the U.S. district court. The facility is severely limited both in terms of size and availability. Senator MCCLELLAN. You say in the Baltimore area, do you include Washington, D.C., in that? Mr. CARLSON. No. The offenders from the District of Columbia are housed in the District of Columbia jail at Lorton operated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. It is a separate organization. Senator MCCLELLAN. I think from the reports, it is very crowded, too. Mr. CARLSON. Yes, it is, Senator. Senator MCCLELLAN. You need more facilities almost everywhere, don't you? Mr. CARLSON. That is correct, sir. CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL PRISONS: LONG RANGE PLANS Senator MCCLELLAN. It seems to me that you should consider a 10year program, of how many facilities you could build this year and next year, so it doesn't hit us at once, giving priority each year to one or two here or there or whichever we can afford. I think in view of this situation, maybe you should get up a plan, a tentative plan, at least something like that, and submit it so we can get an idea of what we are going to have to do and what we should do over a period of the next decade, say. Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, last November, the President requested that we do exactly this, develop a 10-year plan. Senator MCCLELLAN. Have you done that? Mr. CARLSON. We are presently working on the plan. I might add that the proposals in this year's budget are fully consistent with our 10-year plan. Senator MCCLELLAN. You haven't finished the plan? Mr. CARLSON. No. We are certain what we are asking for this year will be consistent with our long-range needs. Senator MCCLELLAN. Are there any other questions? Senator Smith? HOUSE ACTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION ITEMS Senator SMITH. I understand you to say that you didn't know why the House did not approve the item. Do you think it might be because it was not given a high enough priority by the Budget Bureau or perhaps you did not make it clear that you were simply figuring the design from now on? Mr. CARLSON. Senator Smith, I was appointed Director after the House appropriations hearing. I was not present and am not able to answer that question. Senator MCCLELLAN. The House put in the Chicago item last year, didn't they, and we took it out over here. Is that right? Mr. CARLSON. No. It was put in by the House this year, in the 1971 request. Senator HRUSKA. That was only for planning? Mr. CARLSON. That is correct, Senator. Senator MCCLELLAN. It wasn't in the House bill last year? PRIORITY OF APPEAL ITEMS Senator SMITH. Would you for the record supply the highest priority items that you have talked about? Mr. CARLSON. Yes, Senator Smith, we will. Senator MCCLELLAN. The highest out of the four you mean, Senator, that you are appealing? (The information follows:) 1st Priority-Medical Facility, Butner, N.C. 2nd Priority-Metropolitan Correctional Center, San Francisco, Calif. 3rd Priority-Facilities for Women, Western area. 4th Priority-Metropolitan Correctional Center, Baltimore, Md. area. NEW YORK DETENTION HEADQUARTERS Senator HRUSKA. Have construction funds been allowed for the New York detention headquarters in the present 1971 budget? Mr. CARLSON. Yes. Senator HRUSKA. To what extent? Mr. CARLSON. $15 million. IMPORTANCE OF FACILITY AT BUTNER, N.C. Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Chairman, I do hope that some progress can be made with Butner. It was just 10 years ago now, I went into it quite in depth. The need was urgent then. It is more dire now. The Springfield facility is 40 years old now and it doesn't serve the purpose. To have a 20,000 population with only 20 psychiatrists and in a population where psychiatrists are so much more needed percentagewise than in general population, is very, very deplorable. There can be a lot of preventive and a lot of rehabilitative work done in psychiatry with prisoners. Butner is very high on the list. I hope on your list it is, Mr. Carlson. Mr. CARLSON. It certainly is, Senator Hruska. Senator HRUSKA. I hope this committee and Congress will see eye to eye with you on that. It is long overdue. Senator MCCLELLAN. Are there any other questions? Senator HRUSKA. I have an observation. This is the first appearance of the new director here before us since his confirmation and swearing in. He has had a fine, fine career so far. We hope that what he embarked upon just recently will continue to broaden out to result in even better results than he had attained before. Mr. CARLSON. Thank you, Senator. Senator MCCLELLAN. We all join in that sentiment, I am sure. Do you get reports, do you have the statistical information on the population of the State prisons? Mr. CARLSON. No, we don't, Senator. This is one of the areas that is very badly needed. Senator MCCLELLAN. I tried to get that. We don't get it as accurately as we should. Mr. PELLERZI. It doesn't exist in accurate form now. This is one of the things that LEAA is going to be looking at. Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. VELDE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR ACCOMPANIED BY: CLARENCE M. COSTER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR IRVING SLOTT, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DANIEL L. SKOLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLEN J. VANDER-STAAY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ADMINIS- WILLIAM E. CALDWELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ACADEMIC GEORGE HALL, DIRECTOR, STATISTICS RESEARCH CENTER JOHN J. KAMINSKI, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND BUDGET REQUEST AND HOUSE ALLOWANCE Senator MCCLELLAN. Our next witness is Mr. Richard W. Velde, Associate Administrator for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. We welcome you, Mr. Velde. The next item relates to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The House allowed the full budget estimate, $480 million. You should be satisfied. Mr. VELDE. Yes, sir; we are. PREPARED STATEMENT Senator MCCLELLAN. You may proceed with your statement. You have quite a lengthy statement. Why don't you just place it in the record and highlight it? Mr. VELDE. All right, sir. (The statement follows:) I am Richard W. Velde, Associate Administrator for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Mr. Coster and I are here to support the budget request of $480,000,000 for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The $212,000,000 increase is requested for additional staff and program expansion. This increase consists of the following major items. 1. Uncontrollable increases, $1,279,000. These increases result from legislative actions relating to salary and benefit costs, per diem, annualization of additional positions authorized for the current year, and non-recurring costs. 2. Program increases, $210,721,000. These increases requested for program operations consist of the following specific items: Grants for development and implementation of comprehensive plans Matching grants to improve and strengthen law enforcement: Allocations to states or localities as determined adminis- Student loans and tuition aid__. National criminal justice information and statistics service___ Administration and advisory committees_ $5, 000, 000 157,250,000 39, 250, 000 3, 000, 000 3, 000, 000 2, 800, 000 421, 000 The House bill provides for the full $480 million requested by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The House Committee directed that $11.5 million of the proposed research budget be transferred to action grants. With Senate and House approval, it might at some later date be proven beneficial to transfer at least part of that $11.5 million back to research and development programs. Our views on that point will be developed later in this testimony in the section dealing with the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. As I have indicated, we are here today to justify a substantial increase in funds to assist state and local governments in improving their law enforcement operations. When we undertook this task 14 months ago, we thought we had a full appreciation for the range, facets, and severity of the problems which confront today's law enforcement. But the first-year plans provided us with additional information and insights into the local crime situation. Taken together, the plans submitted by 50 states and 4 territories provide a detailed statement of needs set forth by operating law enforcement agencies. The first planning awards were made in late 1968 and early 1969. States used this money to establish the organization and develop the programs required to address the needs of the law enforcement community. By June 30, 1969-only an average of 6 months later-states were awarded $25 million in action funds. Nine months after the award of these funds and only 17 months after the start of the program, states had subgranted almost $21 million, or 84 percent of their 1969 action funds to operating law enforcement agencies. LEAA itself took several additional steps to hasten the flow of funds. States were permitted to request an advance in funds equal to one-sixth of their 1969 allocation. We gave them the additional option of requesting up to 50 percent of their 1970 action money by December 30, 1969 before the April 15 deadline for submission of 1970 plans. Twenty-eight states used these options to request advances of over $37 million. Finally, the submission date for the 1971 plans will be December 31, 1970, rather than the spring of 1971 as in the prior two years. During the past year, LEAA established 7 regional offices to provide ready access for state and local officials. We have conferred with other agencies to make them aware of how efforts can be coordinated to assist in solving the crime problem. For example, we have met with representatives of several federal organizations, including the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and have cooperative efforts underway on such projects as adapting night vision equipment to police use, developing automatic vehicle locators to aid dispatching, and improving the protection of public housing. More important, however, is how states and cities used action funds made available under this program. I attach, in an appendix to this statement, a list of city projects and a list of state projects. These represent grants of FY 1969 funds. I would like to cite two of each now. CITY PROJECTS With a $93,000 grant, Los Angeles is developing an effective law enforcement training system based on advanced instructional technology. The system is designed to meet the immediate and anticipated training needs of the Los Angeles Police Department over the next ten years. St. Louis, Missouri, received $78,693 to establish a prisoner rehabilitation program to train parolees and ex-convicts for useful employment after release from prison. A tuition program for continuing education after release is also part of the project. STATE PROJECTS Massachusetts is improving the management and operations of criminal justice agencies. Projects include management studies of the police department, the district attorney's office, analysis of problems and needs at the district court level, examination of data handling and information requirements of the Massachusetts Superior Court system, technical assistance and equipment for local, state, and regional law enforcement agencies to improve data handling and communications and a study to determine the value of establishing a defender's office in a high-crime area. New York is studying ways to free more police for patrols: training civilian employees for tasks presently performed by officers and purchasing automatic equipment to replace manual techniques. New York also has used LEAA funds to create an organized crime prevention council and is participating in the new Federal-State Racket Squad attack on organized crime. I would now like to summarize some of the reasons for the requested increases : Planning and Implementation___. $5,000,000 We are requesting an increase of $5 million to maintain an on-going planning capability at the state and local level and to enable states to administer action sub-grants. State planning agencies must not only develop a comprehensive improvement plan but also implement that plan through operating agencies. Plan development must involve state, county, and local organizations in all areas of law enforcement-police, courts, corrections, prosecutors, and probation and parole systems. To coordinate the work of all the agencies involved, states have subdivided the work among approximately 500 regional and metropolitan units which help in assessing local needs and setting priorities. State planning agencies, which are staffed with specialists from all areas of law enforcement, aid local agencies and units of government in developing projects which will meet law enforcement needs. Overall, the total request for state planning and implementation grants represents an administrative cost of 7.6 percent of federal action funds and only 5 percent when state/local matching funds are included. In addition to coordinating and providing guidance to the state-wide planning process, each state planning agency, out of these same funds, must assure that projects are reaching their objectives and proving their effectiveness. This monitoring activity enables an early identification of operational problems and assures that project funds are being administered properly. The number of sub-grants is one indication of SPA workload. States will make approximately 2,500 sub-grants from the $25 million they received in action grants for 1969, and more than triple that in fiscal 1970. This does not include planning sub-grants which will range between 450 and 550 annually, depending on the degree of regionalization within each state. This volume of work requires that state planning agencies and subordinate units be adequately staffed if they are to fully carry out their planning and administrative responsibilities. The state plans for fiscal year 1970 showed a marked increase in quality over those submitted in 1969. In formulating their 1970 plans, most states have corrected the deficiencies of their first-year plans. They have demonstrated a growing awareness of the criminal justice needs of the nation and a determination to build a truly effective system. For example, the states are earmarking more funds this year for corrections. Indications are that corrections will receive approximately 30 percent of LEAA action grant funds, or a minimum of $50 million. As much as $20 million more may go for programs to prevent juvenile delinquency, which should lighten the burden on the entire criminal justice system. Grants to improve and strengthen law enforcement.. 46-370 070 -21 $196, 500, 000 |