planning agency developed and installed, early in the program, a management system which initially contained the following elements:

1. A subgrant processing system.

2. A priority scoring system.

3. An internal organization structure which is directly related to the subgrant processing system.

4. A complete set of position descriptions covering each of the positions in the organization.

I present at this time exhibit A which is the working document covering the above aspects of our program.

Subsequently, the planning agency added to its administrative procedures a computer-based accounting and financial reporting system which satisfies our administrative requirements, as well as the requirements of the State of Arkansas, LEAA, and other Federal requirements. Our agency has developed and formalized its planning procedures to the extent of having reached a high level of proficiency in maintaining a planning effort which is receptive to the needs of the criminal justice system of the State.

In view of the intent of Congress in their passage of the omnibus crime bill, this agency has responded in ways that are germane to the needs of the Arkansas criminal justice system.

All of the foregoing is not to say that we have not made mistakes and shall not make more mistakes. Perhaps, stemming from the anxieties that have prevailed in this country concerning the nature and extent of criminal activity, our agency, and, we suppose, most other State planning agencies have been faced with certain major problems. Among these problems were the insufficient time and guidance given the States to create governing boards, professional staffs, administrative and operative procedures, and for establishing local planning.

Funds were first made available and distributed at a time when all these requirements were not yet ready. This brought other problems. Mainly, our State has been playing catchup from the beginning. The reason for this was brought about by the time consumed in appointing the LEAA Administrators as required by the act, and later a change in national administration which appointed new Administrators, and the inability of LEAA to furnish guidelines to assist the States quickly enough for them to catch up.

The current Administrator of LEAA recognizes the problems facing LEAA and the States, and took a positive approach by appointing a task force to study and recommend a reorganization of LEAA to fulfill LEAA's obligation to the States.

We are gratified to see that recommendations are now being implemented with the decentralization to the regional offices and by increasing the number of regional offices from seven to 10. The regional officers will provide technical assistance personnel, as well as full-time State representatives working directly with the States in helping to solve the State's problems.

We feel this approach by LEAA should enhance an even greater success of this program in the future.

This program originally required that the States provide adequate personnel necessary to develop annual comprehensive law enforcement plans. In addition to this planning responsibility, the States are also required to provide adequate staffs for administering the block grant action funds. The action funds have increased and will, hopefully, continue to increase. However, without a proportionate increase in appropriations for administrative purposes, it will be difficult to administer the increased action funds.

We have compiled in exhibit B how planning funds might be so distributed to provide the needed increase to smaller States.

Despite all these problems, the State of Arkansas has benefited greatly from this program. A most significant achievement has been the development of a dedicated statewide law enforcement communication network.

The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, in its publication "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society," recommended, "The States should assume responsibility for assuring that area wide records and communications needs are provided." With this in mind, our Commission recognized early in 1969, that we must develop a plan before allocating resources. Therefore, the SPA, working in conjunction with the Arkansas Sheriff's Association, developed a statewide law enforcement communications system serving the needs of municipal, county, and State law enforcement agencies throughout the State of Arkansas. The long-range planning involved in this program will provide not only voice communication between operating law

enforcement agencies, but will also provide direct communications for law enforcement agencies to a computerized criminal justice information system, which will be totally operational January 1, 1973. The computerized criminal justice information system will not only serve the needs of law enforcement agencies, but the entire criminal justice community, including police, courts, corrections, probations and parole, and highway safety information.

We are also currently developing a statistical information system in coordination with LEAA. This statistical system will be an expansion of the criminal justice information system and will provide, for the first time, information dealing with the cause, nature, and extent of crime thus allowing the State to more adequately allocate its resources to this problem.

The Arkansas Crime Commission drafted legislation, which was enacted into law during the 1971 session of the State legislature, establishing the Criminal Justice and Highway Safety Information Center. Much of the language of this act has been utilized for a recommended "Model Legislation for State Information Systems" as it contains provisions for uniform reporting, describing in detail the contributors and users of the system, and assuring security of information.

In response to the specific matters of interest of this committee, I submit the following: (Numbers correspond to your letter of September 23, 1971.)

(1)

In February 1968, the Governor of Arkansas created the Arkansas Commission on Crime and Law Enforcement and designated this commission as the official State planning agency to administer the criminal justice program in Arkansas.

The commission is composed of a 13-member executive board appointed by the Governor. The members are appointed from all parts of the State and are representative of State and local leaders of the criminal justice system. The executive board meets regularly on the second Thursday of each month and establishes the policies for the administration, planning, and implementation of the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. The crime commission executive board members are as follows:

Chairman David Hodges, prosecuting attorney, Third Judicial District, Newport, Ark.

Vice Chairman Mary Burt Nash, judge, Pulaski County Juvenile Administration, Little Rock, Ark.

Secretary J. N. Shoptaw, citizen, Texarkana, Ark.

Col. George V. Armstrong, director, Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy, Little Rock, Ark.

Harold Brueggeman, director, Arkansas Department of Public Safety, Little Rock, Ark.

George C. Ford, Jr., chief of police, Blytheville, Ark.

Billy Bert French, sheriff, Lincoln County, Star City, Ark.

Terrell Don Hutto, Arkansas Commissioner of Correction, Little Rock, Ark.

Randall Mathis, Clark County Judge, Arkadelphia, Ark.

Hollis Spencer, chief of police, Fayetteville, Ark.

Ray Thornton, attorney general of Arkansas, Little Rock, Ark.

Joe D. Villines, circuit judge, 14th District, Harrison, Ark.

George Wimberly, mayor, city of Little Rock, Ark.

The executive board of the Arkansas Crime Commission is assisted by the State law enforcement planning agency with a full-time professional staff under the guidance of a director. The State planning agency is responsible for carrying out the policies and directives of the commission in executing its statutory and administrative responsibilities.

From July 1968 until May 1969, there were four professionals which included the director and one secretary. From June 1969 until June 1970, our staff increased to nine professionals and three nonprofessionals. From July 1970 until currently, we have 10 professionals and six nonprofessionals. To serve our two functional areas of planning and administration, the professional staff are responsible as follows: Six perform primarily planning and technical assistance functions and four perform primarily administrative and supervisory functions. The six nonprofessionals consist of the office manager, two bookkeepers and three secretaries.

(2)

Our planning provides generally for the gathering of necessary data, as input toward the preparation of the State comprehensive plan, to be accomplished from January through May of each year and these data are analyzed from June through July. The actual revision of the State plan is scheduled to annually begin approximately August 1, with the draft version being completed by the end of October. This allows for a 30- to 45-day review by the State and regional clearinghouses, the commission executive board, and all local planning councils, as well as the Governor.

The commission executive board approves all programs, budgets, and priorities contained within the comprehensive plan.

Early in 1969 the Arkansas Sheriffs' Association requested our assistance in developing a statewide law enforcement communication system. Prior to this time, most of the sheriff's departments and many municipal police agencies in the State operated on one radio frequency which was 37.10 MHz. This, at one time in Arkansas was strictly a frequency for law enforcement. The Federal Communications Commission, several years ago, designated this frequency as an all-governmental frequency which allowed other government agencies to also operate at 37.10 MHz. This resulted in a tremendous overcrowding of one frequency which particularly caused interference with law enforcement activities.

Another problem was that much of the existing communication equipment statewide was single-frequency, tube-type equipment, 10 to 15 years old and not very dependable. In order to solve these problems, the Crime Commission, working in conjunction with the Arkansas Sheriffs' Association and the State of Arkansas FCC Frequency Coordinator, developed a statewide system for law enforcement communication. This system provides each county its operating frequency, plus a statewide base-to-base frequency and a statewide emergency frequency.

This system was officially adopted by the Arkansas Sheriffs' Association in 1969. The Commission therefore adopted the policy that funding for communications would be provided on the basis of the adopted plan with the exception of the larger cities which operate on high band, but are permitted to interface with the statewide system. Of the 75 counties in the State of Ar kansas, only four have not yet implemented the communication plan.

(3)

Based on the described need to upgrade our statewide law enforcement communications, the Commission adopted the policy in its plan that all applications for communications equipment would receive a high priority consideration. Small communities within a county were encouraged to coordinate their communication needs with the county needs and submit a joint application to participate in this program.

(4)

Each applicant, in order to participate in our program D-1 "Criminal Justice Communication Network," is instructed to prepare and submit a formal application to the Arkansas Crime Commission. We require that all applications be signed by the State and local official who is authorized to obligate funds. The application must contain a description of the justification of the need, a description as to how the project will be implemented, and must contain a budget that itemizes and describes the equipment requested with cost estimates.

Applications from local units of government are reviewed, evaluated and endorsed by the local criminal justice planning councils.

The State planning agency evaluates all applications in terms of justification of need, type of equipment, quantity, estimated cost and operating frequencies requested. The applications are then presented to the commission executive board which has absolute authority to approve or disapprove all subgrants.

The processing of applications, including the priority scoring, is described in detail in our exhibit A.

After the executive board has taken action approving an application, a grant acceptance agreement, which contains general and fiscal conditions and any special conditions imposed by the executive board, is prepared for the subgrantee's acceptance. Award of funds is made only after this agreement has been executed.

(5)

Arkansas statutes require that State agencies follow formal bidding procedures in each instance when the estimated purchase price equals or exceeds $500. Arkansas counties are required by statute to follow formal bidding procedures in each instance when the estimated purchase price equals or exceeds $1,500.

First class cities are required by statute to follow formal bidding procedures in each instance when the estimated purchase price equals or exceeds $1,000; except these bidding requirements may be waived by local ordinance in exceptional circumstances.

In view of the State laws, the Crime Commission has not established guidelines or regulations pertaining to competitive bidding. It should be noted that competitive bidding or centralized purchasing is not required by the LEAA Financial Guide or Bureau of the Budget Circular A-87.

Although our standard grant conditions require that all subgrantees comply with State and Federal laws, we do recognize, however, improved controls governing these procedures are needed. Our agency is in process of developing as Commission policy more explicit guidelines pertaining to this subject, as well as positive procedures for assuring compliance. Such procedures will include as a special grant condition, contained within our grant acceptance agreement, requiring all subgrantees to provide evidence in the form of specifications, bid notification, summaries of bid openings and bid acceptance prior to receiving grant funds.

(6)

The Commission procedures require that all subgrantees submit to the SPA a "Quarterly Report of Expenditures" and for all completed grants the subgrantee is required to provide copies of all paid invoices and vouchers. Although this in itself does not necessarily assure for economical procurements, we believe the procedures previously described and being developed will enhance administrative controls.

(7)

Our Commission has awarded as of June 30, 1971, $1,054,638 toward the purchase of communication equipment. These funds have been awarded on a 60-40 funding ratio. We have required a 40 percent local cash match for these purchases-no in-kind match has been accepted.

The amount of funds our Commission has awarded for the communication program through June 30, 1971, represents 36.6 percent of all action funds awarded for the same period.

(8)

In the area of technical assistance, the Commission has worked extensively with the Arkansas Sheriffs' Association, the Arkansas Chiefs of Police Association, and the Arkansas Law Enforcement Officers' Association in the development and implementation of the statewide law enforcement communication system.

The crime commission in conjunction with these associations also developed guidelines for use of the Arkansas statewide law enforcement communication system, which I present as exhibit C. These guidelines provide for basic operating rules and procedures for use of the statewide system and have been distributed to all law enforcement agencies.

Specific items or brands of communication equipment are not evaluated by our Commission prior to purchase. Any item or brand of communication equipment of the subgrantee's choice is eligible for funding provided it complies with the frequency and other requirements of the statewide system.

(9)

LEAA has not provided, nor have we requested, their technical assistance in the area of communication technology and equipment.

In closing, the Governor of the State of Arkansas and the Arkansas Commission on Crime and Law Enforcement wish to express our appreciation to this subcommittee for inviting our State to present testimony on the administration of the law enforcement assistance programs.

Mr. HODGES. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to say very honestly that we recognize the legitimate interest and responsibility of Congress, acting through this subcommittee, to inquire as to the proper use of the funds and the impact they are making on the States. Certainly, our desire today is to cooperate completely with you in the goal that you have established in your hearings here, and to seek to improve our system in Arkansas as a result of our appearance and some of the information related to us by the inquiring team that has contacted Arkansas.

We are constantly striving to improve our system. For example, I mentioned the management study that was made that we have now promulgated and that concerns the processing of applications before the commission, which is exhibit A to our 14-page report.

We have also instituted and we now have functioning a computerized accounting system so as to have a greater degree of control over the proper use of funds that come through our commission. I believe we were one of the first States to implement the computerized accounting system that is now being carefully and, we think, successfully employed by the commission.

We hope to improve that even more and not sit back and just rely upon the management study that we have instituted. We hope eventually to have it by developing an online system and have a terminal in our office directly to the computer so we can have a fully operational computer accounting system.

Since I am not a paid employee of the crime commission and I am an elected official and a prosecuting attorney, since I have been on the commission I have been involved very much in law enforcement efforts in Arkansas.

I would like to approach the inquiries you have today with a little historical background, if I may.

When I was first in the program, I found among the local law enforcement officials in Arkansas a certain reluctance to become involved with Federal assistance under this particular bill because they were fearful of a certain amount of Federal control or interference with the local law enforcement apparatus. We as local people on the staff there constantly attempted to win over the confidence of the local people. When we began making inroads and having a good working relationship with the local sheriffs and chiefs of police, we found that their first request was for communications equipment, physical equipment. I call it hardware. They wanted perhaps some firearms and riot control equipment.

When these local people made these requests, we responded, and over the years we have used approximately 36.6 percent of our action money to fund communications equipment.

The initiative for that did not come from manufacturers, based on my experience. I do not believe the manufacturers caused us to make the decision, for this reason: I am on the executive committee. I am chairman of it. Other ex officio members include the attorney general. We have a juvenile judge. The director of corrections in Arkansas is a member of our committee. The director of the department of public safety, which used to be called the State police, is on our executive committee. We have a circuit judge. We have a sheriff, a chief of po