another in the Department of Justice. I do not think we have to use LEAA funds for that.

Mr. MONAGAN. I am talking about part E of the act which is the grant for correctional institutions and facilities. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. RUTH. Yes, sir; I see the prime use of the part E money to develop a system of community corrections and job development and placement and followthrough, the so-called aftercare. I would like to see the concept of 1 year of care after release from correction supervision as being a recognized part of the correction system.

Mr. MONAGAN. This is specially related to programs for the construction, acquisition, and renovation of correctional institutions and facilities, and for the improvement of correctional programs and practices.

Mr. RUTH. Yes, sir; but the guidelines issued by LEAA under that do not really permit the use of the funds for major construction. The LEAA guidelines under part E point the way toward the community correction program which I think is wise.

Mr. MONAGAN. You have spoken about helicopters. Is that a status symbol in the police departments today?

Mr. RUTH. It certainly was a couple of years ago. I do not know whether they have a new one or not.

Mr. MONAGAN. Is it anything like the Lincoln convertibles that the Ambassadors in the U.N. have?

Mr. RUTH. I do not know, sir. I must confess we all have our status symbols.

Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ruth. We really appreciate your coming.

Mr. RUTH. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MONAGAN. Gentlemen, we did have one other witness, Mr. Neil Lamont, who is the director of the Commission on Law Enforcement of the State of Louisiana. Yesterday we had a telegram from him saying that he was unable to attend because of an emergency. I understand there is some sort of difficulty in the prison down in New Orleans. We are trying at the present time to find just when it will be possible for him to be here. When we do, we would like to have an opportunity to hear from him. That is all we have today and we will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, October 6, 1971.)

THE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAMS OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

(Part 2)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

LEGAL AND MONETARY AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
in room

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:00 a.m., 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John S. Monagan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives John S. Monagan, Dante B. Fascell, Fernand J. St Germain, and Charles Thone.

Also present: Richard L. Still, staff director: Charles A. Intriago, counsel; Jeremiah S. Buckley, counsel; William C. Lynch, staff investigator; Andrew G. Marek, staff auditor; Frances M. Turk, clerk; Jane Cameron, assistant clerk; and J. P. Carlson, minority counsel, Committee on Government Operations.

Mr. MONAGAN. The subcommittee will be in order.

At the start of this program in mid-1968, it was apparent that many to be identified and met before the more ambitious goals envisioned for the block grant programs of LEAA could be achieved. Today the subcommittee will review the programs of two States relating to the improvement of the communications capabilities of law enforcement agencies. Both the States of Arkansas and Wisconsin have made a large commitment of their respective block grants to the development and acquisition of comprehensive communications networks which entail the funding of literally hundreds of communications equipment projects for which Federal funds in excess of $2 million have thus far been spent in these two States alone. To assist in its review of this subject the subcommittee has and will receive pertinent information from suppliers of this equipment.

While the decisions of these States to devote a certain proportion of block grant funds to the purchase of communications equipment are not specifically the subject of inquiry by this subcommittee, except insofar as they relate to the comprehensiveness and definitiveness of their action programs, the evaluation and procurement procedures are, since they relate to the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of this aspect of the block grant program. Moreover, they relate to a whole range of other program efforts by these and other States where the purchase of services or equipment is involved.

(509)

With us this morning is the director of the Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justice, Mr. Walter Kelly. We are pleased to have you with us.

(Following is the letter of invitation to testify directed to Mr. Kelly by Chairman Monagan :)

SEPTEMBER 20, 1971.

Mr. WALTER KELLY, Director, Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justice, State Capitol, Madison, Wis. DEAR MR. KELLY: On Wednesday, October 6, 1971 at 10 a.m., the Subcommittee on Legal and Monetary Affairs of the House Committee on Government Operations will conduct hearings on the operations of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the Department of Justice. The subcommittee will receive testimony from appropriate State officials on the administration of the law enforcement assistance programs in a number of States, of which Wisconsin will be

one.

The subcommittee invites you to appear and give testimony at the aforementioned date and time in room 2247 of the Rayburn House Office Building. It is requested that you submit 40 copies of a prepared statement to the subcommittee office no later than Friday, October 1, 1971.

The subcommittee is primarily interested in the following matters which you are requested to treat in your prepared statement and testimony:

(1) The size and composition of the staff and supervisory board of the Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justice since inception;

(2) Preparation and review of the State's comprehensive plan particularly components entitled, "Improvement of Detection and Apprehension of Criminals";

(3) The policies of your council with regard to programs and projects designed to upgrade law enforcement communications and the priorities established for funding communications equipment requests;

(4) The application process required to be followed by subgrantees which submit requests for funding of communications equipment projects;

(5) The competitive bidding and other procurement requirements that your State or council impose upon subgrantees which seek funds for the purchase of communications equipment;

(6) The fiscal and audit controls which your council maintains to assure efficient and economical procurement of communications equipment;

(7) The amount and percentage of block action grant funds awarded which your State has allotted toward the purchase of communications equipment; (8) The technical assistance which the council has provided to subgrantees in the evaluation and procurement of communications equipment; and

(9) The technical assistance which LEAA has provided to the council in the area of communications technology and equipment. During your appearance before the subcommittee you will be requested to discuss the application, approval, funding, monitoring and other actions that were taken by the council and subgrantees with regard to the following communications equipment projects:

You are requested to bring with you copies of documents, records, and correspondence relating to said projects.

I would appreciate your confirming your appearance at the aforementioned time and place at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN S. MONAGAN, Chairman.

STATEMENT OF WALTER F. KELLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WISCONSIN COUNCIL ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MONAGAN. You have a statement, sir, I believe?

Mr. KELLY. Yes, I do.

Mr. MONAGAN. Do you wish to proceed with that statement? Mr. KELLY. I would like to make some comments supplemental to the statement in line with it, if I might.

Mr. MONAGAN. Very well.

(Relevant supplemental materials to Mr. Kelly's prepared statement appear at pp. 575-585. Other materials appended to Mr. Kelly's statement are in the files of the subcommittee and may be inspected upon request.)

Mr. Kelly's prepared statement follows:

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WALTER F. KELLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

WISCONSIN COUNCIL ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE

This statement is prepared pursuant to the request of Chairman John S. Monagan of the Legal and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, received by me on September 23, 1971.

On September 29, 1971, the subcommittee's counsel indicated to me that I need not be accompanied by the two Wisconsin sheriffs whose appearances were requested in the chairman's letter of September 23, 1971. The subcommittee's counsel did, however, request that, to the extent possible, I be prepared to articulate the needs of "frontline law enforcement personnel."

Subject to that modification, this statement and my testimony will track with the chairman's letter of Sepember 23, 1971.

(1) Size and composition of the staff and supervisory board of the Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justice, since inception.

The subcommittee's counsel has received a copy of the 1971 State criminal justice improvement plan for Wisconsin. I will provide further copies of the plan at the hearing. The structural history of the council and its staff for the period from its inception in February of 1969 until mid-1971 is described and defined at pages 488-528 thereof.

In 1971 Wisconsin experienced a change of administration within its executive branch, which has resulted in changes in the structure of the council and its staff. Those changes are as follows: (a) a new council has been appointed; (b) the task force on juvenile delinquency has been discontinued; (c) a task force on offender rehabilitation has been created; (d) a citizens' study committee on judicial organization has been created; (e) a new executive director and additional staff have been hired; (f) the staff has been strengthened to reflect a growing emphasis on correctional and court priorities; and (g) the council and its task force, citizen's committee, and staff have been returned to the executive office from the justice department. Attached hereto as exhibits A, B, C, and D are, respectively, the Governor's executive order returning the council to the executive office, the members of the council appointed by the Governor and his charge to them, the Governor's charge to the task force on offender rehabilitation, and the Governor's charge to the citizens' study committee on judicial organization.

(2) Preparation and review of the State's comprehensive plan, particularly components entitled "Improvement of Detection and Apprehension of Criminals".

See pages 514-515 of the plan, which describes the preparation and review of the State's plan. The preparation and review of the 1972 plan are presently underway with some changes: (a) the task force on offender rehabilitation is adding its input to the corrections area of the plan; (b) the citizen study committee on judicial organization is adding its input to the courts area of the plan; (c) the regional planning agencies are submitting program requests and not comprehensive plans; and (d) a complete data survey of approximately 400 local criminal justice agencies will add more data to the entire plan.

Programs 22–26 reflect a substantial input from the Wisconsin Justice Department, as well as from the sources previously described. The regional bloc grant system described in program 22 was created by the former Executive Director of the Council at the request of the regional planners and was approved by the previous Council. The new Council has discussed the continuation of the system, but no decision has yet been made respecting that issue. All matters of policy, as well as budgetary priorities, are to be considered by the Council at its October 20, 1971, meeting. Program 25 reflects substantial input from the communications task force. Program 26 is an area of growing importance on both national, State, and local levels. It is an area of the utmost importance, sensitivity and concern to me, and it is my recommendation that Wisconsin as well as this Congress consider carefully the nature, extent, purposes and effects of criminal justice data banks. It should be a major concern of the U.S. Congress that substantial tax moneys will be expended in this area.

(3) Policies of Council regarding law enforcement communications and funding priorities.

The communications task force functions as the technical advisory arm of the Council in the area of police communications. It has been in existence since 1969, and was established to study police communication needs in the State and to establish an equipment system to meet these needs. The task force was appointed by the former Council Chairman with the concurrence of the whole Council, based upon the recommendations of the former Executive Director and his staff.

The communications task force accomplishments to date include the development of a Wisconsin police communications plan, which outlines the goals, priorities, and guidelines for each agency to follow in building up its communication system. The committee further established the Wisconsin Police Emergency Radio Network (WISPERN). This State emergency frequency [155,475] will be available for statewide emergency use as soon as each local police agency is adequately equipped to reach it. Rules governing membership in the highband WISPERN network are at present being drafted.

The task force established several goals. One was the establishment of at least one teletype unit in every county-a goal it has already attained. The main purpose of such an endeavor is to provide a direct on-line means of communicating with the crime information bureau for quick information on criminal histories and fingerprints. In the area of radio communications, it is attempting the conversion of base radio stations from low-band to high-band frequencies. The advantages of high-band (prevention of ionospheric skip and better penetration) make it desirable as a general communications band. The need for establishing high-band systems in the State increased when it was decided that the State emergency frequency would be high band. In 1969. 15 of Wisconsin's 72 counties operated on a high-band system, including Milwaukee. Today, that number has risen to 48 with the aid of safe streets funds.

In addition to the extreme technical work done in frequency allocations and Kh considerations. the task force initiated the system of personal radios for enforcement personnel in Milwaukee (PREP).

Attached hereto as exhibits E. F, and G are documents relevant to this area. (4) The application process for communications equipment projects. The application is submitted to the regional planning agency, reviewed by its staff and policy group, recommended or not to the Council, submitted to the Council, reviewed by its staff specialist, referred to the communications task force. submitted to the Council with staff recommendations and task force recommendations.

(5) Bidding and other procurement requirements for purchase of communications equipment.

The previous Executive Director of the Council, with the apparent knowledge of the Wisconsin attorney general took the position that local government should determine the process for the procurement of equipment. See exhibits H, I, J, and K attached hereto. My best estimate, based on recent discussions with local officials relayed to me by the Council's director of grant administration. is that approximately 50 percent of the dollars spent are based on bids and 60 percent on "good management" selection processes. At my request, the Governor has ordered the temporary suspension of funds granted but not yet released for communications equipment purchases, until full consideration may be given to the wisdom of imposing State competitive bidding requirements or of centralizing the purchase of equipment.