PER CAPITA COST

50 percent to say 60 percent, we will increase the per capita cost for each offender on the average of about $200, from say $4,000 to $4,200. Likewise if we managed to increase successful parole from its present value of about 50 percent to a new value of 60 percent, we would reduce the cost of processing this offender.

-CALIFORNIA SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

PER CAPITA CAREER COST OF NEW ADULT FELONY OFFENDERS

In the engineer's terms this is a sensitivity study. He evaluates the dollars which can be traded off for, let's say, rehabilitation programs in the prison in order to reduce the recidivism rate on parole. The other parameters illustrate other points within the system. Obviously an increase in the number of individuals put on probation will decrease the average cost of the offender to the total system.

Now in this simplified model we have assumed linear relationships and we have assumed no interaction among the various parameters. We know both of these things aren't true, but the first model tells us what rewards can be reaped in the future.

The next slide, figure 15, illustrates the synthesis, or the new system, part of the system engineer's approach to crime. This represents the way we would approach the optimization of criminal justice.

Now let's think back a minute. Our present system of criminal justice is largely concerned with apprehending individuals and rehabilitating individuals. Let's remember that our objective is to reduce crime, reduce the cost of crime to society and reduce the rate of crime.

There is a very large area which the present system of criminal justice does not have within its perview and that is the area which we have listed at the top as new careers. Crime might now be thought of as consisting of new criminal careers as part of the crime rate; the crime and delinquency rate by repeaters, people who are repeating crimes; and the recidivism rate, that is people who have already been

within the system and are now returned to the system because of crimes they have committed. These are the three areas in which are the three segments that make up crime.

Well, we are treating very heavily the second; that is, catching people. At the apprehension problem and the rehabilitation problem we are working very diligently in these areas, but what are we doing in the new criminal careers and prevention area? What sort of organized program do we have within the confines of the system for criminal justice which treats this problem?

If we are to allocate our resources properly, then we must take the crime rate, break it down into the categories of this kind and look at the allocation of the resources among all of these categories.

The illustration at the right illustrates the fact that this is more than a two-dimensional problem. It is a multidimensional problem, but if we are going to allocate our resources properly, we must take into account all of these things.

Obviously the place we would like to operate is the point at least cost to society, the less cost to our culture, and this includes the cost of processing people and the damage that they do.

In order for the engineer to do this he must be helped in the sense of putting values on various crimes. Human values have to be considered and must be put into these equations. The engineer does not do that. Society must help him do it.

I point out that already we have values established. We don't know what they are, but they exist because we treat people and crime in certain ways.

Now following this analytical study, and incidentally we felt that the best approach to the crime problem was to make this numerical analytical study in a systems way so that the benefits would be apparent. Crime and delinquency is not something that people ordinarily associate with systems engineering.

At the completion of this analytical study we worked with the professionals in the group, with the members of the multidisciplinary team, and we evolved with these people the best program for California that we could come up with. Because of the problems that I have described here earlier, that we had not been treating prevention as such in our system of criminal justice, and because we do not have the functional relations that I described on the previous chart, we need to run a program which is more complete and which will provide us these functional relations.

The program we evolved, working with the professionals in the field, is illustrated here, figure 16. A very large portion of a 5-year program is devoted toward prevention programs and the measurement of their effect; also apprehension, police work, case management, the problem of crime reporting; the problem of potential offender identification. Included in this is a system engineering program to tie all of these things together in an analytical way.

In our report this program is laid out in considerable detail. It contains some 34 separate program proposals, research techniques, so that the functional relations, which I described earlier, can be found; that the measurements can be made.

TOTAL COST (5 YEARS)= $122.6 MILLION

FIGURE 16

The program is to take 5 years and its costs a total of $122 million. I would like to point out that we are trying to obtain knowledge of how to run the system of criminal justice. Our present system of criminal justice, in the next 5 years, as I mentioned earlier, will cost $32 billion. If we do such things as double the police at a cost of $1.8 billion, our bill will be $5.3 billion. If we throw away the key on our convicted offenders and run a full sentence policy in California, our bill would be $4.5 billion. If we did both of these things, it would be $6.3 billion.

And yet we don't know just how much good these things would do in reducing the crime rate or the cost to society. What we are proposing then is that in the next 5-year period we make this effort to learn how to evolve our system of criminal justice in a rational, quantitative way. Thank you, sir.

Senator NELSON. Thank you very much for your fine presentation. Mr. MILLENSON. Sir, concerning this study which you did for the State of California, do you know whether the State used any Federal funds, such as those under the Juvenile Delinquency Control Act, or some other program, as a method of paying for this?

Mr. KUHN. You would have to check with the department of finance, but I believe not. I believe these were State funds.

Mr. MILLENSON. Thank you.

Senator NELSON. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. MANG, FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA

Senator NELSON. Mr. Robert Mang of the Friends Committee on Legislation.

Mr. MANG. Senator Nelson, apparently there was a misunderstanding about the time I was to appear. I apologize to the committee. Senator NELSON. That is all right.

Senator NELSON. Would you identify yourself for the record.

Mr. MANG. My name is Robert A. Mang. I am testifying on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California. I am executive secretary of the northern California region. This is a committee widely representative of the concerns of many Friends Quakersand like-minded citizens in California, but does not claim to speak for all members of the Society of Friends.

We appear today in support of the Scientific Manpower Utilization Act. We have had a major interest in this field for some time. We speak from the basis of our work over the past 3 years in cooperation with persons from the business and academic communities, individuals in the aerospace and electronics firms in California and with State and Federal Government officials who have shared our concern for the nonmilitary diversification potential of aerospace and electronic industries in particular, and for the economic difficulties and possibilities of disarmament in general. In this context, I should just like to comment that we have been heartened by the increasing national and international interest in the subject of the economics of disarmament as evidenced in the United Nations study, "The Economic and Social Consequences of Disarmament,"and the July 1965 report by the President's committee, "The Economic Impact of Defense and Disarmament."

As we became involved in studying the functions of aerospace firms, we learned of the potential these firms might offer to the civilian sector. In a sense, they had created a new resource for the Nation through an integration of technical competence.

We began to understand what the term "systems analysis" might possibly mean for the many other concerns on which our committee also works. We recognized the value of applying this kind of approach to some of the basic problems confronting our Nation; problems such as education, transportation, waste management, and others as mentioned in this bill.

We feel the approach of this bill is fundamentally sound in its perception of such possibilities and wish to commend Senator Nelson for his initiative in introducing it. We should also like to take this opportunity to commend Governor Brown for making available the $400,000 for the four phase 1 contracts on the problems of transportation, crime, pollution, and information in California. It would seem that these have helped to show the feasibility of applying systems analysis to major social problems and should be expanded with Federal funds.

As you are well aware, California has a great interest in this matter, but there is also a nationwide responsibility for confronting many