever to be a reality.

(i) The need to involve residents of high-victim communities in planning, operating, and evaluating criminal justice programs.

3. Creating change

(a) LEAA funds will never, by themselves and their programs, create permanent institutional change.

(b) Planning groups must focus upon all aspects of government and private activity that most directly affects the ability to change the system.

(1) Administrative policies of criminal justice agencies.

(2) Key personnel-selection and promotion.

(3) State, city, and county budget bureaus and legislative appropriations committees at State and local level.

(4) Civil service standards and recruitment.

(5) Court procedures.

(6) Availability of social services to criminal offenders.

(7) Legislation.

(8) Addiction treatment.

(9) Model cities.

(10) Employment offices and employment policies and disabilities.

(11) School system.

(12) Private industry and labor unions.

(13) Public education.

(c) The need to focus upon institutionalization of change at the grant program planning stage.

(d) The problem of narrow vision.

(e) Powerful forces opposing basic change.

(f) The absence of significant research.

4. Evaluation

(a) Requires agreement on goals. Such agreement has been difficult.

(b) The meaninglessness of project-by-project evaluation.

(c) The lack of good evaluators.

(d) The lack of standards for evaluation.

(e) Pressures on government generally to avoid honest evaluation and pressures on evaluators to soften the blow of failure.

(f) Failure as a necessary part of ultimate achievement and the inability of government to accept this principle.

(g) Public acceptance of experimental failure; compare public reaction to defense cost overruns with reaction to initial failure of ghetto rehabilitation programs.

(h) Problem of levels of evaluation, for example, patrol experiment successful when patrolman arrives at crime scene faster, solves more crimes in a district, reduces crime in that district, reduces public fear of crime in that district, or increases community satisfaction with police or is success a combination of two or more of these results?

(i) Lack of information systems in criminal justice makes evaluation an extremely costly item.

5. Technical assistance

(a) Need for States and cities to know the who, what, where, how, and why of good programs throughout the United States.

(b) Need for evaluation assistance.

(c) Need for assessment of performance by consultants.

(d) Need for technical assistance in planning major impact programs.

6. LEAA organization

(a) Cannot separate criminal justice and juvenile delinquency aid programs. (b) Need for uniform standards for statistics and information systems. (c) Need for more direct LEAA contact with the cities-hopefully, new regional emphasis will help in this matter.

(d) The need for continuity of organization.

(e) The need for a public-funded, privately based multidisciplinary research program with financial commitment comparable to Manhattan Project or NASA effort.

(f) Difficulty in obtaining information about pending projects-hopefully again, the regional emphasis will solve this problem.

(g) The need for block grants, either from LEAA or the States, to cities. 7. Bureaucratic problems

(a) In New York, we must go to three separate boards for approval of each project.

(b) Each of our projects from application stage to funding requires over 170 procedural steps.

(c) Need more emphasis on outside evaluation of project success and less emphasis upon preproject review by outside boards and agencies.

(d) Fiscal procedures assistance is most helpful to project directors at beginning of each project. Saves many bureaucratic problems as grant program proceeds.

(e) Difficulties in establishing satisfactory management information system. (f) More emphasis on site visits and less emphasis upon paper reports. (g) Bureaucratic problems mean that projects take too much time commencing after funding is approved and this causes unfortunate expenditure lags. (h) The need for a model Federal-State-local processing system.

8. The President's Crime Commission

(a) The need for regular updating of Crime Commission recommendations. (b) The need for more specificity.

(c) The need to preserve space for "radical" ideas in official documents. (d) The need to agree at least upon basic priorities.

Mr. RUTH. The suggestion by Mr. Rogovin that funding be halted for a while is one I find very disturbing, being from the largest city of the country with a population that amounts to the eighth largest State. We just went through a cycle of funding with the State where we had $8.9 million of funding applications and there was money only for $3.7 million of that. So we had to postpone over $5 million of our applications until the new block grant funding comes down in time.

for the November meeting of the State planning agency. So any idea that funds are plentiful and that we have time for a hiatus while we reexamine is one I find very disturbing.

Second, the thought that money abounds from the Federal Government in the criminal justice system is one I also find disturbing. I notice the fiscal year 1971 authorization for LEAA is $650 million. That is what we spend in New York City every year for our police department alone. We have a criminal justice budget in New York City of $850 million. The Federal funds that we received in the last 3 years would run the New York City criminal justice system for about 7 days. So the idea that we are rolling in money from the Federal Government in criminal justice is just not true as far as New York City is concerned.

Going through some of the major issues that I see, the planning mechanism is a very difficult one. There were originally thoughts that you could do 5-year plans and you could set goals that you are going to reduce juvenile delinquency by 23.2 percent in the next 5 years, et cetera, and the statistics and systems people would bring us the answers. I do not happen to think that kind of planning is possible and that has been reinforced tenfold by my 17 months experience in New York City.

You really have to look at the basic outlines in a city or State, where the criminal justice system stands, and you have to make a lot of guesses. You have to decide with the people in given agencies where money would be well used. You have to arrive at priorities, I think, on generalities. We do not yet have the kinds of information systems that permit very exact planning analyses.

In New York City when we looked at the system, we found that over 70 percent of the money from the city was going to police, and with a relatively small amount of Federal money, it made sense to us as a priority, a broad one, that over 80 percent of the Federal money should go to the rest of the system. In that judgment we gained the support of the police department because they are becoming frustrated by making arrests and seeing people walk away from the court and correction system. It is this kind of judgment you have to make.

I do not think we can be so grandiose in New York City that we are going to reduce juvenile delinquency by a percent 5 years from now because of the changing conditions that all the time occur. We isolate certain problems.

Again in New York City, the narcotics problem. I believe in use of Federal funds, if our objective is to reduce crime, which I believe is the objective of LEAA, rather than just to improve the criminal justice system, that money poured into narcotic addiction treatment most directly affects the level of criminality on the street, compared to any other approach. I suppose if we were going all the way, we would say we will put all our Federal money in narcotic treatment.

I do not think we can afford to do that. That is the kind of judgment you can make based on the fact that an addict on treatment is not going to commit a number of crimes during the coming year and you are directly affecting the level of criminality on the streets of a city. You can look at certain management difficulties in every agency. What we have tried to do in New York is build planning and monitoring management mechanisms in every agency. I think that again is a

good use of Federal funds. In the long run if each agency, be it the courts, corrections, police, probation, legal aid, narcotics treatment, whatever it is, if they have planning, research, evaluation, and monitoring capability in their own agency, that capability, when picked up in the regular city budget in a few years is going to be there forever, hopefully. In that way Federal funds have been used to spawn what in the long run can be a major reform in every agency of the criminal justice system.

In planning, you have certain personality difficulties because every agency, I think, at first views Federal money as something that is owed to them and they all have their own ideas of how it ought to be spent. I think it takes a while to get the idea of system planning, to get a police chief or commissioner at a table with a judge and a district attorney and a chief of probation and a chief of legal aid, and the head of the Department of Correction, and say, "Well, now, if we work together on something that improves the system, where would we get maximum impact?"

In New York City, Mayor Lindsay created his Criminal Justice Coordinating Council in 1967. Although the Federal funds were not available then there was a long history of sessions involving all members of the system at one table. That was very fortunate for me because at least there was that precedent of people sitting down and planning together. So a lot of the projects we have planned involve multiagency funding that spans the criminal justice system for an impact program.

In setting priorities, I think one default, I guess everywhere, is the inability to agree on three or four things that would have a major impact, and then have the guts to put all your money in those three or four things.

I think we are probably a bit away from that. To some extent we achieved that in New York City when the city and State agreed to put $7.5 million into narcotics courts, which is a major slug of money into one project where we hope to have a major impact, combined with funding for narcotics treatment.

I think we know all the difficulties in government. Model cities and pollution control have gone through it, and criminal justice. We all start out saying, let us put money into one, two, or three places to do this or that. Let us see if we can clean up the Passaic River or make a model city of this east or west coast city. Then when we find that out, we will have major funding and do it for a hundred rivers or cities. I think we all know what happens to those programs at the legislative stage. We end up with a little money for the hundred cities. We never achieve the concept of pouring our money into two or three kinds of programs and finding out if they work. This is the major problem, the lack of impact planning because of the dispersal of funds at the State and local level, so that everybody achieves a certain degree of satisfaction.

One final note on priority programs. One of the major dilemmas is trying to find out what is a prevention program, what is really a rehabilitation program: Are you dealing with the underlying causes of crime instead of directly reducing crime and improving the criminal justice system pending the major social changes? Are you really dealing with general economic and social gain rather than with the crime problem? I think the only way that we can avoid general

65-812-72-pt. 2- -3

funding of economic and social programs is to try to pitch ourselves to those kinds of activities which we think either (a) would have a direct effect on crime, such as narcotics treatment in itself, possibly without a relationship to the criminal justice system, or (b) to build into the criminal justice system the kind of mechanism, be it management, planning, or whatever, which will lead people in the system to thinking in a different way, together with other parts of the system, of how they can actually operate to reduce crime. I think if those two approaches are taken, one is never faced with the issue of getting applications that have just to do with general social and economic improvement. From the lesson we have learned, I am not sure that is going to be much of a problem anymore. I think a few mistakes have been made along that line, but I think that lesson has been learned. If I may just talk a little about whether LEAA funds can really create a change in the system, I think the level of funding is much too small for one thing, if we are talking about fundamental change. This does not necessarily say the Federal Government ought to be a permanent majority funder of local and State criminal justice. It is just a statement of fact. A little bit of money does not give you much power. It is a political fact. If that kind of power is going to be exercised to change the system, the Federal money has to be combined with other kinds of power in the State and local planning agencies. They cannot be mere planning agencies just for the expenditure of these moneys. They literally have to be the planning agencies for changes in the criminal justice system, be it programs that have something to do with Federal funding, or programs that have nothing to do with Federal funding.

I think that is a lesson that is going to be hard for people in the system to accept, and perhaps for people at the State and local level to accept. Fortunately, my boss, Mayor Lindsay, promotes that concept and our Executive order gives the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council wider powers than mere planning for expenditure of the Federal funds.

Consequently, we work with almost every agency in the City that bears directly and in an important way on criminal justice and the level of crime. We help put together the legislative program in the city in the area of criminal justice, which in some cases can be much more important than funding programs.

We work with the Model Cities Administration to develop joint programs and try to get more of model cities money into the criminal justice area.

We work on some of the civil service problems, which I think will come to the fore in the next few years as one of the major problems in improvement of criminal justice.

The frozen civil service system needs a lot of attention and has nothing to do with funding except funding of certain kinds of studies that direct themselves to how you change the civil service system which was a reaction to the corruption of the 19th Century and now it is a self-perpetuating organization.

Mr. MONAGAN. That is another problem, though.

Mr. RUTH. That is a major problem. If you are going to pour your money into a lot of programs, Mr. Chairman, where an organization is frozen, those funds, I say, would be mainly wasted, except for temporary improvement.