« 이전계속 »
4. Finally, one must remember that efforts to solve
social problems typically result in knowledge that
the solutions are more difficult than we ever
Turning now to the correctional agencies of the United
States and the needs within the broader criminal justice
system, it is clear that we have learned "the hard way" that
the support of corrections is as vital to the reduction of
crime as the support of law enforcement and the courts.
first Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968) gave little
thought to corrections.
Since that time, an awareness has
grown that effective crime control will come about through the
modernization of all aspects of the criminal justice system-
and, of course,
at every level of government.
In 1971, Part E funds, earmarked for correctional programs,
were added to the LEAA authorization by the Congress.
since that time, over one billion dollars in block, discretionary,
and technical assistance support have been allocated to both
juvenile and adult corrections.
One billion dollars is a great
deal of money.
Over this same time period, federal, state, and
local corrections throughout the Country, have spent approximately
12 & 1/2 billion dollars.
Thus, LEAA's investment has been less
than 10% of a total amount of money required to operate the
the national correctional apparatus.
And if we mean what we
say about modernizing corrections as a tool to reduce crime,
significantly more resources are going to be required from both
LEAA and local governments.
70-425 0 - 76 - 22
Although Part E addresses the whole area of correctional
needs, it does so in a rather fuzzy manner; it should be clarified
Provision is made for the development of regional
planning agencies in communities of over 250,000 which meet the
requirements of being metropolitan areas and/or being of inter
Yet this is not the only place where the crying need exists.
Cities, counties and local government frequently don't have the
planning capacity to do a good job.
they are most frequently those in rural or sparsely populated
areas-- have no planners at all, and certainly no grantsmen who
could help them obtain the funding for planners.
Their needs are
nonekthe-less as real, and their problems as urgent as those of
the more metropolitan areas.
Even when planners exist, under
the present system they often find themselves with multiple
assignments working simultaneously for justice courts, councils
of government, county commissioners, and many other separate and
discrete agencies and units.
Any consideration of Title I changes
should make possible relief to these problems.
The basic conceptualization of a single federal authority,
providing assistance both in funding and in technological advice
to a single central planning authority in each state, in turn
providing services to all state and local components of criminal
justice, seems to be working admirably.
Reports from many state
administrators indicate basic satisfaction with and support of
The formal position of the National Governors'
Conference with regard to Crime Reduction and Public Safety strongly
supports continuance of the arrangement; the Association of State
Correctional Administrators, an affiliate of the ACA, generally
supports the National Governors' Conference in its position.
LEAA and its officials have been doing, and are continuing to do
a tremendous job in giving help and cooperation to those of us
who labor in the corrections field.
In any consideration of LEAA itself, or of the statutory base
upon which it is founded, there is a long list of specific and
general considerations which must receive account.
One of these
is the relative merit of block grants vs. discretionary funding.
It is the essential stand of ACA, that block grants should be
We should shy away from any move to have the federal
government deal directly with non-state jurisdictions or indi
vidual agencies, on programs and plans.
Such a move would very
quickly prove to be defeating of the very purposes which the
Congress through LEAA, set out to address.
The concept of
block grants to single State Planning Agencies has been richly
demonstrated to be a successful one.
It has helped in assuring
development of state-wide comprehensive, integrated planning,
and in fostering cooperative, broadspan program efforts.
Negotiating directly with individual agencies would promptly
destroy this teamwork approach.
Spending would become a fiscal
and program game of catch-as-catch can; individualized, self
seeking uncoordinated local efforts would supplant area-wide,
systemwide, planned approaches to issues and concerns.
Several developmental areas in corrections have been aided
significantly by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
The National Clearinghouse for Criminal Justice Planning and
Architecture, serving the entire field of criminal justice, has
already played an extremely important role in master planning
in the correctional field.
LEAA has also supported the American Correctional Association
in the Association's efforts to implement an accreditation program
for all agencies in the correctional continuum.
on Accreditation for Corrections, implemented in 1974, will develop
and apply national standards throughout the field in an accredi
tation program designed to increase public protection and to
improve the quality of care and rehabilitation of the criminal
For the very first time, correctional agencies
throughout the Country will be able to measure their performance
against nationally accepted standards which are both realistic
Without LEAA leadership, this major national
effort would still be on the Association's drawing boards.
Grants not only to our Association, but also to the National
Council on Crime and Delinquency, University of Georgia, the
American Justice Institute, and the National Institute of
Corrections, hold great promise in the search for better solutions
to a most difficult problem.
Following are a few of these additional major efforts:
Conduction of surveys and studies in the areas
of correctional economics.
The Law Enforcement Education Program (LEEP) also holds
tremendous promise for the development of new leadership through
These funds have, for the first time, implemented
long-held beliefs that corrections must develop new and strong
leadership through participation by the nation's colleges and
Corrections has not yet felt the impact of LEEP
funds--but soon will.
In addition, over the past year, approxi
mately 77% of these funds were allocated to law enforcement.
Corrections, in this instance, needs more, not less, such support.
At the present time, most corrections agencies have good in-servi
training programs, but completely lack the pre-service training
previously supported through LEEP funds.
LEAA support of community programs in corrections has been cleatly commendable. . Some 80% of LEAA support of corrections
last year was devoted to this aspect of the correctional continuum.
Community programs are, of course, most effective in providing to
non-dangerous and non-violent offenders real oppo
stay out of trouble, and to progress as individuals within communit
settings. Again, providing that such programs are properly funded
and supervised, the tax-payer benefits through greatly reduced
costs and, of course, the avoidance of debilitating effects of
All of us would like to believe that most offenders can be
supervised in community programs.
Unfortunately, there are
many offenders who are simply too dangerous and too violent to
be supervised and assisted in the community.