VI. SUPPLEMENTAL MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY AND SENATOR HOWARD M. METZENBAUM

Although we join fully in the view expressed by the chairman, we write separately to emphasize several points concerning this nomination. At a time when significant numbers of our Nation's youth are becoming involved in violent crime and illegal narcotics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) plays an essential role in providing leadership and assistance to individuals and organizations who take on the task of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention.

As defined by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, OJJDP's goals are:

(1) to give high priority to preventing juvenile delinquency; (2) to divert status offenders from the juvenile justice system into community-based programs;

(3) to give greater attention to serious youth crime within the juvenile justice system;

(4) to provide community-based treatment for youth offenders as an alternative to custodial incarceration; and

(5) to improve the quality of treatment of juveniles in the juvenile justice system.

This level of leadership calls for an OJJDP Administrator with extensive understanding of juvenile justice programs and efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency, as well as proven management skills and good administrative judgment.

Given the special nature of OJJDP's mission, Congress amended the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act in 1984 specifically to ensure that the office would maintain the necessary level of professionalism. The 1984 amendment required that the OJJDP Administrator be chosen by the President "from among individuals who have had experience in juvenile justice programs." 42 U.S.C. 5611(b).

This 1984 amendment reflected congressional frustration with inexperienced Administrators and congressional recognition of OJJDP's complex and fundamental responsibilities with respect to youthful offenders. Early OJJDP Administrators included individuals who had devoted up to as much as 20 years to juvenile justice and delinquency programs at the Federal or State level.

In nominating Robert W. Sweet, Jr., the administration has ignored Congress' express requirement that the OJJDP Administrator be experienced in juvenile justice programs. Mr. Sweet has worked in the Department of Education and held staff positions in the White House. By his own admission, Mr. Sweet has no direct experience with juvenile justice programs. (Hearing transcript at pages 29 and 53.) He has never worked in a juvenile justice or delinquency prevention program (Hearing transcript at pages 27, 29

and 54), nor has he conducted any research or written about such programs. (Hearing transcript at page 58.) He has had only the most fleeting contact with OJJDP.

Mr. Sweet's principal experience is in the field of education. Before coming to Washington, he was a teacher for a brief period of time and a textbook salesman. He then served in the Department of Education, and in the National Institute of Education. Mr. Sweet emphasizes that his experience in education is appropriate and sufficient background for the juvenile justice position. Education experience, though appropriate, is hardly a sufficient foundation for an OJJDP Administrator who oversees the Nation's juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs.

Juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs address the problems and needs of young people who, in most instances, are already outside society's mainstream, and are not participating or succeeding in mainstream educational institutions. To be effective in leading an agency dedicated to such young persons, the Administrator should be familiar with the factors that place certain youth at risk; the competing theories of rehabilitation and deterrence; and the hybrid legal proceedings specifically designed for youthful offenders.

The OJJDP Administrator should also be knowledgeable about delinquency prevention programs such as substance abuse treatment, individual and family therapy interventions, and foster care. A background in mainstream education simply is not an adequate substitute for experience with the troubled, high-risk youth who are the subjects of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs.

The OJJDP Administrator should also have the professional experience, management skill and judgment to lead a staff which is responsible for allocating millions of dollars in discretionary funds and dealing with a network of related State and local agencies across the country. Mr. Sweet's record at the Department of Education suggests that he does not have these attributes. Mr Sweet was dismissed from two positions at the Department at the insistence of Secretary of Education Terrell Bell. As Secretary Bell recounted in his memoirs after his service as Secretary of Education, Mr. Sweet's conduct at the Department disrupted both the administration and the programmatic activities of the agency. Consequently, Secretary Bell insisted on Mr. Sweet's dismissal from the Department. (Hearing transcript at page 51.)

The hearing on Mr. Sweet's nomination, held on March 1, 1990, confirmed that Mr. Sweet is not the right individual to head OJJDP. Mr. Sweet repeatedly demonstrated that he does not have a grasp of the major issues and programs in the field of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. When asked what his priorities as Administrator would be, Mr. Sweet responded that he would try to strengthen the family and would initiate projects to address the problem of illiteracy. As the chairman pointed out, strengthening the family is a laudable objective yet many of the young people involved in the juvenile justice system do not have families. (Hearing Transcript at pages 41, 44, 45, 46 and 47.) Similarly, Mr. Sweet's interest in illiteracy is marked by his belief that the problems of illiteracy can be solved by a return to the teaching of phonics. This

technique is not noted for its success in teaching youth with disabilities or the other learning related impairments from which many youthful offenders suffer.

At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Sweet was not conversant with many of the key issues in juvenile justice. Though Mr. Sweet had more than 3 months to prepare for the hearing, he showed a disturbing lack of knowledge and understanding of even the most basic issues and programs in the field. His performance demonstrates once again the importance of the experience requirement that Congress added to the OJJDP enabling statute in 1984.

Mr. Sweet was unaware of the continuing problems associated with representation of youthful defendants, who were given a right to counsel by the Supreme Court in In Re Gault. (Hearing Transcript at page 57.) Mr. Sweet plainly failed to understand the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program, until the chairman described the program. (Hearing Transcript at pages 60-71.)

Mr. Sweet consistently maintained during his confirmation hearing that jail removal programs had been successfully completed. He maintained that position even after the chairman read from an OJJDP report which indicated otherwise. (Hearing transcript at pages 34, 62-64 and page 87.) This error is particularly glaring given the important role of these programs, which account for a significant portion of the available funding. In addition, Mr. Sweet acknowledged that under the President's budget proposals, many OJJDP programs would have to be cut. Yet he could not identify a single program that is not working and should be eliminated. (Hearing Transcript at page 109.) By the same token, Mr. Sweet had difficulty identifying programs that were working and should be continued. (Hearing Transcript at pages 66, 71, and 72.)

Faced with another proposed OJJDP budget cut and after resisting unsuccessful efforts by the previous administration to eliminate OJJDP, it is troubling that an individual without the requisite credentials would be nominated for this important position. Though he has professed to being committed to lobbying within the administration in support of OJJDP programs, Mr. Sweet's lack of experience would leave him ill-equipped to carry out the task. To be an effective leader, the OJJDP Administrator must have a working knowledge of the issues and problems under OJJDP's jurisdiction. An Administrator cannot be a forceful advocate for OJJDP's budget or programs if he doesn't understand the programs.

Mr. Sweet's nomination comes at a critical time in the life of OJJDP. It also comes at a critical juncture in our efforts to address the problems of troubled youth in America. Each year, approximately 800,000 juveniles are taken into government custody. 90,000 youthful offenders are currently incarcerated in this country. The problems of drug abuse and violent crime are becoming more pressing every day.

OJJDP needs an Administrator who has experience in juvenile justice and juvenile delinquency prevention and a demonstrated record of competence and accomplishment. Robert Sweet is not that person. His clear lack of the statutorily required experience in juvenile justice programs is reason enough to reject his nomination. His performance during his tenure with the Department of Education was controversial, and raises further questions about his

suitability for this important post. His testimony before the Judiciary Committee demonstrated that Mr. Sweet does not have the experience, knowledge, or judgment to be a satisfactory Administrator of OJJDP, let alone an effective one. For these reasons, we oppose Mr. Sweet's confirmation.

О