4. Finally, one must remember that efforts to solve

social problems typically result in knowledge that
the problem was worse than we thought, and that

the solutions are more difficult than we ever

imagined.

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.

The

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.

And,

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.

Although Part E addresses the whole area of correctional

needs, it does so in a rather fuzzy manner; it should be clarified

and sharpened.

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

state concern.

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.

Some jurisdictions--and

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 arrangement.

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

continued.

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.

The Commission.

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

offender.

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

and progressive.

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:

corrections; and

8.

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

out corrections.

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

universities.

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

unities to

stay out of trouble, and to progress as individuals within communit

settings. Again, providing that such programs are properly funded