Mr. ROGOVIN. Sir, let me use one illustration which I think is not overly simplistic but is still a relatively simple standard.

We are aware from a variety of hearings this committee has touched on it in the past, other committees of Congress have addressed it and the issue has been documented repeatedly-we have a major problem in dealing with juvenile offenders in this country. We know that thousands of juveniles continue to be housed with and are part of the general population of various institutions throughout the country. We know the effects hardened and older offenders can have on juveniles and what the unfortunate consequences can be.

It would seem to me it does not take a great deal of imagination to articulate a standard which says that even though juveniles are to be incarcerated in institutions, they must be maintained separately from adult offenders.

That kind of standard is relatively simple to accomplish. If dollars were tied to achieving a simple standard of that kind, I think there would be significant benefits. I use that only by way of illustration.

We talk in terms of training for law enforcement personnel. We are still using the 400-hour figure recommended by the Crime Commission in 1967. There are many major police organizations which provide substantially more training than 400 hours.

I do not know that there is any magic to that particular figure. However, whatever number of hours or the training elements to be included, I think we could articulate a standard to which dollars could be tied.

Mr. MONAGAN. You bring up another matter that has been discussed here, and that is where the line should be drawn, insofar as this program is concerned, between projects and programs that are related to the criminal justice system and those social programs that are not directly related, which of course have an effect on crime, but still are not in the system. Do you have any feeling where this line should be drawn?

Mr. ROGOVIN. Yes, sir; I do. I think it is important to recognize that this is a program directed at criminal justice system reform. It is not another program directed at the solution of the variety of social ills. that beset America-those that are causally related to crime. It is not a program directed to housing or directed to education, as are other programs the Congress has initiated.

Consequently, there are opportunities to refine and focus criminal justice system objectives through this program.

Again, we know from a range of studies that have been done, some over and over again, that there is a continually increasing and escalating number of youthful offenders in this country. We have effectively identifled those who are most likely to become delinquent in terms of age, residence, and by other factors.

In order to avoid overlap, program funds which are being used for delinquency prevention or control could be better focused by the articulation of some parameters as to the nature of the clients at whom dollars should be directed. This should be the approach rather than just a generalized effort. Take for example, remedial reading programs. Reading difficulties are not uncharacteristic of those who become juvenile offenders, but LEAA is not an education program. It is a criminal justice reform program.

What ought to be done is to describe the targets where dollars would be most effectively utilized for criminal justice reform and crime

control.

Mr. MONAGAN. Specifically, there is a division, as you have said, of responsibility between the Federal agency and the State and local units. Just exactly how do you say this should be done? How can it be worked out in practice?

Mr. ROGOVIN. Respectfully, sir, the Congress has said LEAA shall review and approve the States' comprehensive plans for criminal justice improvement. During my term, and I understand since, the States have evinced tremendous interest and concern in juvenile delinquency problems. This is because of the burden that delinquents present to the criminal justice system in terms of the amount of crime for which they are responsible and because of a justifiable concern about trying, at the earliest possible moment to save them from criminal careers.

Before a State describes what it proposes to do in the juvenile area LEAA has authority and responsibility to set some guides, to inform the State what programing is or is not consistent with the basic congressional thrust and basic congressional interest. I do not think that is being done.

Mr. MONAGAN. You say there isn't knowledge of what LEAA's funds are being spent on. What do you mean by that?

Mr. ROGOVIN. I would have to qualify it when I say knowledge, sir. There is a general knowledge about the program areas for which dollars are being utilized within the States and local jurisdictions. Even while I was there, however, it was impossible to identify the nature of the specific project expenditures. There was no system available for doing it. If such has been achieved, I am unaware of it.

I note the appropriations history for this program; if it could not be done when there was $60 million appropriated, I would find it surprising if it has been done to date, when appropriations have risen to over half a billion dollars.

Mr. MONAGAN. You have spoken about the problem of measuring the progress in achieving goals. I think you would admit this is one of the most difficult areas we are dealing with.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Unquestionably, sir.

Mr. MONAGAN. For example, crime statistics in and of themselves are not particularly helpful.

Mr. ROGOVIN. They are but a partial measure of what is happening in the system.

Mr. MONAGAN. In what other ways should we try to measure progress toward objectives?

Mr. ROGOVIN. My first response to that, Mr. Chairman, is in effect to reiterate your proposition, that we have never developed evaluation tools in criminal justice, and this is the most appropriate kind of activity for LEAA. I fail to see any evidence that it has been pursuing it, either through the institute or in other activities. Perhaps they have, but I am certainly unaware of it.

The problem is extremely complex, but it can be broken down into parts. Returning to the illustration I gave you a moment ago, if a program is initiated to separate juveniles from older offenders, it is relatively easy to determine if in fact that is what takes place. Are

juveniles thereafter continuing to be housed with older offenders? That is a very simple kind of evaluation. It is a gross sort of thing.

But the question of measures of performance by components of the system is not a new idea. We have been left too long only with the crime statistics in the United States.

Here is a program where the Congress says we are going to provide dollars for a major new research effort, a major national effort to reform criminal justice, and we do not pursue the development of the essential measurement tools.

I cannot answer the specific question, Mr. Chairman. I do not profess an expertise in evaluation. But I know that work has been underway. I know there are organizations like the Urban Institute, for example, which has been working on evaluation for purposes of the massive Federal housing program. I would have hoped those kinds of talents would have been marshaled by now to focus on criminal justice matters.

Mr. MONAGAN. What do you think LEAA should do if the States do not have standards or criteria for evaluation of the program?

Mr. ROGOVIN. If there is any misunderstanding on the part of the States-I do not know that to be the case, but if there is some misunderstanding that program dollars and planning dollars are allocable for evaluation work, then they ought to be disabused of that possible misconception. I do not know whether any labor under that misapprehension.

Second, I return again to what the Congress authorized the agency to do, to pass on what were to be comprehensive plans for improvement. The agency should be saying unless you have rational evaluation components, you do not have a comprehensive plan, because to undertake action without a plan to measure makes no sense.

Mr. MONAGAN. Are you familiar with the task force report to the Administrator of LEAA?

Mr. ROGOVIN. I have seen it, sir. I do not profess an intimate familiarity. but I am aware of its contents.

Mr. MONAGAN. Have you any opinion about its recommendations for decentralization and reorganization?

Mr. ROGOVIN. Yes, sir. I think Mr. Leonard, for whom I have a high personal regard-I knew him in his position as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights-has taken a step which makes, to me, a great deal of sense. I think the effort to decentralize, to put the agency closer to the consumers, makes a good deal of sense.

Now, however, with 10 regions through which the program is to operate, the question is whether or not there will be consistent policy implementation. That requires the agency in its central body to articulate the policy that the 10 regions are to implement.

But I certainly share what I take it is Mr. Leonard's concern and interest in decentralizing the activity. It makes good sense to have agency personnel and decisionmaking as close as possible to the

consumers.

Mr. MONAGAN. It would require a followup on the part of the agency, an audit of the activities, so to speak.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Yes, sir. I believe Mr. Leonard had in mind, insofar as I understand the task force report, creating a staff group which

would review the functioning of the regional offices. That to me is a very appropriate and intelligent decision on his part.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Steiger?

Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rogovin, I find this perhaps the most remarkable statement in my brief congressional career. Recognizing that in your association with Congress you have learned that consistency, in the words of Everett Dirksen, is the crutch of small minds, I will say that you have embraced that wholeheartedly by abandoning any attempt at consistency.

Mr. Rogovin, you are in the either fortunate or unfortunate position of having made a great many statements on the record during your tenure as one of the Administrators of this program.

You tell us here today that the block grant does not work, and yet you are the same gentleman who in 1969 told the conference of mayors that some persons, opposed to the concept of block grants to the States, instead prefer that grants go directly to local governments, but that issue was threshed out and Congress has decided the shape of the program. You said that it is workable, meaningful, intelligent, one that should be supported by all.

I realize that was a couple of years ago.

Then in 1970, you told a science symposium in Chicago that some critics of the LEAA program are working to scrap the block grant concept before it has a real chance to work.

Mr. Rogovin, you tell us we are spending too much money, and yet you are the guy who came before the Appropriations Committee and justified the $300 million 1970 budget and asked for the $500 million 1971 budget.

You cannot have it both ways. It occurs to me-I am obviously just one member, and this is a very personal observation, as you have prefaced yours by saying they were personal-I would say that you have not become a dog in the manger, but you have become a dog running with the coyotes.

I really do not profess to understand why you have chosen this approach. I am willing to stipulate that you are concerned and want to see the program succeed, but you have told the chairman here under cross-examination that there have to be plans and programs and evaluation, and you well know that there isn't a grant that goes out without a plan, a program, and an evaluation built into the grant. I think the chairman knows this.

How do you rationalize the preposterous proposition that we will freeze the block grants because you, Mr. Rogovin, have decided that the program is ineffective? I would like to have you respond to that, if you would.

Mr. ROGOVIN. May I take them seriatim, Mr. Steiger?

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Rogovin, I hope you will not put too much reliance on Mr. Steiger's use of Western expressions and figures of speech here. You realize it is a figure of speech. I can assure you we are interested in having your opinion, and I am sure that you will be able

Please go ahead.

Mr. ROGOVIN. First, Mr. Chairman, may I preliminarily respond by

saying Mr. Steiger's reputation as a "tough piece of business" has preceded him, so I do not take the use of the Western phraseology to heart. I would rather address the substantive nature of the criticism.

I think it important, if I may, to point out that the comments I make are not directed to the structural form, as Mr. Steiger, I take it, suggests, of the program. I said in 1969 when I was the Administrator, again in 1970, I believe I do not know the date-that the block grant program was a viable program and that it could be made to work. The question here is not whether to destroy the present structure of the program, and change it to a so-called categorical program at all.

I think the States need the opportunity to upgrade and improve their system, and that decisionmaking for such specific purposes can be well handled by the States.

My criticism, rather, goes to the nature of the progress or lack of progress under the block-grant format and the lack of what I characterize as the necessary leadership from the agency.

Let me take it specifically, because I think this was the last element in Mr. Steiger's set of questions. He suggested that I was aware that the States' plans and projects each contains evaluation components, and the implication was that they were carefully developed. I would dispute that with you, respectfully, Mr. Congressman. I do not and did not find carefully developed evaluation components, and I do not believe that they are contained in what is being undertaken today. Mr. STEIGER. I think it important that we establish this. You again have said in your preliminary remarks, both on the record and before you introduced your prepared statement, that you did not have specific knowledge of the specific functions under the present administration. Now you are saying that the grants and evaluations that have gone out are not carefully thought out. Are you saying that you do know that in the present grants that go out the evaluation programs are not well planned, and that is a specific that you are aware of now?

Mr. ROGOVIN. Now you have me confused, Mr. Steiger. Are you speaking of what the agency undertakes directly, or what is being incorporated in terms of State and local actions? It is to the latter that I addressed my response. Apparently, I may have misunderstood you. I am talking now about the statement that there are carefully developed evaluation components in the activities undertaken within the States and local jurisdictions with the action dollars. Are you speaking of something else?

Mr. STEIGER. No. We are speaking of the same program.

Mr. ROGOVIN. Then we are on the same wavelength, and that is my understanding.

Mr. STEIGER. How do you arrive at the specific knowledge that these are not either carefully evaluated or carefully planned? Incidentally, the qualitative adjective "carefully" was yours, not mine. I am willing to accept it.

Mr. ROGOVIN. If you accept that, fine. Otherwise, we get into the debate about what is or isn't careful.

Mr. STEIGER. Your references go back to your administration, and yet you are criticizing this administration on a specific item. You have ignored, for example, the existence of the inspection and review program in LEAA, the separate entity in LEAA. I do not know if it existed when you were there.