LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: legal services corporation, House or Senate or Joint

Document 40 of 44.

View Related Topics

March 16, 1999, Tuesday

TYPE: COMMITTEE HEARING

LENGTH: 15339 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE, AND

HEADLINE: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD ROGERS (R-KY) HOLDS A HEARING ON FISCAL YEAR 2000 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE, AND JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS

LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

JUSTICE, STATE AND JUDICIARY HOLDS HEARING ON FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS

MARCH 16, 1999

SPEAKERS: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD ROGERS (R-KY), CHAIRMAN

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JIM KOLBE (R-AZ)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES H. TAYLOR (R-NC)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RALPH REGULA (R-OH)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM LATHAM (R--IA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAN MILLER (R-FL)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ZACH WAMP (R-TN)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOSE E. SERRANO (D-NY),

RANKING MEMBER

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JULIAN C. DIXON (D-CA)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ALAN MOLLOHAN (D-WV)

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD (D-CA)

WITNESSES: LAURIE ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

SHAY BILCHIK, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF JUVENILE

JUSTICE

JOSEPH BRANN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY-

ORIENTED POLICING

*

ROGERS: We will come to order. We are pleased to welcome this afternoon Laurie Robinson, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Justice Program; Shay Bilchik, the administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and Joseph Brann, the director of the Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, also known as the COPS Programs.

Your agencies represent the federal government's primary assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies in their fight against crime in our communities. You are responsible for administering grants totaling over $3 billion, an amount that has increased over 100 percent from fiscal '95 through fiscal '99. And that covers a full arsenal of programs from adding more police officers, building new prisons, addressing domestic violence and combating and preventing juvenile crime.
I'm concerned that the administration proposes cutting important programs with proven records, such as the state prison grant; local law enforcement block grant; and juvenile accountability block grant. And initiating other programs without track records.

Obviously, money is not the only answer, because not only has the federal crime effort substantially increased, but state and local governments are also spending more and more all for the sake of our struggle to reduce crime.

We all have ideas about how best to tackle these problems. And with the limitations on funding that we face, we will have to pool our knowledge, talent and resources to make sure that we're investing in truly effective programs. You're the experts. You must look closely at state and local needs and to recommend strategies for them that work and make a difference.

Your leadership is essential to addressing the crime and drug problems facing this country, and we expect you to give it everything that you have.

We will continue to support you as we have over the past years to the best of our ability, to give you the resources you need to address the most significant crime problems.

We will include your written statements in the record. And we will invite you to summarize your statements, hopefully, within five minutes, please. But we won't bang the gavel.

(LAUGHTER)

And I think ladies first. So, ma'am (OFF-MIKE) let you (OFF- MIKE).

ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for having us here again this year to talk about the important work that we're doing together to ensure that states and localities have the funding and the help they need to combat crime and ensure public safety.

And I want to specifically express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, for this committee's bipartisan support over a number of years now to OJP.

As you know, crime rates are down again this year for the sixth year in a row. The programs we're proposing in the budget are designed to build on this momentum and on what we've learned about what works in reducing crime. And back to the earliest days of our program, three decades ago in LEAA, it's clear to me that a mix is needed of block grant funds, discretionary monies, technical assistance, research and training.

It's also clear, however, that physical choices have to be made by the administration within spending levels available.

I'd like to briefly highlight today five critical areas where we propose to target OJP funds in the next fiscal year to build on efforts that are making our communities safer.

First, the important task of ensuring offender accountability through programs we know have an impact. Our research has shown over and over the link between drug use and crime. And we know from that research that coerced treatment -- while we have offenders in the system -- works.

We also know that transition treatment under post-release supervision is really essential to making those changes in behavior stick. So, we propose to continue and expand the successful RSAT drug treatment and prison program, as well as the drug court program.

And we also propose a new drug testing sanctions and intervention initiative to help primarily local communities hold drug-involved offenders who are out on probation or parole, hold them responsible for changing their behavior, getting off drugs and staying away from offending.

A second important focus for OJP is enhancing criminal justice technology. Law enforcement professionals tell us today that they need a solid, technological infrastructure if they're going to fight crime effectively. They need computer hardware and software for crime mapping. And they need resources to help reduce the backlog of DNA samples in our nation's crime labs. They need interoperable wireless communications, and they need sophisticated technology to improve their forensic science capabilities.

The funding we're seeking today can't bring to scale this technology for every jurisdiction in the country. But I think it can play a vital role by providing seed money for pilot projects, demonstration programs, and importantly, advances in our knowledge.

Third, OJP will also continue its focus on addressing crime and drug abuse by juveniles. And my colleague, Mr. Bilchik, will be addressing that in further detail. But I think it's important that we recognize that despite the statistics showing declines in juvenile crime, that we know that this remains very much a continuing concern.

So, among other proposals in the budget, we're requesting $20 million for the next fiscal year, a $10 million increase for the drug prevention demonstration program which you started two years ago, Mr. Chairman. And we're seeking funding as well for a new youth gun violence initiative, recognizing that the impact of gun violence on young people remains tragically high.

I was shocked recently, as a mother myself of a 15 year-old boy, to read that a teenager today is more likely to die of a gunshot wound than of any disease. So we're proposing in the budget an initiative that builds on a pilot effort now underway in four cities to aggressively address juveniles' illegal access to guns.

The fourth area I want to highlight is enhancing community-based public safety efforts. I view OJP's role here as one of providing hands-on technical assistance; knowledge and funding support to empower local communities, to help them identify their many crime problems, develop a comprehensive strategy to address those specific needs, and then implement efforts to put those plans into action. We've seen how successful that approach can be.

For example, through the Weed and Seed program, which as you know was developed by the last administration, and is now underway in some 200 communities around the country. And it's been so effective in reducing crime, in revitalizing neighborhoods and increasing public confidence in law enforcement.

The final area I'd like to mention this afternoon is counterterrorism domestic preparedness. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Congress for your vital support in this area.

OJP is proud to be a key part of the Justice Department's team that's tackling this issue, working with the FBI and our other federal partners. And while this may be a new mission for OJP, working in close partnership with state and local jurisdictions is not. We're now putting this experience to work to aggressively address the problem of state and local domestic preparedness.

Over the last few months, I've had the chance to visit the five counterterrorism training centers for first responders that we help support and to talk to those front line people, the first responders, about their needs in this critical area. And from those discussions and those visits, it's clear to me that our budget request for training, technical assistance and equipment funding can go a long way in helping to provide those needed resources.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this budget request may not be everything that you or I might want it to be. But I pledge my personal commitment to working with you to ensure that state and local criminal justice practitioners have the resources they need to protect our nation's communities, and I look forward to continuing to work with you towards this goal. And, of course, I'd be happy to answer your questions.

Thank you so much.

ROGERS: Thank you.

Mr. Bilchik.

BILCHIK: Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it's my pleasure to be here today to discuss the activities of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. I'm able to report to you today that with the support provided by Congress, the Department of Justice has been able to effectively partner with communities and state and local jurisdictions in addressing juvenile crime.

It is true that youth crime is still a serious problem. However, as Ms. Robinson noted, I believe we are making progress, we're moving in the right direction. After steady increases from 1989 to 1994, the juvenile arrest rate for Part I violent crimes has dropped for three straight years, falling 23 percent during the time period of 1994 to 1997. Every type of violent crime index offense has declined significantly. This includes a 43 percent drop in the juvenile murder arrest rate from 1993 to 1997.

This positive trend is due in part to a movement towards a balanced approach to attacking juvenile crime, one that combines prevention programs for at-risk youth with early intervention and sanctions that hold offenders accountable at every stage of the juvenile justice system.

Entire communities, with the support that you have provided, are coming together -- law enforcement, schools, businesses, youth services and the faith community -- to protect our children, to hold them accountable and to steer them away from crime and drug abuse.

As a nation, we can celebrate these achievements, but we cannot rest. Although juvenile violent crime rates are falling and are now approximately where they were in 1990, they're still 23 percent above where they were as recently as 1988.

Mr. Chairman, we recognize that juvenile crime is primarily a state and local issue. Our federal role is to provide assistance and guidance through support the research, evaluation and statistics, the seeding, demonstration and replication of effective programs, training and technical assistance and information sharing.

I can assure you that we will continue to work with state and local communities toward balanced, comprehensive and community-wide approaches to preventing and combating juvenile crime.

I would like to highlight some of our recent work and outline our objectives for the future through this budget.

Since 1993, the office has promoted a comprehensive strategy for serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders, which has served as our foundation for our programming. The strategy is based on three decades of research on what causes delinquency and what works to address it, emphasizing six key areas of activity:

Strengthening families;

Supporting core social institutions;

Promoting prevention as the most cost-effective approach to reduce delinquency;

Intervening immediately and effectively at the first sign of high-risk behaviors that can lead to delinquency;

Establishing a system of graduated sanctions designed to hold every offender accountable;

Identifying and controlling the small percentage of serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders who account for the great majority of serious and violent juvenile crime in this country.

This type of work, which is taking hold across the country, needs to be supported by a range of prevention and intervention programs addressing the most critical issues facing our community today: Violence in our families, schools and communities; gang activity; drugs; guns in the hands of juveniles; and juvenile crime in our tribal communities.

The tools we have to attack these problems include program support for activities that through the research of OJJDP and other institutes and organizations, we know can work: Mentoring; strategies that attack gangs; community-based delinquency prevention programs that mobilize communities around juvenile gun violence reduction; school and community-based substance abuse reduction efforts; multi- disciplinary school violence reduction strategies which involve the broad community; and programs that reduce child abuse and neglect and the victimization of children and interrupt the cycle of violence we are seeing in this country.

The president's budget request for OJJDP and the department seeks support for each of these areas of activity and complements this support with several other proposed budget increases which provide funding for community prosecutors, community crime prevention, drug courts and drug testing of offenders, among others.

Mr. Chairman, we are having success and we're getting the word out to communities around the country about how to be successful. In 1998, we distributed over 3.5 million copies of our publications, a 45 percent increase from 1997. We received over 44,000 requests from communities and individuals for information about what work, a 14 percent increase over 1997. And our Web site was visited over 90,000 times in 1998. We sponsored six national satellite teleconferences, each on average attended by 13,000 people. We also provided support to 136 national and local conferences.

I want to thank the subcommittee for the support it's provided to OJJDP in the past. And I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee in the future to continue the progress we have seen over the past several years. I'd be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much.

ROGERS: Mr. Brann.

BRANN: Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I'm very pleased to appear before you once again on behalf of the Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Today, what I'd like to do is to update you on the progress of the COPS office and share with you some really real results that communities are achieving with the help of these grants across the country, and also to discuss the administration's budget request to continue the work of the COPS office in fiscal year 2000.

I am pleased to report today that the COPS office will, this year, achieve its' goal of funding 100,000 additional community policing officers, under budget and ahead of schedule.

We're seeing results from Bangor, Maine to San Diego, California, from North Pole, Alaska to Brownsville, Texas. Across this country COPS grants are funding the hiring and redeployment of over 92,000 community police officers. And more than 50,000 of these new officers are already on the beat and fighting crime in their communities.

I think it's reasonable to ask why there are not even more COPS- funded officers on the beat. I do have a chart here that I think may be helpful in explaining this. This addresses primarily the recruitment and hiring and selection process and training process. It does not address the local fiscal steps that an agency has to go through. But in looking at this, what we see typically, it takes seven to 10 months for a recruitment to go through the actual process related to the outward selection, then bringing those folks in for the various testing programs that they go through. Once that's completed, we're still looking at six to eight months on average for a police academy (ph) throughout this country.

So, as you can see, the answer is actually tied to challenges of the local police hiring practices. And in the course of my career, I did at one time serve as the commander for personnel and training operations in Santa Ana, California. I found that my experience is consistent with this. Also, ultimately, in addition to this, what we've found is about five out of every 100 applicants that begin this process will actually be successful, make it all the way through the process and actually go out there on the street to function as a police officer.

My colleagues in law enforcement across this country tell me that this experience is not unusual. And in my opinion, it should not be, either. As a former police chief, I can tell you, I can assure you from personal experience that it is dangerous and foolish to rush unprepared officers into service prematurely.

As to our second goal with advancing community policing, the COPS office continues to help local law enforcement implement innovative and effective community policing strategies. Community policing has become law enforcement's principal weapon in the fight against crime. And the reason for this is that community policing works.

I can attest to this based on nearly 30 years in the law enforcement arena, having risen through the ranks from that of a patrol officer in Santa Ana, California to that of a police chief in Hayward, California. I've witnessed and experienced first hand the benefits and the impact of community policing.

As the director of the COPS office for the past five years, I've had the privilege of visiting many communities across this country -- large and small agencies and urban and rural ones, as well. I've seen how COPS funding has served as a catalyst for this revolutionary shift that we're seeing, that we're experiencing, towards community policing.

Community policing and the COPS program are reducing crime in communities all across the country. In Boston, violent crime is at a 30-year low. In Mesquite, Texas, they recently reported that they are experiencing the lowest crime rate they've had in 25 years. In Reno, Nevada, gang crime has plunged 40 percent in the last year alone. And right across the river here, in Arlington, Virginia, burglaries have dropped to their lowest level reported in nearly 40 years.

In addition, there are a number of binders that I have here in the back of the room that contain just some examples of how COPS funds and community policing are making a very real difference in the lives of Americans.

Crime has now dropped for six-and-a-half consecutive years in nearly every region of the country. In the last six years, violent crime has dropped more than 20 percent and the murder rate has now fallen to its lowest level in 20 years, I'm sorry, in 30 years.

Now, I would not sit here and tell you that the COPS program is solely responsible for this dramatic decrease in crime. I can, however, tell you that the number of officers in the street is up, and this increases every day. Police chiefs, sheriffs and criminal justice experts say that more police doing community policing means less crime.

I'd now like to turn to the administration's budget request for the COPS office for fiscal year 2000.

ROGERS: I wonder if we could interrupt your testimony. We have a vote on the floor, and the time's just about out. We're going to take about a two-minute recess.

BRANN: OK.

ROGERS: So, hold that thought.

(LAUGHTER)

(RECESS)

BRANN: The COPS office will reach its goal of funding 100,000 community policing officers in fiscal year '99. And we are proud of this accomplishment, but I think really now is not the time to sit back and simply pat ourselves on the back.

Crime is down, but it is still far too high. In 1997 alone, there were more than 18,000 murders in this country. And when you think about that in terms of the human impact and social consequences, that is a truly frightening number. It represents 18,000 of our family and friends, 18,000 of your constituents, and it's 18,000 too many.

That's one of the reasons that we're requesting a total of $1.27 billion to add more officers to the street, to support measures to engage the entire community in preventing crime, to fund community prosecutors and to provide local law enforcement with the technology needed to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated criminals.

We are requesting $365.7 million to hire or redeploy additional community policing officers. We need to continue to add officers to the street, especially in those areas that have not benefited from this historic drop in crime. We also need help in economically distressed communities to keep their officers on the street. With this in mind, we are targeting $50 million for a retention program.

This subcommittee has wisely provided local law enforcement with the funds necessary to make great strides in the fight against crime. But if we're going to continue to drive crime rates down, and to keep them down, we must take the logical next steps in community policing. That is why we are proposing a $125 million comprehensive community crime prevention program to prevent juvenile crime, recruit seniors to help police, establish citizen problem-solving academies, and promote these partnerships with other service providers.

To build on the success of community policing, we are also proposing $200 million to help communities hire community-based prosecutors and establish or expand innovative community prosecution programs.

I think you would all agree with the need to make officers on the front line more effective by providing the with the best available technology. For that reason, we're seeking $350 million for vital crime-fighting technologies. This technology program will promote telecommunications and systems compatibility among criminal justice agencies; foster improvements of the forensic science capabilities of state and local agencies; and encourage the use of technology to predict and prevent crime.

Finally, for the management and the administration of the COPS office, we are requesting $36 million from the total program dollars.

Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify. And I especially want to acknowledge and thank this subcommittee for your support of local law enforcement. I look forward to continuing to work with you. On behalf of the COPS office, I do appreciate your consideration of this budget request, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

ROGERS: Thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Serrano, do you have any opening comments you'd like to make?

SERRANO: Mr. Chairman, just to thank these good folks for appearing before us and apologize for not being here at the beginning of the testimony. We were caught up in -- where I was and where the chairman was, and he was where he was supposed to be and I wasn't.

(LAUGHTER)

I apologize for that, and I will have some questions later because this hearing is of great interest to me and the people that I represent.

Thank you.

ROGERS: General Robinson, once again this year, the administration's budget eliminates the local law enforcement block grant, as you have since time immemorial.

(LAUGHTER)

That puts this committee in the position of finding additional funds from other programs to continue to support much needed assistance for local communities' crime efforts.

I would also point out that the Congress has been fair about supporting the COPS program over the last three years, even though the administration continues to eliminate the block grant program, which was the congressional alternative to the COPS program.

The attorney general told us at her hearing that the department requested funding for the block grants of OMB. And that the -- obviously, the White House nixed it.

You mentioned in your statement the need for a balanced mix of programs, both discretionary and formula grants, to address various crime problems in communities. Do you agree that the block grant is critical to that balance in order to support local communities' crime- fighting efforts?

ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman, as you know, because I have made this statement in prior hearings, we are very proud of the way that we've implemented the local law enforcement block grant program. We've set up a new automated system throughout Bureau of Justice Assistance, and we've been able to move roughly 2,700 grants on a very good schedule out to localities. And we've seen a lot of good work done with that funding.

As a criminal justice professional, it is my view that what is needed is a mix, as I indicated in my statement. A mix of block grants, discretionary, technical assistance, research statistics and training. I think that the local law enforcement block grant program -- as you know, the department did request that funding from OMB -- has been an integral part of the mix of programs that we've offered.

As you also are aware, the administration, looking at spending caps that were in existence, as well as tough choices among competing priorities, made a different decision on that and coming back with a mix of programs. But we do believe that the local law enforcement block grant program has been implemented well, and has served in many ways as a complementary program to COPS and other programs within the funding mix.

ROGERS: Well, the local law enforcement block grant will have provided over $1.1 billion over the last two years to local communities to fight crime: Hire cops, pay overtime, buy equipment, technology, for law enforcement officers. Crime prevention programs, security measures, in and around schools and other places; to enhance the adjudication of criminals -- that is, courts and prosecutors.

The department is proposing in place of those very successful block grants, $1.3 billion in new, mostly unauthorized, new programs for things which these block grant programs can already be used. Why are you proposing a series of new, piecemeal programs to replace the more successful and flexible block grant programs?

ROBINSON: Well, first of all, on the issue of the authorizations, the administration is going to be sending up a piece of legislation, or several pieces of legislation to address that, as I understand it, within the coming few weeks, so that authorizations in areas that don't exist would be available.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, in a number of the programs that are proposed -- and I would single out in particular some of the technology areas -- there is a stronger need with which I agreed, that there are certain things that can be done with discretionary money which may not be able to be addressed as well by local block grants. And one example of that that I would pull out is the DNA samples backlog. There we have potentially up to a million samples in that backlog as of the year 2000.

And in order to get those -- that backlog erased, and to get those samples into CODA (ph) so that we can be running samples against them from offenders who have been arrested, it really is critical, in our view, to have a targeted investment. In this case, it's $15 million to address that.

Similarly, the community prosecution program is something that we feel is a natural next step in the progression, past community policing. Something that can really take us to ensuring that there are convictions, that there is partnership with the community, and that we take the lessons learned out of community policing and take that, in effect, to the next step.

ROGERS: Well, block grant funding has been used by localities to hire police officers. Can you tell me how many were hired with that funding in fiscal '97 and '98? And, if those were in localities that couldn't afford the COPS program?

ROBINSON: About 11 percent of the funding last year -- there was $523 million that you all had appropriated -- 11 percent was spent on hiring. I don't have the exact figure, but we can get that to you. But I think, equally important, money was also spent on overtime and on the equipment and technology areas that, again, were complements to hiring that was available under COPS.

ROGERS: And again, pointing out, those block grants are 100 percent money. And many towns, communities, counties that can't afford the 25, 50, 75 percent local share for the COPS program, could go to the block grant program and get 100 percent. Can you tell me how many communities that could not afford the COPS program took advantage of the block grant program (OFF-MIKE)?

ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't have that figure with me. We'd be happy to get that to you. But we do know that a number of communities have done that. I think that the -- one of the challenges faced is that the funding is spread over so many communities. In many cases, we've now given -- it is quite small. So, the question would be whether in addition to that, they might also be going in for COPS funding.

ROGERS: Well, if we were to begin funding a $200 million community prosecutor program, what level of commitment would we be taking on? How much money for how many years?

ROBINSON: In other words, into the future -- is that your question?

ROGERS: Yes.

ROBINSON: The thought here would be that at least for several years, and the authorization decisions have not been finally made in the crime bill that will be sent to Congress shortly. But our thinking at this point is that it would be an authorization to go three or four years into the future.

ROGERS: Now your proposal also includes $35 million for a new juvenile gun courts program. The juvenile accountability block grant, which you propose to eliminate, can already be used for juvenile gun courts, plus juvenile drug courts, community prosecutors, juvenile detention facilities, technology, the things that you're proposing to do another way.

What evidence do we have that the juvenile crime block grant will not meet the needs that you say we have?

ROBINSON: If I could defer to my colleague.

BILCHIK: I don't think we have any evidence that it would not meet the needs, Mr. Chairman. I think that the two years of funding on the juvenile accountability incentive block grant, which is really just beginning to hit the first set of communities, I think our records indicate that the first 10 states have made the sub-grant (ph) awards in the past several months, and that indeed the first year of funding is still in the pipeline, let alone the second-year funding.

So I don't think we have a record yet, but we have no reason to doubt that it may meet those needs. What I think we're trying to do here is to focus on what we're hearing from the field is a very specific need, in particular the juvenile gun problem.

As I've testified in the prior hearing about the increase in juvenile homicides, when we chart out the increase in juvenile violent crime, in particular homicides, the entire increase in juvenile homicides is attributable to juvenile firearm deaths. And the decrease -- the entire decrease we've had in the past four years, has been attributable to a decrease in the juvenile firearm deaths also.

So this is a..

ROGERS: Well...

BILCHIK: I'm sorry.

ROGERS: Go ahead, please.

BILCHICK: I'll..

ROGERS: Well, as you know, we pumped zillions of dollars in the last couple of years into juvenile crime prevention and treatment.

ROGERS: And most of it through block grants that allow community responsibility, they can use it for whatever they think is best for their community rather than us up here trying to force a one-size- fits-all on the variety of communities in this country.

Juvenile crime is entirely the responsibility of the states. And aren't they in the best position to decide the particular programs that would best the juvenile crime issues in their communities rather than us telling them how to spend the money?

BILCHIK: I think you're right. And I think a lot of the support we still would be providing to local and state communities is through a formula approach. With the formula program that the OJJDP has, through the Title V prevention program, the (OFF MIKE) children's program, these are all monies that go out in the formula fashion.

This was really an attempt, as I've said, to focus on one issue we've heard universally needs to be addressed and then try to help replicate a couple of the program locations where we've seen some effectiveness in the juvenile gun court. I would equate this in a very similar way, Mr. Chairman, to where we were on drug courts 10, 15 years ago. A couple of communities experimenting with them, showing very, very good results in reducing juvenile gun violence. And us having the opportunity with an investment of this $35 million to help replicate that across the country. And then, hopefully, it would catch fire. And then, indeed, there would be much knowledge about it that the formula program could support it.

ROGERS: If we were to begin funding a new $35 million juvenile gun court program, what level of commitment would we be taking on, and how much money would that mean per year over the next several years?

ROBINSON: Again, I think the crime legislation that will be sent to Congress will clarify that. But my recollection is it would be for a three to four-year period.

ROGERS: Now, you also propose to eliminate except for a few earmarks, the $720 million state prison grant program. Your own Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded that the average time served by violent offenders has increased as a result of states changing their laws to meet the requirements of the state prison grant program.

That is, state prison grants have resulted in keeping violent criminals off the streets for longer periods of time. Wouldn't you agree that the state prison grant program has been a very effective program?

ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman, we now do have, as I think you know, 28 states that have qualified for the truth-in-sentencing funding. And we know of three additional states that are likely to come in this year. So, it clearly has had a real impact in states changing their laws to ensure that violent offenders spend a longer proportion of their sentence behind bars.

The original 1994 Crime Act contemplated the funding would end in the year 2000. The authorization ended at that point. And the states have been aware that this was not support over the long term. As they've had the funding support to build prison cells, they've had to bear the costs of operations. So, it's been a joint venture, if you will, as they proceeded. But to date, we do think that the program has had substantial impact.

ROGERS: But yet you propose to eliminate it. Why?

ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated before, these were tough decisions made by OMB among competing priorities and limited amounts of money.

ROGERS: Well, I don't know why we don't have the OMB up here to testify all the time. Every time we hear from anybody, well, we asked for it, but OMB denied it. I don't know why we just don't cut to the chase and subpoena them up here and put them under oath, on the grill and...

UNKNOWN: You'd need a larger room for that.

(LAUGHTER)

ROGERS: You're right about that.

Well, the state prison grant program is not only truth-in- sentencing funds. Fifty percent of the funds are available for state detention needs, without the truth-in-sentencing requirements. If we're going to -- if you were to eliminate those grants now, I think we would be reneging on our commitment to the states that we made a few years ago.

Mr. Serrano.

SERRANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Robinson, a few weeks ago, this subcommittee had a hearing with the Legal Services Corporation. One topic of discussion at that hearing was the LSC's request for direct funding in their own budget, specifically associated with domestic violence, even though several grantees are receiving funding through your Justice Department programs.

Would you comment on this whole issue? And in your -- is the funding you're requesting under the Justice Department enough to cover these needs at this point?

ROBINSON: The request for $23 million, which is an increase from the $12 million this year in the program that Mr. Rogers started last year, actually only begins to meet the needs out there in many ways. For the $12 million program this past year, we had $80 million of requests that came in. So, I think the needs are great.

I think in many ways what we do is a little bit different than what LSC is contemplating. For example, under our grant program, applicants have to come in and show that they have a collaboration with a local domestic violence/victim advocates group to do training, to do support.

We provide funding, for example, to bar associations to train pro bono lawyers to provide this assistance free of charge. We provide support to legal services clinics. They have student help to assist in addressing these needs. So it's a little bit different than, I think, what LSC has specifically requested.

In addition to that, our figures show that about $7 million of the $12 million from last year went to legal services providers at the local level. So, while we certainly don't give money directly to LSC, many of their local affiliates in effect are recipients of this funding. And it meets a critical need.

SERRANO: No doubt that it does meet a critical need. My concern is that I wonder if there's more that legal aid offices could be doing in this area to complement your programs and what you could be doing to assist them in some more coordination.

It just seems at times -- and I'm one who supports innovative and different programs that could be replicated throughout the nation. But it seems at times that they just, the programs crisscross each other, and you wonder how much coordination takes place.

I'm wondering if there's something you could tell us as to how best you can help them and what you would demand from them if you had your way to help you.

ROBINSON: Coordination is always a challenge in government. But we have taken a number of steps to try to meet that. When we first had the funding proposed for this program, about a year and a half ago, we sat down and met with LSC to make sure that if the appropriations came through that our efforts would be coordinated. We've had several meetings since that time. And I think as or maybe even more importantly, we're trying to ensure that localities are having that kind of collaboration and coordination as well.

In almost every instance, with successful applicants who came in under the $12 million program, they showed a collaboration between the number of people at the local level, with victim services, domestic violence advocates, law schools frequently, bar associations and local legal services providers. And it seems to me that that kind of collaboration is essential as we move ahead.

SERRANO: You know, there was a press article recently that indicated that the focus of funding on violence against women has led to a reduction in deaths associated with these crimes.

The interesting part of the article is that it says that the reduction in the deaths of men killed in acts of desperation by the women they have abused. Which then leads to an obvious question. First of all, could you comment on this phenomenon? And secondly, are we limiting our limited resources in the right way? I mean, I don't want to seem to be in favor of men getting killed.

(LAUGHTER)

But it seems to me that the victims are the children and the women, and we seem to be almost celebrating the fact that something else has happened. Is that still targeting -- is this the result of the right of actions being take? And does that mean that we're definitely then providing through these programs more support for women and children?

ROBINSON: I think these programs are taking us in the right direction. I am a little familiar with that research at Carnegie Mellon, I happened to be out there last year when they were presenting the initial findings from this. And the explanation, if you will, behind the research is that many of these collaborative, community- based programs have assisted women in being able to leave before the violence has escalated to the point where, in an act of revenge, perhaps while their husband is sleeping, they kill him. That's the explanation the researchers gave.

But I think we need to look behind that and see that in many jurisdictions -- Quincy, Massachusetts is one that is often cited. Over 10 years, there's only been one death of a woman who was court- involved with one of the victim services, violence against women programs, and that kind of Quincy mode -- one of our staff said to me recently, there are now many, many Quincys across the country. We're seeing that kind of collaboration. We're seeing law enforcement involved, the courts, prosecutors, in an effective kind of collaboration that is actually protecting victims' safety and holding offenders accountable. So yes, I think we're very much moving in the right direction here.

SERRANO: Well, I'm glad to hear that. And certainly stand assured that we support you in that effort. And I know that this is a bipartisan effort to deal with this most cowardly of all crimes in this society and to protect women and children in that situation. So please, you know, whatever it is that we need to do, remind us, so that we can deal with it.

On the policing issue, sir, as you know on February 4th, 1999 in my congressional district an unarmed West African immigrant with no criminal record was killed through the morning hours about four New York City police officers who fired 41 shots at him in the doorway of his Bronx apartment building. It is unclear why the police officers opened fire. The man, Admidublilo (ph), was 23 years old. He came here to America more than two years ago from New Guinea and worked as a street peddler in Manhattan, and he died at the scene.

The Bronx district attorney's office is investigating the shooting, the details of which are still murky. But there are some in New York who have suggested that federal funds should be withheld from local police departments until issues of police brutality and misconduct are sorted out and properly addressed. While I don't, at this time, support that kind of action to achieve an accountability, could you discuss with us other ways to hold local police departments accountable in return for federal dollars?

And is there a way or can you devise a way to impose training and diversity requirements on grantees for COPS funding? Let me, before you answer, just tell you that, you know, I've said it over the last couple of weeks, and every time it comes up will have to repeat it. You know, in the 25 years that I've been an elected official, I've never seen the outcry in my community, in New York, that this issue of the police. And the best way to explain it to you is that for years in my ethnic community, the Puerto Rican community, there was a division as to the feelings about the police.

Older Puerto Ricans telling younger Puerto Ricans, they're our friends, they're the people who protect us. Don't gripe so much about them, stay out of trouble and so on. Now, these older folks, most of them retired, are on the picket lines, are in the demonstrations saying we don't feel safe, we don't feel safe for our children, and we don't feel safe for our grandchildren.

I've been quoted as saying, and it wasn't on my part irresponsible, that I know how to avoid the local mugger in my South Bronx district. I don't know how to avoid the arrogance of many police officers.

And while we celebrate that numbers have gone down in crime, we somehow are being told that some people that in the war against crime there are victims, and that these are the victims.

You know, at what point do you get involved, at what point do other people get involved? We have starting May 26 a federal Civil Rights Commission investigation. And we have other things happening. But I tell you, and let me close with this. When the people who support the police department throughout this country the most begin to complain, it should be a message to government that something is terribly wrong.

If -- I give the example, if I step out on the street, and I see three individuals who've spent 25 years criticizing my legislative work, and they curse me out, I know where it's coming from. But if I step in the street and I see three people who I know have been my supporters for 25 years, tell me I'm not doing the right thing, I better pay attention, because something is wrong. And that's (OFF- MIKE) in New York right now.

BRANN: Mr. Serrano, I would have to respond to this in the context not only as the director of the COPS office, but in a very personal sense as well. This having to do with, as I had indicated, 30 years in the policing industry, I think that one of the problems we have in this profession, in this industry, relates to the model of policing that we have subscribed to and have been following for many years.

That in fact is being turned on its head as a result of community policing. And let me just interject here that community policing is not, as some people have tried to label it, either soft on crime or a public relations or a community relations program, nothing could be further from the truth. It is in fact effective policing that focuses on the responsibility of police to not do something to a community. Police is not something we do to a community, and in fact is something that we do in concert with, on behalf of a community, and the community has to be directly involved in identifying the priorities and the solutions. And I think that's the beauty of the benefit of community policing.

I spent my career working in two agencies that are in fact -- the dominant population is minority population; it has a very small Anglo population in both communities. We saw the same kinds of challenges that many other communities have experienced across this country with respect to increasing cultural and ethnic diversity.

And I can tell you that my experiences early on in my career are remarkably different than they were the last 25 years. The first five years, I was looking very much at a traditional organization. But one, which in fact became a pioneer of this whole community policing movement. It forced us to change our assumptions, our values, for that matter. It challenged us to take a look at our demeanor, our attitude, our behavior, in terms of how we dealt with the public. And out of that, I think we learned to far better appreciate the increasing diversity in our community, to better appreciate the circumstances that we were confronting, and to recognize that we had to become more sensitive ethnically, culturally and on a lot of other fronts as well.

That to me is one of the most phenomenal byproducts and outcomes of community policing. It does change the way that we come at this. What I have seen is a remarkable shift in communities that have really embraced the concept and the philosophy and have been practicing it for a number of years.

I can tell you again from my own personal experiences, I saw a significant decline -- in both jurisdictions that I served in. I've seen this in other jurisdictions as well -- a significant decline, not only the crime rate, but in the number of complaints, citizen complaints coming in. At the same time, a significant increase in the number of those complaints that were really sustained, internally, within the police review processes.

And that told me that we were doing a far better job of reacting to community issues and needs.

With respect to the COPS office and our role in all of this, it is in fact to support, to sustain, to expand the concept of (OFF MIKE) community policing across this country. In so doing, I think it better positions us to be up with these very kinds of issues. It's not just the change that we're looking at in that it's a gradual change that we're trying to effect here. I think at the same time there are agencies where in fact there are significant problems, we can turn a variety of resources above and beyond the simple funding for additional officers and technology and things of that nature. There are things that we're doing to regional community policing institutes. The COPS office, the National Institute of Justice, have partnered up on an ethics and integrity initiative that has been a resounding success and very, very well accepted within the policing profession.

We're expanding upon that. We're looking for new ways to get out there dealing with addressing these kinds of issues in an open, above- board manner, getting the professional industry to take a look at itself and what can be done. And I think that the kind of funding that we have provided in the past, the kinds of things that we have attempted to support in the way of professionalizing the police, will be, will continue to be addressed through what we're already doing as well as the new initiatives that we're proposing.

SERRANO: But, you know, my concern is, at what point do we, at one level or another, begin or grow on the theory that somebody has to tell local police departments that we have to really find out if people are

(AUDIO GAP)

ROYBAL-ALLARD: ... very serious concern with the small cities that I have that have been part of the COPS program, have been able to make some progress in, you know, turning the tide with regard to crime, and were extremely concerned about once the money ran out that they would be going backwards. I just wanted to let you know that I was happy to see that intention (OFF-MIKE).

Ms. Robinson, when I was reading your testimony, I guess I was interested in more than what was not said, rather than what was in your testimony, particularly as it pertains to your statements about crime going down.

ROYBAL-ALLARD: And although crime is going down, it is my understanding that crimes against women have either remained static or have, some would even argue that it actually has increased. And there was no mention of that increase in any of your testimony. And I was just wondering, what in (OFF-MIKE) the Justice Department is doing to respond to the crimes against women and to institutionalize the effort against crimes against women as a priority for the Justice Department.

And also, if you could respond to -- do you think that there is anything that can be done to strengthen the Violence Against Women Act? So that perhaps that would help and maybe the next time that you came before us you would be able to say, you know, crime overall is going down, but -- and so are crimes against women.

(AUDIO GAP)

ROBINSON: There are about five different funding streams going into OJP, and I couldn't mention all of them in the statement. But the violence against women area continues to be an extraordinarily high priority for the administration, for the Justice Department, and I know from this subcommittee as well. Our request is $282 million, which continues to be the amount enacted for '99. And I think carries forward terribly, terribly important work dealing with law enforcement, victim advocates, prosecution and very importantly, the coordinated approach across all of those pieces of the system.

What we are seeing in communities across this country -- and I've had the opportunity when I travel to go and visit domestic violence shelters to talk to victim advocates, to talk to victims, to say, what kind of difference has been made? What kind of difference has been made here? And in fact, our surveys showed this too, that the level of victim satisfaction in these cases has gone up substantially because of the support from this subcommittee, because of the support from Congress and the administration for this.

If I were to identify two areas where I think that there is real need, one of them, in fact the subcommittee has addressed, and that is the $25 million program on rural domestic violence. The needs in rural areas, in my personal, from my personal perspective, are even greater than in urban areas. For example, last year I was in West Virginia. And I was in some of the rural counties there. And it's not a situation that you might find, let's say, in Washington, D. C. where somebody could get on the Metro and go to a shelter. It might even be in an adjoining jurisdiction.

In many of these situations, the women are very isolated. They may not even have the keys to the truck or the car. They may not be able to use the telephone without their husband observing it. There are great issues about victims safety in those situations. So I would urge the committee to continue the $25 million support for the rural program, in particular.

Secondly, and this goes, I think, to the reauthorization of VAWA rather than an appropriations issue. It's very important for the courts to be at the table in this. I think we've seen enormous support from law enforcement, from prosecution, and from many judges. But I would also say that additional work needs to be made to really bring the judges and the courts on board.

So, during the consideration, of the VAWA reauthorization, the administration will be urging the courts be reconsider as perhaps one of the designated recipients of the block grant money.

ROYBAL-ALLARD: Also, we I read your testimony, I read where have a program known as the Corrections Program Office. And just recently, an article came out where Amnesty International reported that women inmates in the nation's prisons and jails are being routinely subjected to sexual abuse by the male guards.

And I was just wondering if you envision any kind of role for the Corrections Program Office in working with the state and local agencies to, you know, to investigate these allegations and to find ways to work with them so that you don't have these kinds of things happening.

ROBINSON: Our role from OJP would not be to investigate. But it would be very much to share information, to do education, to assist on training and technical assistance. And in fact, from our Corrections Program Office we have a good working relationship with I think virtually every state correctional administrator in this country, including the one that Mr. Latham had referred to.

One of the things we're planning to do, probably in early fall, is to hold a conference, not a huge one, but kind of a real working symposium on the issue of women offenders. There are very special needs that women offenders have in terms of training, education, assistance, because of having minor kids at home, with whom they still have relationships, issues of transition once they come out.

These and many other issues we need to be addressing and addressing very seriously. And the purpose of that will be to address that.

ROYBAL-ALLARD: Is it -- was this going to happen anyway? Or is it a result of the article? I mean, were you aware of these abuses at (OFF-MIKE) particular place?

ROBINSON: Those abuses, those kind of abuses have been discussed for several years. But in addition to that, I think the other thing that really caught our attention was the fact of the growth in female offending, which is much greater proportionately than for male offending. The number of women offenders in prisons, the increase is much greater than for men, proportionately.

ROYBAL-ALLARD: And they're usually drug cases, is that correct?

ROBINSON: Many of them are drug related, correct.

ROYBAL-ALLARD: OK. So, in this conference, will it be actually working with the state and local agencies to do what? I mean, what is it that's going to come out of this conference that's going to help prevent these kinds of things from happening?

ROBINSON: What we try to do in this kind of setting is to raise issues or listen to state and local practitioners about the issues they think need to be addressed. And then, in our case from OJP, what is it that we could help respond? Is there help that we could give on training? For example, for correctional guards. Or, educational programs, or addressing things specifically for offenders, such as drug treatment.

ROYBAL-ALLARD: I was at the White House when the president gave his radio talk on -- and introduced his officer training initiative where he talked about police misconduct and racial profiling. Is the Justice Department trying to identify and to track law enforcement agencies who may be using such things as racial profiling?

ROBINSON: The Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's offices really would have the lead on the investigation side. What we're trying to do, and Mr. Brann addressed some of that in the (OFF- MIKE) question, I think, on the education and training issues. But in addition to that, there really is a need to also develop and collect information.

So one thing that we're already moving ahead with through our Bureau of Justice Statistics is to add questions to the National Crime Victimization Survey to find out from citizens across the country what their interactions have been with law enforcement, and to try to really ferret out issues relating to police use of force. This is not for identification of particular departments, but to try to get a handle on what kind of statistics are out there, what are the facts, what can we learn from that.

BRANN: I would like to respond to that as well. Several months ago the COPS office and the Civil Rights Division did co-sponsor a national symposium on this very issue. It's something that (OFF MIKE) we brought together representatives from not only the policing community from around the country, but also ACLU and a variety of public interest organizations to begin discussion about this. To take a look at, not only (OFF MIKE) strategies but some of the things that need to be done both within the Justice Department as well as within the profession, as a whole.

There is follow-up work that is taking place in that front. But as Ms. Robinson indicated, there are really different components here in the Justice Department. Civil Rights and others have the responsibility to investigate, pursue certain kinds of allegations, the funding agency (OFF MIKE) more towards training and creating opportunities for change.

ROYBAL-ALLARD: And Mr. Chairman, just in closing, I just want to support what Mr. Serrano said with regard to the fact that if we're really going to have good community policing or improved police departments that we really do need to go beyond -- I guess, (OFF-MIKE) for not being here, but from what I've seen, we have to go beyond their physical capability, whatever test, that it's important to really test somehow what their attitudes are about the communities that they're being asked to work in.

I think that in itself will make a tremendous difference and really help us to move forward towards the objective that we all want, and that is a good relationship between the community and police officers, and so that they can work together towards a common goal of stopping crime in communities. I think that's a very good point.

ROGERS: Now, Director Brann, I understand as of September 30, 1998, grants for over 88,000 new police officers had been awarded. In your testimony, you state that you will meet the goal of 100,000 ahead of schedule. How many cops -- how many new cops will be provided with the fiscal '99 appropriated amount of $1.4 billion?

BRANN: We will -- we expect to actually get approximately 105,000 to 106,000 by the end of this fiscal year.

ROGERS: Are you planning on going beyond the 100,000 cops in fiscal 2000?

BRANN: Yes, that would be part of the proposal, the president's initiative.

ROGERS: And how much is the COPS program authorized to receive in fiscal 2000?

BRANN: The current authorization is for $360 million thereabouts, I believe.

ROGERS: That's $268 -- does $268 sound better to you?

BRANN: I would have to go back and -- do you have the figure in front of you?

ROGERS: I think it is $268.

BRANN: OK.

ROGERS: Now, is your COPS II program authorized?

BRANN: No, not as of yet.

ROGERS: And since most of that new COPS II proposal, which is over $1 billion, is not authorized, do you plan to submit proposed authorization legislation to the Congress to support that new proposal?

BRANN: It is my understanding that that is what will be coming to the Congress later this year.

ROGERS: And what if the Congress is unable or unwilling to authorize these programs, these proposals of yours, by the time the 2000 appropriation bill is completed? And I would point out to you that we've not passed an authorization bill in 20 years, I think. What if we don't authorize that, what happens then?

BRANN: I wish I could give you the right answers. But to be quite honest, those are issues that I think will have to be addressed within the Justice Department and the administration.

ROGERS: You don't want us to fund -- authorize programs, do you?

BRANN: Well, I'm not sure how we will move forward with this. But I do know that there will be a proposal that will be coming to the Hill shortly.

ROGERS: In the last days, of the last Congress, we passed the president's act, the Bipartisan Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998. And yet your COPS II proposal doesn't follow that newly enacted program, does it?

BRANN: I'm sorry, I'm not -- oh, this is the DeWine legislation from last year?

ROGERS: Correct.

BRANN: That is correct.

ROGERS: How does your program differ from that?

BRANN: I think I would have to defer to Ms. Robinson on this because of how the monies have been administered previously.

ROGERS: Well, the question is, how do we know that you're not going to duplicate or overlap any of the programs we have authorized?

ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman, the separate pieces under both the OJP and primarily the COPS budget, do address every one of the purpose areas in the DeWine legislation. On the issue of overlap, it would be our intention to rely on the staffing components within OJP or within COPS that have already developed expertise in the various areas. For example, on the DNA and crime lab improvement program, the staff within NIJ who are already working with the state crime labs.

ROBINSON: I would further say that COPS and OJP would be working very closely to coordinate and ensure that there was not duplication.

ROGERS: Now, General Robinson, we've been extremely supportive here of state and local assistance programs to address crime in our committee. Funding for OJP grant programs since 1995 has increased by 213 percent. We've gone from $1.1 billion to $3.4 billion a year. With that growth, we've also seen the complexity and scope of OJP's programs increase immensely.

We've been concerned about instances of duplication and overlap that we believe are caused by your agency's structure and magnified then by the growth. In your report to the committee last year, you agreed that there are lost opportunities for responding to crime and tremendous inefficiencies in the use of resources, as a result of the current OJP structure.

Last week, you submitted your proposal for restructuring OJP. Would you summarize your report and your recommendations and identify the benefits that you believe your recommendations would provide to us.

ROBINSON: Certainly. Let me say first of all, a note about the process we went through on this. We thought it was terribly important to do some -- even though we are on a short time frame -- to do some listening to the field about this. So, we outreached to about 50 practitioners and constituent groups to find out about their interactions with OJP and the kinds of things that they would like to see changed.

We also did a similar kind of outreach within the Justice Department and within OJP itself. And the report that was forwarded to you last week really reflects a couple of central principles. One of them is, as you indicate responsive to the notion of accountability and the need for a greater centralized management when the program has grown so substantially.

So rather than having a structure that incorporates a group of semi-autonomous agencies working with a common infrastructure, we've headed towards a set of components that in fact have coherent function and organization (OFF MIKE) a common mission. That would be the vision of the restructure plan.

We would look to have all research, for example, done in one area, all statistics in one area. Program work organized around subject area and formula grants organized around what we call state desks. So that there could be responsiveness to individual geographic needs.

And then very importantly, we've also proposed that there be something that I've called kind of an information central point. Even with a simplified structure there are so many funding streams going into OJP that it's hard for an individual mayor, a DA, police chief or other practitioner to figure out how you penetrate and get in and find out what kind of technical assistance or help is available.

So we felt it's very important to have one central point. It's almost a triage point for a jurisdiction to come in seeking whether it's technical assistance or grant funding, finding out about conferences, or publications, or whether it's to find out the help that they need.

ROGERS: Now, you are planning to provide legislative changes to enact that proposal?

ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman, the recommendation that we had made in the report was that if Congress chooses to act along this line, that they make the changes effective perhaps at the time of the change in administration so as not to disrupt appointees who are currently in place. But in the interim, we're happy to work with you and provide statutory language, as you request.

ROGERS: Do you think it's necessary that we pass legislation in order to do this?

ROBINSON: Yes. Statutory changes are needed, it's really the statutory infrastructure of OJP that really leads to these problems.

ROGERS: Now I see that you incorporated the police corps into OJP as the 1999 bill directed. Why isn't the COPS program incorporated into the OJP structure as well given that it is to expire in the year 2000?

ROBINSON: The structure that is proposed in the report -- and we forwarded it to you last week -- is a flexible one that Congress in the future, if the COPS office did go out of business or addressed in some other way, those responsibilities could be incorporated within OJP.

ROGERS: It makes sense, does it not, one stop shopping for local authorities?

ROBINSON: Well, I will tell you that the practitioners out in the field are a little frustrated with us in Washington at times.

ROGERS: You're kidding.

Mr. Brann, would merging the COPS office under OJP eliminate the possibility of duplication, streamline the process, provide that one stop shopping for state and local governments and other grantees that we're looking for?

BRANN: Mr. Chairman, obviously I'm not sure of what duplication you may be referring to. I -- what I see, the COPS office was created specifically to be very responsive to local agencies. And in particular, a huge issue that we've listed out there, we certainly realize is a result of the creation of this office, is the many agencies -- we're dealing with over 11,000 agencies that the COPS office is funding.

The vast majority of those agencies have never been the recipients of federal grant funding. We've set ourselves up to be very responsible in that front to provide a high level of service. We've also specialized in focusing on the needs of local law enforcement, direct funding for obviously police positions, for technology, for a variety of issues there.

I think, in effect, what we have is a degree of expertise and a service level that has been created vis-a-vis the COPS office that is somewhat different from that which we find through the other OJP programs and components.

ROGERS: Mr. Bilchik, we provided a $10 million grant program to your office to develop initiatives that would increase the perception among teenagers of the risk and harm of drug use. Tell us what you're doing with those monies and what results do you expect.

BILCHIK: As we look at the implementation of this program, Mr. Chairman, we are extraordinarily optimistic. We know the program that we selected for replication, the life skills training program has been tested in a variety of jurisdictions and found to be effective at reducing juvenile substance abuse and alcohol abuse over a sustained period of time.

What was important about this particular model was that it wasn't (OFF MIKE) in one place. It was shown that it could be moved from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and found to be effective. What you have permitted us to do with this funding is to do a massive replication of this type of approach. It really is the first time something like this has been done in this country.

What we did during the first year of the program was to identify the provider, train the trainers that would be going out to these communities across the country to train the guidance counselors, the school teachers and the communities that would be working with this model. That's been done. In fact, this month we have 16 different jurisdictions that are being visited and training is being set up. As of this fall, 34,000 youth will receive this particular curriculum. And that is just touching into the $10 million. It's using the first $5 million and also additional funding.

So, with the $10 million and then the additional $20 million, we expect to reach over 280,000 youth with this school-based curriculum. It's been a difficult process because it hasn't been done before. And training people in how to replicate a particular approach and maintaining the integrity of that program design is not easy. It's where we often fail with other types of programs. It's how we've learned through Big Brothers, Big Sisters, how to do mentoring the correct way.

Particular elements need to be in place in order to be successful. And that's what we're trying to do with this program, as well. So the numbers are fairly astounding to think that we can reach that many youth. And I believe it will have a dent, will make a dent into the substance abuse problem.

ROGERS: You're requesting $20 million, double the '99 figures. And...

BILCHIK: We're excited about your program.

ROGERS: And quadruple what you requested in '99 for that juvenile direct prevention program. I assume that means that it's showing some real results.

BILCHIK: Well, the model itself is showing results. What we have done at the initial stages of this program is to set up the massive replication. And this is what has caused so much excitement in the field. I cannot tell you today that there are children who I have measured the outcome for this program. What we do know is the training have begun and the curriculum will start for 34,000 children. And that's a significant undertaking.

ROGERS: Last year, the Congress provided $185 million to ONDCP for an anti-drug abuse media campaign. Last year we learned that the infrastructure for responding to calls for help from either kids or parents as a result of that media campaign was inadequate. While I understand that this campaign is being handled by ONDCP, has there been any improvement on the infrastructure to respond to calls for help?

BILCHIK: If my information is correct, Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes. A web site was set up to facilitate Internet connections for parents and children to make inquiry. And in addition, the NCASA, the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Substance Abuse has been set up. And they have received over 200 percent increase in inquiries are supposed to be handling those inquiries without any problem. There is an 800 number that has been set up. And as you know, most PSAs do not have 800 numbers, and this one does have an 800 number.

I might add that one of the things we've seen early in this campaign is that the amount of exposure that youth have had to this ad campaign is almost double what was anticipated. We're hopeful as we know from research, that if we can impact the perception of youth about the risk of using drugs, that we will also then see the decrease in actual substance abuse. So, we hope the campaign will have that effect.

Even though there is an impact evaluation being done as well. The results are not in yet to see what impact it will have on these children's perceptions of risks.

ROGERS: When do you expect that?

BILCHIK: I've been told it will be about another year before we get those results. I can double check on that, Mr. Chairman. Again, it's not something that we're over seeing directly. Would you like for me to report to you on that?

ROGERS: Please do, certainly.

Now, Ms. Robinson, do you -- your budget request includes a new $100 million initiative for drug treatment both during and after incarceration. And $65.1 million for the residential substance abuse program for state prisoners. Please describe for us specifically who would be targeted by that new initiative?

ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman, the new initiative would target a group that is not captured either by the drug court funding or by the residential substance abuse, the in prison drug treatment. And that's primarily offenders who are out on pre-trial release or back in the community on parole.

One of the things that we've been hearing over and over from local mayors is about the influx of offenders returning to the community after they've served a term of incarceration. And the kind of problems that that can in effect lead to in the community. We also know of course the link between drug use and crime.

That $100 million will be specifically targeted for local jurisdictions primarily to hold offenders who are returning to the community or, as I said, out on pre-trial release, hold them accountable for their behavior through drug testing, interventions with sanctions and couple that with treatment. And the goal here, which we have seen from our research, is to reduce drug use and thereby reduce associated crime.

One of the things that I've been very struck by during my tenure with the Justice Department is just how clear the research is about the impact we can have from these kind of programs. For example, the Amity (ph) drug treatment program out in California which couples in prison treatment with prison after care treatment back in the community, has shown remarkable reductions in recidivism. In the control group they had 63 percent who had recidivated within a year. And that dropped to 42 percent if they had the treatment in prison.

And again, that dropped from 42 down to 26 percent if they had the after care. So, this is remarkable black and white, very clear research that shows an impact on drug use and associated crime.

BILCHIK: Can I add to that. I think the area that Ms. Robinson just described also applies to the juvenile area. And we are hearing from communities that they also need this capacity to be testing and treating juvenile offenders as they re-enter communities and hold them accountable for any relapses. We have worked hard working with juvenile probation officers in sensitizing them to the issue of juvenile substance abuse. We've worked hard in empowering communities on how to set up testing programs. One of the things we've heard is that there are not sufficient funds to actually implement those programs. And whatever support we can provide in the juvenile area, would be welcome, as well.

ROGERS: Well, the juvenile crime block grant that we funded last year could be used for this purpose. You're not requesting that this year.

BILCHIK: Correct. As I indicated before, Mr. Chairman, I think what we're trying to do is target on a few specific areas rather than the 12 different areas that we've heard are the greatest problem areas for the juvenile offender population. So looking at re-entry issues, drug testing issues, community prosecution issues, we thought those would be the most intensive areas of concern right now, that we're hearing from the field.

ROGERS: Now, Ms. Robinson, why can't the HHS existing grant program be used for this purpose? Why do we need a new one in Justice when we already have one in HHS?

ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman, that's a very good question and it's one that I would not have known the answer to before I came into government. But it's very clear that HHS targets its money primarily, almost exclusively on non-criminal justice populations. They do not view public safety and crime as their primary goal and jurisdictional area. That's why, it seems to me, that the Justice Department, because of the link with crime and public safety, needs to come to the fore here again.

The research is so clear that we can in the end change offender behavior and affect public safety. And that's not HHS's primary goal.

ROGERS: Well, but -- it's the local community that decides what they want to apply for. It's not HHS that tells them what they have to do with the money. It's the local community that applies for the monies that are available. And they can use them for this very purpose. I hate to see another bureaucracy set up when we already have one set up for this type of program, admitting it's a good program.

ROBINSON: Traditionally, the state and local agencies to whom the HHS block grants go again, serve non-criminal justice populations. We've actually worked with them, Mr. Chairman, to try to raise their consciousness about that. But there is huge demand for treatment and the general reaction has been, we're going to get it to the people who are the upstanding citizens in the community and not to the offenders.

ROBINSON: I wish it were otherwise, but that is kind of the reality out there.

ROGERS: Now, we already provide residential testing and treatment for state prisoners. You want us now to fund treatment after the state prisoners are released. I'm wondering where can we draw a line.

ROBINSON: It seems to me again, going back to the statistics that I cited about the Amity (ph) program in California, if we don't ensure the transition back into the community, that they're really making that transition back successfully when they're back with all of the temptations of their old neighborhood, their old peers, their old friends, then we may, in many cases, we shouldn't have invested in the treatment in prison. It's essential to ensuring a successful transition so that they can actually make it back into the -- kind of column of the law abiding and not fall back into the old habits, which frequently are tied up with drug use.

ROGERS: What percentage of the monies would you expect to be spent on treatment of prisoners after they have been released?

ROBINSON: Under the RSAT funds, we would anticipate that a pretty small percentage would be spent on that. But we have heard from some states that they already have funding available for the in prison piece. And what they really need is the after care help.

ROGERS: What percent of the monies would you expect to target towards juvenile offenders?

ROBINSON: At this point, I think it's about a quarter of the funding under RSAT that goes to juvenile offenders. I can get you that exact figure. But a number of the states do have programs addressing juvenile drug use while the juveniles are incarcerated.

ROGERS: Now this program is not authorized, is it?

ROBINSON: The RSAT program?

ROGERS: Your proposal.

ROBINSON: The proposal for the $100 million will be in the Crime Bill II that the administration sends to the Hill later this spring.

ROGERS: And what if it's not authorized by the time we must appropriate here. What do you propose that we do?

ROBINSON: Well, I guess I'd suggest that we kind of regroup at that point.

ROGERS: Now, if we were to fund the, an extensive drug testing and treatment program what level of commitment would we have? How much money and for how long?

ROBINSON: The total package here is $215 million that would cover from the pre-trial release stage to the post incarceration.

ROGERS: Now, let me ask Mr. Brann, you and Mrs. Robinson a question.

We're really under budget caps, we're short of money. We've got to make choices in what things we fund and don't fund. If you had to choose between hiring more cops and the new drug testing and treatment initiatives, which one shall we choose?

BRANN: I think we're going to be funding from -- at the same time, the same camp and then some different camps. The COPS office is specifically set up to try to represent and be responsible to the needs of local law enforcement. But at the same time, I must tell you that I hear from local law enforcement officials about their need, their interest in funding for prevention programs and strategies, things dealing with drug prevention, drug enforcement, the whole range of issues.

It is a tough decision. I think everybody in this room understands that there's going to be some very hard budget decisions to be made here. But what we've come up with the administration is proposing to fund these 21st Century police initiative that I think is responsive to what we've been hearing from our customers out there, the kinds of issues they've identified. And we've tried to develop a plan around that that would best address that.

ROGERS: I don't think I heard your answer to my question.

(LAUGHTER)

BRANN: I'm going to end up pushing for the additional officers and a combination as provided for in this 21st Century police initiative, a combination of funding that will allow them to do some of the things that they are trying to do at the local level. This initiative addresses that.

ROGERS: Ms. Robinson.

ROBINSON: If it were up to me, I'd fund the drug treatment and testing program.

(LAUGHTER)

And let me explain why -- I think that it's terribly important to develop some models in this area. And I would agree with my colleague, Mr. Brann, that law enforcement has been very, very supportive of things like drug courts in many communities. We don't have sufficient models of carrying this drug testing, treatment, sanctions and accountability through the system. That's something that's very much needed and does not now exist. And I think it's a terribly important investment that the federal government could make a real difference and help states and localities see the direction in which to go.

ROGERS: And finally, Ms. Robinson, you've requested a health clinic security initiative using funds from within the Byrne (ph) discretionary program. Would you briefly describe that proposal.

ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This $4.5 million proposal would address three things that have really come to light from the law enforcement and prosecution work which the department has done relating to clinic security and some of the bombings that have occurred.

The first would be to address help to local law enforcement and clinics and security assessments. The second would be technical assistance and training to local law enforcement in terms of how to assist clinics in protecting their security. And the third would be to target help in the form of equipment. It might be lighting or alarms or such for particularly high risk clinics.

ROGERS: And under what authority are you proposing that program?

ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman, our general counsel has told us that Byrne (ph) formula, purpose number 26, which deals with domestic terrorism could cover the first two areas, but not the third dealing with equipment. And so, the president's budget request has specific language in it which if the appropriators -- if you choose to pass it, would carry in effect the authorization.

ROGERS: I think it's a real stretch, the legal interpretation that is being made. I'm very skeptical about the use of Byrne (ph) grants for that purpose. I doubt that it falls within the excepted statutory purpose. So, I would hope we could talk further about that.

ROBINSON: We'd be happy to talk with you about that, Mr. Chairman.

ROGERS: Mr. Serrano.

SERRANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, one of these vocations where I'm going to show the difference, one of the major differences between being on this subcommittee for years, as you have, and a couple of notes (ph) that I have for a month. And that is, when we speak about inmates, are you talking about programs where you assist localities with their inmates? Or, are we talking about federal inmates? And if we are, inmates in federal prisons, and if we are, you talk about juveniles, you might teach me something. Do we have juveniles in federal prisons?

ROBINSON: Sir, all of our money goes to states and localities in the form of grants.

SERRANO: That's what I thought. If I had my way, I'd fund both, but I don't' have my way.

When you said, you just used a phrase, for my information, domestic terrorism, was that correct in using that? What are we talking about here?

ROBINSON: Well, as opposed to international, I just meant within the United States.

SERRANO: Within but not caused by local courts and etc., right?

ROBINSON: That's correct. I think the term is usually used, for example, in the domestic preparedness discussions about events that actually take place within the continental United States or the Alaska, Hawaii, etc.

SERRANO: And territories.

ROBINSON: And territories, yes, sir.

SERRANO: Territories are important.

(LAUGHTER)

And I'm being nice, Mr. Chairman, I'm not saying colonies.

(LAUGHTER)

The drug, the anti-drug abuse act, you say there is a report coming to show how successful they've been?

BILCHIK: There is an interim report that showed what level of exposure youth and families had to the ad campaign thus far. There will be a follow up report. I believe WestCam (ph) is doing the evaluation of the project, about what the impact of those ads have been. Have they changed children's impressions of the dangers and risks involved with using drugs? And that's the critical component because if you do increase the awareness of the risks involved with using drugs, our research shows that the use will go down. There is a direct correlation to increased perception of risks, decrease in use.

SERRANO: Bring me up to date, which one of your ads, the one that (OFF MIKE)

BILCHIK: No, the ONDCP ads are a variety, the woman with the frying pan in the kitchen is an ONDCP ad. The ad you may have seen in the movie theaters recently of the youth who is taking the back alley to get home because he is afraid of the gang members in his community, is one of those ads. Talking to your children about drugs, what happens if you don't talk to your children about drugs, is part of that ad campaign.

What's happened with this campaign, however, is that the $185 some million that has been invested in it, has rolled over into more than $400 million of in-kind ads that have been run by the television networks and different cable stations.

SERRANO: How much?

BILCHIK: Over $400 million in leveraged ads.

SERRANO: So, we're getting close to $600 million ads.

BILCHIK: Right. So, when you see an ad that may be run on a mentoring program -- and we know that mentoring programs reduce substance abuse. That is a direct result of the congressional investment in this area. And so, we see a variety of tangential ads that don't look like they are from ONDCP, but they would not have been in prime time but for this undertaking. So, we're pleased with what's happening thus far. We're looking forward to finding out what the impact is overall.

SERRANO: Did you say TV ads, movie...

BILCHIK: Radio, there are print ads...

SERRANO: How many languages do you run them in?

BILCHIK: I couldn't answer that, department heads...

SERRANO: But you're running more than one language, correct?

BILCHIK: I really would be guessing. I would be making an assumption.

SERRANO: Oh, you don't know if you're running (OFF MIKE), in English?

BILCHIK: Not being the oversight of that campaign, I don't know how many languages they are running -- whether besides English, Spanish, other languages.

SERRANO: I would hope they are.

BILCHIK: I would imagine that would reach more of the population of this country if they were. But I don't want to guess. I can follow up and find out for you and let you know the answer. We are looking at different publications that reach targeted populations like a publication written by parents about abducted children, we're printing that in Spanish. Because we need to know we've reached that population in this country as well.

ROGERS: Let us know what languages the media campaign is (OFF MIKE).

BILCHIK: Will do.

SERRANO: I have no further questions.

ROGERS: Well, thank you very much for your testimony. It's been a useful hearing for us. Hopefully, the drug picture today is all important because this is the money that goes to our local communities. But out of the federal coffers that there is something to supplement what essentially are state and local responsibilities, juvenile crime, most crime is state jurisdiction. And so, these are not federal crimes or federal items that are normally on our plate.

And as has been said, this subcommittee has helped beef up this section of what Justice does in an enormous way in the last few years. And it appears to be paying off. The juvenile crime rate is encouraging, very encouraging as is the overall crime rate. And I think a big part of that is -- a big reason for that, is what you do with the funds that we have given. And so, I think there has been very little of self-congratulations here.

Thank you. We've got a long ways to go, but I think we're making some real progress. Thank you.

END

NOTES:
Unknown - Indicates Speaker Unkown
Inaudible - Could not make out what was being said.
off mike - Indicates could not make out what was being said.

PERSON: HAROLD ROGERS (94%); LAURIE ROBINSON (59%); CHARLES H TAYLOR (57%); JIM KOLBE (57%); RALPH S REGULA (57%); TOM LATHAM (56%); DAN MILLER (56%); JULIAN C DIXON (55%); JOSE E SERRANO (55%); LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD (54%); ALAN B MOLLOHAN (54%);

LOAD-DATE: March 21, 1999

Document 40 of 44.


Search Terms: legal services corporation, House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: