For New York City inmates, the Otisville site offers inexpensive, convenient visiting for their families. Eight express buses travel the 11⁄2-hour trip daily between Middletown and New York City. In addition, there are 10 local bus trips scheduled and, consequently, buses are available at least every hour. The round-trip fare is $10.50. Rail service is also available between Otisville and Hoboken, N.J., twice daily, with available subway connections directly into Manhattan. The train trip takes 1 hour and 52 minutes and the round-trip fare is $6.95. Essential to any institution is a competent, well-trained staff. The Otisville area has a distinct advantage for the recruitment of staff, if the experience of the New York State Drug Rehabilitation Center is any indicator. This facility was adjacent to our proposed site and was readily able to recruit a staff including 32 percent minority employees. Adequate housing is available for staff in the town of Mt. Hope, in Middletown, Newburgh, or Port Jervis, and larger communities within a radius of 30 miles. Not inconsequential are the economic benefits the region will derive from this project. Orange County, wherein Otisville is located, had a 9.9 percent overall unemployment rate in February of this year. Even more significant is the fact that in the construction trades, unemployment ranges from 65 to 80 percent. This project will bring in much needed employment for the construction industry in the short term, in addition to long-term jobs. Because there is a clearly demonstrated need by the Federal Government for new prison facilities and a local need with wholehearted acceptance for the Otisville institution, I urge your favorable consideration of this proposal and the entire construction budget of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to interject in this important hearing. Senator PASTORE. Thank you, Congressman Gilman. STATEMENT OF MS. BETTY ADAMS, CHAIRPERSON, YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CLUSTER, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF OR- Ms. Adams. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Youth Development Cluster of the National Council of Organizations for Children and Youth, I am pleased to accept your invitation to testify in support of funding for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. With a combined membership of over 150 National, State, and local private organizations, the National Council of Organizations for Children and Youth has as its primary goal the improvement in the quality of life for all children and youth. Its fundamental commitment is to the promotion of adequate family living standards and of familyoriented services to foster the health, education and well-being of children and youth. For fiscal year 1977, we are requesting that this act be funded for $100 million. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 is probably the most significant piece of Federal legislation to address troubled youth of the last decade. Simply, its aim is to extend and expand justice for children. It requires States to remove youth convicted of status offensesbehaviors that are not law violations for adults, runaways, truants, incorrigibles-from their prisons and detention facilities. It encourages States to engage in programs to prevent youth from entering the justice system in the first place. The act gives the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration the authority to assist States in these reforms of their juvenile justice systems with critically needed Federal funds. Forty-four States and two territories have agreed to institute these major reforms. By August 1, 1977, they will have "deinstitutionalized" status offenders and will stop trying to "help" them by placing them in prison and detention. Fiscal year 1977 is the most critical year for getting the necessary resources into the States to make these reforms a reality. The uncertainty of the level of Federal support for these needed reforms has already had a negative impact. First, the Administration requests no funds, then the President requests a deferral of funds and, finally, requests only $10 million. This has seriously damaged States' planning efforts in implementing these reforms. With uncertain funding, the States are uncertain of what they can accomplish. More seriously, States who have already committed themselves to reform, North Carolina and Maine, among others, are now questioning the seriousness of the Federal support and considering withdrawing from the program. Furthermore, those States not participating in the act cite inadequate Federal support as a primary reason. No one knows exactly how many youth are locked up each year. LEAA date from 1971 report over 600,000 were locked up, mostly in detention. The average daily population of young people in jails was between 12,000 and 13,000. Other surveys have consistently shown that about 75 percent of females and about 25 percent of males are locked up for status offenses. The funding of the act is not coddling anybody. It is taking youth out of prisons and detention centers who never should have been there in the first place, and providing treatment for them in their communities. These funds appropriated for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act are not for brick and mortar and are not for hardware. The funds put people to work on critical needs. The act envisions putting people, particularly young people, to work helping other young people. During the 15 months of fiscal year 1976, LEAA will receive and obligate $75 million under this act. In the last 3 weeks of fiscal year 1975, the Congress appropriated $25 million for the act, which LEAA obligated during fiscal year 1976. For fiscal year 1976, the Congress appropriated $40 million to the act. The transitional quarter adds almost $10 million, for a total of $75 million that LEAA will receive and obligate in fiscal year 1976. An appropriation level of $75 million in fiscal year 1977 for the act would only maintain the status quo. An appropriation level of $75 million in fiscal year 1977 for this act-half the amount the act authorizes-is essential if these 44 States and 2 territories are to mount effective programs. Mr. Chairman, as one of the supporters of this act, you are certainly aware of the overwhelming support it received in both the Senate, 88-1, and the House, 329-20. The act has an equally widespread base of support among the public and private sectors who work with youth. The administration, as you know, has not been supportive. The administration did not request any funds for the act in the first 2 years, and now asks only $10 million. The Congress removed this legislation from HEW and placed it in LEAA-in part because HEW was spending only $10 million per year, a level of effort that Congress found totally inadequate. The administration's other arguments have also fallen by the wayside. First, they said that they could not "responsibly" spend any amount of funds on a new program, while LEAA geared up to start its efforts. Under the leadership of Milton Luger, Assistant Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, whose appointment was confirmed by the Senate early last fall, LEAA has done a commendable and responsible job committing its funds to these needed reforms. The administration also argues that no new funds are needed under this act because of funds spent under the Safe Streets Act. At the same time, however, it has worked successfully to eliminate the maintenance of effort requirement on the Safe Streets Act, which required LEAA to continue to fund juvenile justice programs under Safe Streets Act. The following appropriations level appears to have these results: $10 million level, support that has been demonstrated as inadequate; $40 million level, serious and damaging cutbacks in current and future efforts; $75 million level, maintains current level of available resources; $100 million level, allows some expansion of youth services as youth crime rise continues. Historically, it has been Federal support that has produced the necessary change and innovation in services to young people. Youth crime and its prevention must be addressed locally. Federal money is critical to starting those reforms this year. The deinstitutionalization of status offenders is the most comprehensive prevention effort against juvenile justice systems that the Federal Government has ever embarked upon. It demands your support now. We urge you to fund the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act for $100 million. STATEMENT OF CAROL S. VANCE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HARRIS COUNTY, TEX. Senator PASTORE. Next we will hear from Mr. Carol S. Vance, District Attorney, Harris County, Tex. Mr. Vance must catch an afternoon plane. Please proceed, Mr. Vance. Mr. VANCE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear before you today representing the National District Attorneys' Association as well as my own elected office to urge that block grant funds and discretionary funds of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration be increased and not decreased. From 18 years' experience as a prosecutor, a former president of the National District Attorneys' Association, and a continuous member of the Governor's Advisory Committee for Criminal Justice Grants since the inception of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, I would like to share with you several valid reasons why the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration needs your support and increased funding. In recent weeks the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has been under vicious attack and unfounded criticism. Basically, opponents say the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has spent billions and not solved the crime problem. This may make good copy, but is not worthy of any merit. To place these criticisms in their proper perspective, we must remember that all of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration dollars amount to less than 5 percent of total local and State expenditures on criminal justice. Considering the profound nature of human frailty and the existing complexities of overloaded criminal justice agencies, no reasonable human could expect to reverse the soaring growth of crime with relatively few dollars, regardless of the wisdom of the expenditures. Insofar as resources have permitted, I submit that the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has succeeded. There has been an impact on the incidents of crime and just as important, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration approach has greatly improved the quality of criminal justice in this country. In many instances, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration funds have averted disaster in our criminal justice system by relieving the overload of demands on police, prosecutorial, judicial, and correctional institutions. Let me illustrate from the prosecutor's standpoint how Law Enforcement Assistance Administration programs have improved criminal justice, averted disaster, and reduced crime in the face of contrary national trends. DISCRETIONARY GRANTS Discretionary grants benefiting prosecutors' offices are too numerous to mention, but a few examples are as follows. Under Law Enforcement Assistance Administration funds, the National College of District Attorneys was established. Although, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has maintained a fine national law enforcement academy for years, and most State and big city police agencies train well, there has been a complete void in prosecutor training until the establishment of the National College of District Attorneys and the establishment of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration funded State training and educational programs for prosecutors in most of our States. Prosecutors are now receiving training for the first time through opportunities such as the National College which is sponsored by the National College of District Attorneys, the American Bar Association and American College of Trial Lawyers. Discretionary funding has provided for career criminal programs in 18 prosecutors' offices in the Nation. We have such a program in Houston where professional and dangerous criminal types are given much more attention by our career criminal prosecutor team. Since the institution of the program, most of the defendants have been armed robbers, and the incidents of robbery in Houston have dropped approximately 25 percent. Tougher bail requirements, shorter time between arrest and trial, and average sentences of over 25 years have had a marked effect. We have had the resources to concentrate on those defendants most skilled in postponing cases, intimidating witnesses, and in general, beating the system. Another most successful project is the economic crimes grant to 15 prosecutors' offices where additional manpower was made available to organize a staff of prosecutors who can specialize in the prosecution of consumer frauds and white collar crimes. Con-men and thieves who used to skip from town to town and State to State and elude the State and local investigational officials are now being brought to justice in large numbers by prosecutors who, through a central resource facility, exchange information about known con-artists and schemes. Information exchange has proved invaluable in a very difficult and complex area of law enforcement. Another discretionary grant is innovative, but practical, and tends to the long neglected needs of witnesses and victims who are often more abused and inconvenienced by our criminal justice system than indicted defendants. Although our office is not a participant in this grant, we hope to begin a program soon based on the blueprints of previous successes. BLOCK GRANT FUNDS Here, priorities are determined by local councils and State planning councils as provided by Law Enforcement Assistance Administration guidelines. Since the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration does not dictate in any way to State and local grantees, the planning that must occur when criminal justice agencies sit around the table discussing problems and make tough priority decisions is a real milestone in the history and progress of local justice agencies. Prior to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, there was little coordination and even less understanding of each other's problems and functions. Now agencies are coming to realize that all must pull together for a just and effective enforcement of the law, and further, that the chain is only as strong as the weakest link with the trend being that the highest priority will go to the weaker parts of the system. Block grant planning and State plans are excellent ideas, and we have been fortunate in the expertise of the staff of our State justice agency. Through coordination of the local units of government and State plans, our office has received grants to begin a division which deals with the prosecution of organized crime and major frauds. After several years of operation, our local unit of government, the county, has picked up most of the personnel so that today we can vigorously pursue auto theft rings (one $6 million ring recently), hired killing conspirators, narcotic traffickers, burglar rings, receivers in stolen goods and organized gambling and prostitution activities. Also, for the first time, we have had manpower to investigate complex business frauds, embezzlement, and the like. Generally, local law enforcement agencies have no certified public accountants or attorneys to investigate complex schemes involving bank and business records. We fill a very necessary purpose which several years ago went undone for lack of expertise and manpower. There are two points to stress here: (1) the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grant enabled us to perform vital services which otherwise would have been neglected, and (2) the county now has taken over financially. The |