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. continued. 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 individual 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, selfseeking 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 the correctional field. in 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 develor and apply national standards throughout the field in an accreditation 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: 1. An assessment of the overall effectiveness of 2. 3. 5. 6. juvenile corrections; An examination and revitalization of prison industries; A study of total manpower needs; The establishment of national standards and goals; The further development of medical services for both jails and institutional medical programs for A survey of needs in correctional education and training; 7. Development of seminars on legal services within 8. corrections; and 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 throughout 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, approximately 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 clearly 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 opportunities to 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 confinement. 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. These individuals present us with no alternative to confinement and, thus, LEAA'S continued support of efforts to make our institutions more humane and more effective must be encouraged--not discouraged. As indicated earlier in this testimony, there are no simple solutions to the most difficult and exasperating problem of criminal behavior. We must provide protection to the community. We must do our best to assist the criminal offender. Both in stitutional and community programs require continued financial support, and are both resolved to develop the kinds of policies, procedures, and practices that will maximize our performance. At the present time, our jails, training schools, penitentiaries, and prisons are bulging at the sides. On the community side, probation caseloads of 100 offenders represent no probation at all. It is going to be through only continued financial support at all levels of government that any hope resides to effectively "turn the corner" in corrections, and to give the field a reasonable opportunity to combat the problem. To fail to do this would undoubtedly promote increased prison violence, increased street violence, and an inevitably losing battle against crime. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has been striving to bring about some semblance of coordination and effectiveness to what has otherwise been a disjointed, ineffective, and inefficient criminal justice system. The LEAA has also tried to educate and enlighten an apathetic society as to its long-term interest in effective rehabilitation and crime control, as opposed to the totally simplistic notion that punishment alone is a solution to the problem. Many citizens now know that approximately 96% of all offenders confined today will, within a short period of roughly four years, be back on our stree The kinds of questions we must ask are: "What kinds of people are they going to be?" "Will they have emerged from confinement with real alternatives to street crime?" "Or, will they have merely passed through an overcrowded, ineffective, and inefficient revolving door?" Following are some recommendations for your consideration: 1. The LEAA must be continued and strengthened. 2. LEAA must be given the highest priority available 3. 4. with reference to budget and overall resources. Part E funds, those monies specifically designated The current provision that 10% of LEAA support are often precluded from obtaining LEAA support. The heart of the LEAA program nationally is, of course, a stimulation of appropriate planning, action, and research throughout the criminal justice system. And the LEAA has made great strides in building an organized plan of attack on crime throughout the Country. In addition, the agency's increased emphasis on research, monitoring and assessing the impact of its funds are both necessary and commendable. Yet, in the face of this growing capacity and understanding within LEAA to grapple with the crime problem, LEAA's own administrative budget has been reduced substantially. It is unfortunate. corrected immediately. Hopefully, this can be It is the fond hope of the Association and its membership that the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration will continue |