« ÎnapoiContinuă »
such problems and we believe that here is an opportunity to confront them in depth. We feel this bill recognizes both the responsibility and the opportunity
With regard to particular aspects of the bill, we wish to offer a few comments for
your consideration. First, the bill has defined the resources which might be utilized in solving our many social problems as "scientific, engineering, and technical.' We merely wish here to emphasize the social nature of some of the problems which the bill goes on to list. We would hope, either through a different wording in the bill or through its legislative history, that there would be a clear understanding that these resources are construed to include social sciences as well.
Secondly, while we recognize that the bill does not limit the field of research and development to the problems it delineates—from education to waste disposal in section 2—we would like to mention several other areas of need in the public sector to which the systems approach might be applied :
Health and hospital systems; now with the Medicare Act, it is probable there will be even greater need for more hospitals. We have been told by scientists in the systems industry that modern technology might be applied to the development of hospital and medical systems which would offer greater efficiency to the patient as well as hospital staffs; and which in the long run would be more economical. Modern technology also offers new possibilities in the diagnosing of diseases and their
remedies. Rehabilitation systems are another area of public need. This might include a separate or comprehensive exploration of our mental and penal institutional and postinstitutional needs, with a view toward discovering new approaches toward rehabilitation. We wish to compliment Senator Nelson for describing some of these possibilities in his introduction of the bill last month. It seems that the systems approach could helpfully be applied to this problem to create a continuous and consistent method of approach to the aberrant from the time of his arrest or commitment hearing through his confinement and release, including his postrelease difficulties of adjustment. It is interesting to note here that presently sophisticated statistical data on the problems which have caused ex-prisoners to return to prison is virtually nonexistent. We know what percentage of prisoners return and what law they broke, but we know little or nothing, statistically, about what percentage were motivated by economic frustrations or social or family difficulties, and so on. There is great need for a comprehensive approach to the rehabilitative process.
Another area for attention is conservation and recreative utilization of resources. A part of this, which might well interest people on the east coast, might include the development of more efficient water and power systems including contingency reserve planning in case of shortage or breakdown.
Finally on this part of the bill, we would call your consideration to system operations possibilities in conjunction with international development problems and aspirations. We have been told by one very prominent scientist that such a company as this might undertake a regional, multisystems approach to a underdeveloped area. This would include the development and integration of transportation, communications, industrial and agricultural systems within a entire region. While we realize there are many other problems which must be taken into account in the area of international development, we are attempting to indicate the wider range of possibilities and benefits these companies might offer if there were markets available to such civilian enterprise.
This leads me to my final comment. We are aware that the aerospace industry to a limited extent has on its own explored some of these possibilities. This bill should greatly encourage expansion of this competitive effort and in doing so might possibly open the way for these civilian markets to develop. Thank
Mr. Chairman. Senator Nelson. Thank you very much, Mr. Mang, for your very thoughtful comments.
Do you have any questions?
Mr. MILLENSON. I note, sir, in your testimony you say “Rehabilitation systems are another area of public need."
Are you familiar with the Correctional Rehabilitation Act of 1965, which the Congress had enacted into law this year?
Mr. MANG. Not in detail.
Mr. MILLENSON. I was just wondering whether you feel putting an item of this sort in this bill might be a duplication of what Congress has done through the Correctional Rehabilitation Act.
Mr. Mang. I am not sure. This would take some exploration.
Mr. MILLENSON. Perhaps you might want to add this to your testimony at a later time and submit it to us.
Mr. Mang. Well, that is possible.
Mr. MILLENSON. And have a chance to look it over rather than answer off the top of your head.
Mr. Mang. I could just comment I think we have seen by the crime study here preceding us that there are some new areas and avenues of research we haven't, to my knowledge at least, explored heretofore, and my thought in this testimony was to bring together the possibility of looking at the prison and the mental institutional problems as possibly one or a related problem. I think that the comments here do relate closely to the crime study which has taken place. But my emphasis was to be on the rehabilitation process after prison.
Senator Nelson. Thank you very much, Mr. Mang. We appreciate your coming here to testify.
Is there anyone else who intends to appear?
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA ARNOLD, ECONOMIC COMMITTEE OF
WOMEN FOR PEACE
Senator NELSON. Will you identify yourself for the record ?
Mrs. ARNOLD. My name is Patricia Arnold, and I am with the Economic Committee of Women for Peace. We support the Nelson bill.
I would just like to make a few remarks on the reasons for our support.
We feel or we believe in the peaceful settlement of world problems and we feel that a bill of this nature will make a commitment more possible for the peaceful solution of economic conversion. It becomes a reality and this does open the door for this type of possibility:
We are concerned with the public opinion and we are directly connected with trying to influence public opinion to support efforts like this bill, because we feel the American people, if they do not feel their jobs and our economy is dependent upon the prodominance of the defense industry allocation, and we propose peaceful cooperationexcuse me, I didn't have this prepared fully.
Senator Nelson. That is all right.
Mrs. ARNOLD. I was not aware until last night of this meeting. I think these hearings should be more publicly known. I am sure mothers, as I have been, would be here to support you. That is the end of my statement. Senator NELSON. Thank you very much. That will conclude the hearing. I thank those who came here to make presentations with the charts. We will send the testimony to you, and we will have it so you can fit your own charts into the testimony and then we will ask you to add a summary, or rather an introduction that gives an explanation of what your aspect of the study meant followed by your explanation of the charts. We will send that to you.
Thank you very much. (Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was recessed subject to call of the Chair.)
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. Å 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.
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 $342 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.
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.