[Senate Hearing 106-755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-755
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS OVERSIGHT: EXAMINING THE OJP REORGANIZATION
PLAN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON YOUTH VIOLENCE
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
AND EXAMINING A PROPOSED REORGANIZATION PLAN
__________
SEPTEMBER 16, 1999
__________
Serial No. J-106-47
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-858 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
Manus Cooney, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Youth Violence
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama, Chairman
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
Kristi Lee, Chief Counsel
Sheryl Walter, Minority Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 1
Ashcroft, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri..... 8
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Statement of Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, Office
of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 2
Panel consisting of Alfred Blumstein, professor, John Heinz III
School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA; Gene R. Voegtlin, legislative
counsel, International Association of Chiefs of Police,
Alexandria, VA; and Donna F. Edwards, executive director,
National Network to End Domestic Violence, Washington, DC...... 24
ALPHABETICAL LIST AND MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Blumstein, Alfred:
Testimony.................................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Edwards, Donna F.:
Testimony.................................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Robinson, Laurie:
Testimony.................................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Sessions, Hon. Jeff: Prepared statements of:
Jimmy Gurule, professor of law, Notre Dame Law School........ 19
Mark Soler, president of the Youth Law Center................ 22
Voegtlin, Gene R.:
Testimony.................................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 32
APPENDIX
Questions and Answers
Responses of Laurie Robinson to questions from Senator Sessions.. 45
Chart of the Office of Justice Programs...................... 49
Potential area for clarifications/compromises: Reflected on
draft revised chart........................................ 50
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS OVERSIGHT: EXAMINING THE OJP REORGANIZATION
PLAN
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Youth Violence,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Sessions
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Also present: Senator Ashcroft.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. We will come to order, and I apologize
for being caught in another hearing and I couldn't quite get
out of there at the time.
I would like to welcome each of you to this hearing of the
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Youth Violence. The Youth
Violence Subcommittee oversees the Department of Justice's
Office of Justice Programs. The Office of Justice Programs is
the Federal Government's primary point of contact for State and
local law enforcement grants. In the last 6 years, OJP has
experienced tremendous growth in the number of programs it
administers. Appropriations for the Office have increased from
$800 million in 1993 to $4 billion in the current fiscal year,
a 500-percent increase in funding.
Now, this $4 billion represents 55 different funding
streams that must be effectively and efficiently made available
to State and local law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, as
Congress has added new programs piecemeal for OJP to
administer, OJP has been faced with, and has not, developed a
coherent overall plan as to that administration.
An examination of the chart to my right illustrates this
point. OJP has five budget bureaus, the offices bordered in
red, headed by presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed
directors, in addition to eight other offices, ranging in focus
from the Violence Against Women Office, to the Drug Courts
Program Office, to the American Indian and Alaskan Native Desk.
The result is duplication and overlap in many areas.
Let me illustrate the point. If the chief of police of
Mobile, AL, contacted OJP to request Federal grant assistance
in combating drug abuse, he would be required to contact at
least four different offices within OJP--BJA, NIJ, the
Corrections Program Office, the Drug Courts Program Office--to
determine what grants might be available.
Needless to say, this results in frustration on the part of
our local law enforcement agencies. Moreover, it renders many
worthy programs inaccessible to local law enforcement who do
not have Federal grant experts on their staffs to help them
work through these regulations.
In addition, OJP has an unparalleled number--six--of
presidential appointees. While the Assistant Attorney General
is the head of OJP, there are five presidential appointees who
do not necessarily answer to her. This could result in a lack
of coordination among the programs that OJP is charged to
administer.
In summary, the current administration of OJP is, it
appears to me, in need of reform. This means that the
taxpayers' money is not being spent as wisely as it ought to be
spent. The current Assistant Attorney General has been charged
by Congress to evaluate the situation and propose a solution. I
have had the opportunity to work with Ms. Robinson and I know
she has taken this very seriously.
Our forum here today primarily is to review her suggestions
for change and make sure that the public and the Congress have
access to it so that we can make any input and suggestions for
improvement that might be appropriate. So I appreciate Ms.
Robinson's hard work in this area and I look forward to working
with her to resolve this problem.
Would you, Ms. Robinson, please step forward and take that
chair? It won't be a hot seat today, I am sure.
Laurie Robinson was appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate as Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Justice Programs in 1994. During her tenure, the OJP
budget has grown significantly. Before joining the Justice
Department, she served 14 years as Director of the American Bar
Association's Criminal Justice Section, where she founded the
ABA Juvenile Justice Center and worked to implement the ABA
criminal justice standards. She is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of
Brown University.
I have appreciated your professionalism, Ms. Robinson, as
you have served in this office since I have been in the Senate.
We have worked together, and I would love to hear your comments
and views concerning reorganization at OJP.
STATEMENT OF LAURIE ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for the
opportunity in the midst of Hurricane Floyd this afternoon to
appear before the Congress, and I appreciate very much the
chance to talk about ways to strengthen the operations of OJP
and, in fact, to better serve our State and local constituents.
And I also very much want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well
as the other subcommittee members, for the bipartisan support
that has really been shown to OJP.
Before discussing the specific recommendations, I think it
might be helpful to look at some history here. The Federal
criminal justice assistance program is now some three decades
old, and as you noted in your opening statement, it has seen
tremendous growth in recent years. I think, more importantly,
the mission has grown as well.
From the early days of LEAA, when there was essentially
just one program, we now have, as you noted, 55 separate
funding streams coming into OJP, and under many of those there
are, in fact, multiple programs. And while all of us are
certainly encouraged that crime rates continue to fall, it
seems to me that the problems of crime that are facing this
country obviously remain very daunting--issues of gangs, of
youth crime, family violence, sophisticated cyber crime, and
certainly the potential for chemical and biological terrorism,
as you, Mr. Chairman, know from your leadership with the Fort
McClellan Center.
These challenges to public safety are, I would contend,
really greater than ever in our history. So, clearly, one of
our goals as we move into the next century has got to be to
ensure that the Federal Government, and specifically here OJP,
can fulfill its core mission of working as a partner with State
and local jurisdictions. And as part of that, I think we have
got to be relentless in pushing to make our programs user-
friendly and easier to access for State and local
jurisdictions, not just for the Washington and interest group
insiders.
While I think we have made great strides toward this over
recent years, OJP's complicated structure and internal
redundancies, as you have pointed out, inhibit our ability, in
the words of the U.S. Army poster, to be all that we can be.
Our fragmented structure undercuts the ability to advance a
comprehensive, integrated program that can help State and local
communities address crime and address juvenile delinquency. And
with the potential that future budgets may not be as great as
they are today, I think this challenge for good government
becomes, in my view, all the more critical.
As you know, OJP is composed of five bureaus and six
program offices right now, and my statement for the record
describes these more fully. Our unusual structure, with the
five bureaus in one small agency each headed by a presidential
appointee confirmed by the Senate--and that is a situation that
is apparently unique across the executive branch--this
structure has really evolved over our 30-year history as new
laws led to the creation of new organizational components. And
I think it is important to emphasize here that this evolution
has not been political or partisan. It has simply been the
consequence of a series of actions that have been taken over
time by both the legislative and the executive branches.
But in today's world, with the renewed attention to
customer service, renewed attention to efficient delivery of
products and services, and certainly to accountability, OJP,
with its decentralized and overlapping components, runs counter
to sound management principles. We are the size of many Fortune
200 companies, and we need to ensure that we are managing those
resources in the most effective manner possible, particularly
thinking of ourselves, as we should, as stewards of taxpayer
money.
Equally critical, we need to ensure that our complex
program is understandable and usable, as you point out, Mr.
Chairman, to the practitioners out there, to local elected
officials and the like who don't know one OJP bureau or office
from another, and frankly should not be expected to.
As you know, Congress triggered this examination of OJP's
structure in the 1998 appropriations conference report, where
it directed us to report back information on overlap and
duplication. The resulting report documented a number of steps
that we have taken to promote coordination, but noted that
fundamental problems remain.
For example, because the statutes creating OJP components
themselves contain substantial overlap, staff across our
offices and bureaus frequently field programs addressing the
same topics, and I want to give you a few illustrations. Four
of our bureaus and one office work on corrections, four bureaus
and one office address domestic violence, five bureaus and one
office work on child abuse, and gang issues are addressed by
four bureaus. And that list could go on.
Senator Sessions. Could I interrupt you?
Ms. Robinson. Certainly.
Senator Sessions. What is the difference between a bureau
and an office?
Ms. Robinson. The bureaus were statutorily created and the
offices were set up by and large when different, new funding
streams were created by Congress.
In response to the overlap report, Congress, in our 1999
appropriations law, directed the Department to develop a plan
for a new structure with, ``streamlined, consolidated
authorities which will ensure centralized management.''
We had a short period of time to prepare that report, only
four months, but we thought it was critical that there be
outreach to the field. So during that time, we interviewed
about 50 constituent group representatives and criminal and
juvenile justice practitioners, as well as 50 Justice
Department and OJP officials. And in addition, both NIJ and
OJJDP convened special groups to provide input on the issue of
research and statistics.
Based on this outreach, a plan was prepared and sent to the
Hill in March. The new structure proposed in the report does
not recommend changing the underlying funding stream. It does
recommend ways to more effectively manage the existing
programs. It would, for example, eliminate duplication and
overlap by consolidating grant programs by subject, organize
grant administration around State desks, consolidate all the
research in NIJ and all the statistics in BJS----
Senator Sessions. Ms. Robinson, that light is getting
yellow, but don't worry about it. Take your time and tell us
how you see this thing. We want to hear that.
Ms. Robinson. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And it would also create one information central point for
people seeking help. My formal statement describes all of this
in more detail, but there are two aspects of it I would like to
touch on this afternoon. The first of those is this proposed
information central point, the point that could really help our
customers locate the wide array of resources, which could be
training, technical assistance, publications, grants, and
information about best practices.
And like you, here I often think about a local official, a
local elected mayor, for example, recently elected who may not
know a BJA from an NIJ from a drug court program office from an
OSLDPS. And what he or she does know is that their town has a
growing number of gangs, they have rising school violence; meth
problems are arising. And my goal for that mayor is that he or
she can easily reach a knowledgeable person to help them sort
through the issues, almost like triage in an emergency room,
someone who can point him the available technical assistance,
the grant opportunities, best practices, or even link him up
with other communities that have successfully tackled that kind
of problem.
Right now, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that mayor
would have to go to four or five different sources, each
addressing only a piece of the problem. And it is common sense,
but I would point out here that in communities of this country
and in human behavior there are not these neat little
compartments and divides. When we look at juvenile gang
problems, for example, they may be very intertwined with adult
drug trafficking. When we find domestic violence in a home,
there may be child abuse as well.
Turning to a second facet of the plan, the report calls
for, as I mentioned, consolidating the research in NIJ and the
statistical work in BJS. And while there has been much support
for this, I want to point out that many juvenile justice
advocates have expressed deep concern about OJJDP losing these
functions, so I want to talk for a minute about that.
First, and most fundamentally, OJP currently houses two
research centers whose work is too often compartmentalized and
disconnected. But more fundamentally, issues relating to human
development and antisocial behavior cannot be neatly divided
into an under-18 category and an adult category. In fact, I
would contend that knowledge about early childhood development
and about adolescent behavior is critical to our understanding
adult criminality. Knowledge-building has got to be a unified
enterprise, not one divided by artificial barriers or by
bureaucratic territoriality.
Second, evaluation and research need to be independent if
it is going to be credible. An arm's length relationship from
those with a stake in the outcome is critical. That is the
reason, for example, we don't have the Drug Court Office
evaluating its own programs, and I think if we did, the results
would not be viewed as credible.
But several of the points raised by the critics here I
think are important. We do want to ensure a close feedback
connection between research and programs, and the
reorganization proposal, in fact, embraces and provides for
such an approach--a research and development cycle with
research findings informing program development and program
staff who are experts in their areas helping shape research
agendas.
And to help prevent the possibility that juvenile issues
would get lost within NIJ's broader portfolio, we call for
creation of an Institute on Juvenile Justice Research within
NIJ to ensure that these issues receive attention. And I would
point out that that is similar to the legislation, Mr.
Chairman, that you all passed here, S. 254.
As I conclude, three final thoughts. First, I want to
stress that our goals here are not simply about efficiency.
They are about setting out a vision for what the Federal
criminal and juvenile justice assistance, research, statistics
program should look like to be most effective in helping State
and local communities.
Second, we are very aware of the concerns being expressed
by dedicated people in the juvenile justice, crime victims, and
violence against women communities about the potential impact
of the proposal in these areas. Over a number of months, we
have had the opportunity to have conversations with many of
them, including meetings with the Associate Attorney General,
and we plan to continue these dialogs.
Certainly, our goal in coming forward with the plan was not
in any way to diminish the importance of these areas--violence
against women, victims, or juvenile justice. In fact, I think
it is important that we retain an organization where these
important voices are not only heard, but heard loudly.
And in appearing here today, I also want to stress that
every detail of our proposal is not from our vantage point cast
in stone. Clearly, we are at the beginning of this process and,
as I indicated earlier, the timeframe for putting the report
together was itself constricted. So I think the dialog now
ongoing is a very healthy one. But I would say, too, that as
changes are being considered by Congress that the gravest
mistake, in my view, would be to side-step the issue altogether
and to leave as is a Federal agency structure that is, in fact,
unwieldy.
Finally, an observation. Pressure to just preserve the
status quo is very, very strong, both from without and from
within Federal agencies. But from my 27 years working in this
field, I do see how far we are from being what we should be and
could be without the decentralized, balkanized structure. And I
also want to underscore one other thing here about the report's
recommendations. They are not about me, they are not about any
of OJP's current leadership; we will all be gone next year. But
I think they are about striving for changes to help make good
government.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to
be here this afternoon and I am very happy to answer any
questions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. Those are direct and I think
remarks worthy of great consideration. We are talking about $4
billion. As you said, that is a Fortune 200 sized company.
Management is important. We simply have got to reach the
highest degree of productivity and efficiency, but it is not
just efficiency to save money. It is productivity and
efficiency to get the service to more people quicker and more
effectively. Is that what you mean by that?
Ms. Robinson. Very much. I think that we should never lose
touch in Washington with the fact that it is the State and
local officials out there, the criminal and juvenile justice
practitioners who are our customers. And I think that while
customer service has become something of a cliche these days
that it is the touchstone for where we should be here.
And when I find even within my own agency, within OJP, that
there are, in fact, people who don't know what is happening
maybe in a bureau or office on another floor, how we can expect
elected officials and practitioners in Idaho, Alabama, Oklahoma
or California to know the difference? We need to make it easy
for them to access.
Senator Sessions. It seems to me I have learned one thing
in my tenure in law enforcement and that is you have to have
teamwork, and a plan to deal with an area can't be finite. As
you just noted, there is so much overlap. Drugs are not
contrary to prosecuting people for burglaries. As a matter of
fact, you ought to prosecute burglaries and if you find out
they are on drugs, drugs ought to be confronted. If they have a
mental illness, as we were just in a recent panel on the health
committee--if they have got a brain injury, discovering that
can help perhaps reduce criminality. So it is all the
combination of the various programs.
You need to have as much cooperation and coordination, and
when a person asks for a grant or for money for their city, I
believe--and I will ask you if you would tend to agree--that it
is often suggested to them that they narrow their focus and
focus on this program or that program that has a rather
discreet benefit for them. Is that true?
Ms. Robinson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that is exactly
the case. Many of the existing funding streams are very narrow,
and therefore when a jurisdiction is, for example, approaching
OJP for help, let's say, on juvenile drug use, they may not
look at the fact that they need to address the adult drug
trafficking along with that, but that would be handled out of a
different part of OJP.
And the thought with this information center is not a
clearinghouse with an 800 number that has a computerized list.
The thought here is that there would, in fact, be expert,
knowledgeable people who could help the jurisdiction sort
through the issues before them, to say maybe you need technical
assistance with law enforcement from here, maybe you need a
prevention program in your schools from over there, maybe you
need to be looking at the array of training programs that are
available here, to pull it all together for them, to have a
comprehensive approach which all of us know is the way to
successfully address these issues.
Senator Sessions. Well, I certainly agree with that. There
is no one factor that causes crime or delinquency. It is a
multiplicity of factors, and to take it piecemeal, as we have
done in the past, is unwise, in my view. And when you get
people together, as I have in the city of Mobile--we had the
mayor, the chief of police, the sheriff, the district attorney
personally, and we spent a year meeting to discuss things.
The education system, the probation officers, the mental
health people--when all of those get together and you look at
juvenile crime, for example, as a comprehensive whole, you can
begin to develop how to fix it. And so I would encourage,
however you do it--and I know it would not be easy because a
lot of the money you get comes from Congress with specific
requirements on it. But the extent to which you could encourage
them to have multidisciplinary approaches to these things, and
somebody when they talk with them about a grant can say I
believe we can get some more from this account for your
education wing, or this for your mental health, this for drug
treatment, this for incarceration, and help develop a
comprehensive program, I believe, is better.
Do you think, in your view, this new organization that you
have proposed would move us in that direction?
Ms. Robinson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think it would, and I
would like to reiterate we are not wedded to every detail of
this plan. I think we have gotten some very helpful feedback
from a number of the organizations in the field, but there are
some central tenets, some central principles to it, and one of
those is this information center point, the ability to access
all of the resources that the Federal Government makes
available, a critical piece of which is technical assistance.
It may not be big money, but we can give them some help.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. I am glad to see Senator John
Ashcroft, of Missouri, is here. John served as attorney general
of the State and as Governor of Missouri before coming here,
and served on the Judiciary Committee and has played a key role
in the development of juvenile justice policies and all
criminal justice policies of the Judiciary Committee.
Senator Ashcroft.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ASHCROFT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MISSOURI
Senator Ashcroft. Let me just thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
thank the distinguished Assistant Attorney General for her
participation in the event.
I don't think there is any problem that is quite as
distressing as the problem of juvenile violence and youth
crime, and I don't think there is any one that calls us more
compellingly to try and do what we can to solve it than this
one. So I commend you, and I would hope that we can all work
together to learn how we best deploy the resources we have and
make those resources available on the ground, not just to
satisfy interest groups, but to try and find ways to actually
meet the challenge of juvenile violence which sort of mars the
future in ways that are totally unacceptable.
Thank you for holding the hearing.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. Would you like to ask any
questions at this point?
Senator Ashcroft. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sessions. Some have suggested, and I know my
experience with governmental agencies is that once you get to
know somebody in a bureau or something, you are nervous about
change. There are groups that have supported some of the
legislation that has created programs and created funding, and
they care deeply about those issues. And some might say, well,
you are trying to build a power play here to consolidate power
in your office and are going to diminish my number one concern.
How would you answer that?
Ms. Robinson. I think that is actually a very legitimate
question to be asking, Mr. Chairman. First of all, as I
indicated earlier, this is not about power for me. I intend to
leave next year, and I will tell you if I could get this
effected, I would probably walk out the next day and leave the
implementation then to someone else.
But it is very much an issue of needing to balance the
recognition of very real and very important interests within
the broad array of criminal and juvenile justice. And I don't
in any way diminish the issues that have been raised. I think
crime victims are a very important area. I think the area of
juvenile crime, as Senator Ashcroft indicated, is very
important, and that there are issues in those areas where
advocacy groups, where practitioners in those areas need to be
raising concerns directly to Federal agencies and have open
dialog on a continuing basis.
Maybe there are issues that we are overlooking in our
research agenda or in the technical assistance and training
that we are putting together. And it is, in fact, important to
have those voices heard. At the same time, I think having an
overly decentralized organization runs so counter to sound
management and to effectively getting the job done, to spending
the money in a wise way, to really being responsive to the
field, that to do nothing here is what would really be the
mistake.
Senator Sessions. Well, it seems to me that it does raise
some internal conflicts. I know Mr. Gurule--I don't believe he
was able to make it here today, but expressed some similar
concerns--he served in a previous administration--that it does
cause some real difficulties in management. And if you are
committed to your goal, that is important.
It seems to me that many of these agencies are mature now
than they were. You have got the Office of Justice Programs,
Juvenile Justice and Prevention, BJA. Maybe in their initial
startup, somebody wanted somebody who really wanted to drive
those issues and move them, and that may be less important
today than it was when it started. Would you comment on that?
Ms. Robinson. Yes; I think your observation is a good one
that historically when particular programs and then the offices
to work on those issues were set up, there may not have been
the recognition that you referenced a few minutes ago about
multidisciplinary approaches, about thinking collectively
across the system, about bringing all of the resources to bear.
We know that very compartmentalized and segmented and
narrow approaches are not going to solve these problems. So we
need to think creatively about the best way to both listen to
and hear the individual voices, but go forward with an
integrated and comprehensive approach.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think you are on the right track,
and how we get there I am not sure, but I congratulate you for
stepping up to the plate and proposing some changes.
How long has this agency basically been unchanged?
Ms. Robinson. 1984 was our last statutory overhaul.
Senator Sessions. And I know government officials get
irritated when you say that wouldn't happen in private
business, but many private businesses are in constant change
everyday. Every week, they are refining and reevaluating how
they can produce more services or better quality products at
less cost. And you are handicapped by laws passed by the
Congress. You are handicapped by institutional inertia, special
interest groups who don't want to see any change. And every now
and then--this has been about the appropriate time, I think, to
come forward and see if we can't make some change.
Now, there was a concern expressed about consolidating all
research in the Office of Justice Programs into the National
Institute of Justice. First, let me say Senator Fred Thompson,
who chaired this subcommittee before I came here, came to the
basic conclusion that the most important thing the Federal
Government can do is to figure out what works in crime, what
works in juvenile justice, and help the States achieve it, but
not to try to run those programs. So he thought before anything
else was done, we ought to have enhanced research, the things
we just didn't know about crime.
Do you think this will strengthen good research and help us
achieve that goal, or how would you defend this proposed
change?
Ms. Robinson. I think it would very much strengthen our
knowledge development and research and evaluation if we were to
proceed with the reorganization and consolidate it. Right now,
as I mentioned in my statement, we have two separate areas
within OJP where research is being done. Both of them are very
well-intentioned, but they are too often fragmented and not
coordinating sufficiently.
But I think more fundamentally and more importantly, we
need to as a kind of intellectual exercise think collectively
about these very difficult problems relating to human behavior,
and there are not very easy demarcations at age 18, the
problems of a 16- versus an 18-year-old, of a 17- versus a 20-
year-old. We need to think of this in a continuum and pull all
of the best thinking together to find the answers. Senator
Thompson is absolutely correct that we need that as a basis for
moving forward in programming. We are spending a tremendous
amount of money through OJP, $4 billion a year in money out to
States and localities, and we need to help them in knowing the
things that really can make a difference in addressing
delinquency and addressing crime.
Senator Sessions. Well, I am going to give you a tough
challenge, and it is going to be briefly because we do have a
vote now. Can you just look at that proposed chart there? Maybe
somebody could get it a little closer to you, maybe even point
it out.
Ms. Robinson. No; that is fine.
Senator Sessions. Can you tell us the purpose and vision
that you have that is shown in that chart?
Ms. Robinson. Certainly; the research would all be in the
National Institute of Justice, on the upper left, all of the
statistical work in the agency in the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, on the upper right. The offices down on the left
would be consolidation of program work by subject area. The
Juvenile Justice Office then is next to that.
The third box over on the second line is the information
central point, the triage point, and over on the right the
State desks that could help with the grants management, that
could be responsive so that one person knows all of the grants
going to Alabama, going to Iowa, going to Missouri.
Senator Sessions. And if I were a mayor or a chief of
police and I wanted to talk to somebody about how I can
strengthen my effort against drugs, is there any doubt who you
should call under this chart?
Ms. Robinson. You could go right into the information
central point, that third box, and find out everything
available from across OJP.
Senator Sessions. And then there would be individual desks,
so over the years people would get to know their State
counterparts or people they are working with?
Ms. Robinson. That is correct. Right now, we have a
situation where there would be 11 or 12 people who would work
on Missouri. We need one area that can be responsive.
Senator Sessions. All right, and you would still have areas
such as violence against women or substance abuse, those kinds
of departments and groups within the OJP?
Ms. Robinson. Yes, we certainly would, and the violence
against women is certainly one of high priority to the
administration and to OJP, and would continue to be an
important leadership point for that work.
Senator Sessions. Let me just say this. I think it would be
best for us to vote now, and so maybe we can take a 10-minute
recess. It will take us that long to go and cast our vote and
get back, and then we can take the second panel.
I really appreciate your testimony and leadership. I know
you have taken this very seriously. I believe you consulted
with quite a large number of interested parties both within the
Department and outside the Department. It is not going to be
easy to make changes. Change scares people; it is a frightening
experience. Sometimes, we can do wrong making change, but I
think it is about time for this agency to review itself, to ask
itself quite clearly, can we do a better job of utilizing the
$4 billion and get it down to people who are going to be using
it in the most effective and efficient and fair way so that the
most possible benefit to the largest number of people can
occur. I do think it is time for us to ask that, and just
because Congress did something 20 years ago doesn't mean it
can't be changed today.
Thank you. We will temporarily recess and we will be back
in maybe 10 minutes. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Robinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laurie Robinson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate this
opportunity to talk about the efforts underway at the Department of
Justice to improve the operations of the Office of Justice Programs and
to enhance our ability to serve the needs of state and local law
enforcement in this country. I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and the other Members of this Subcommittee for the bipartisan support
you have given OJP in working toward this mission.
Before discussing our specific recommendations for helping OJP
better serve its state and local constituents, it may be helpful to
step back and look at the broader picture: The federal criminal justice
assistance program, now some three decades old, has seen tremendous
growth in recent years thanks to support from the Congress and the
Administration. For example, when I began my tenure with the Department
in 1993, OJP's budget was around $800 million. Now, we are managing a
nearly $4 billion budget.
More importantly, our mission has grown, as well. From the early
days of the agency 30 years ago, when there was basically one program,
there are now 55 separate funding streams coming into OJP, and multiple
programs under many of these. And while we are encouraged that crime
rates continue to fall in virtually all categories, the problems of
crime which we face in the country--gangs, family violence, youth
violence, and even the potential for chemical or biological terrorist
attacks--make the challenges of public safety today greater than ever
in our history.
One of our greatest challenges, as we move into the next century,
is to ensure that the federal government--and specifically OJP--
fulfills its core mission of helping communities prevent and control
crime, and serves as a true partner to the state and local communities
whom it serves. In my view, we have to be relentless in pushing to make
our programs more ``user friendly'' and easier for state and local
jurisdiction's to access. While we have, I believe, made enormous
strides in working with communities on issues ranging from juvenile gun
violence and prevention to violence against women and offender drug
addiction, the complicated structure of OJP inhibits our ability to--in
the words of the Army recruitment posters--``be all that we can be.''
The current fragmented structure of the agency undercuts our ability to
advance a comprehensive and integrated program to address crime and
juvenile delinquency. And as budgets for future years are likely to
face greater constraints, this challenge for ``good government''
becomes more critical.
OJP'S BUREAUS AND OFFICES
As you know, Mr. Chairman, OJP is currently comprised of five
program bureaus and six program offices. The OJP program bureaus are:
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) provides funding,
training, and technical assistance to state and local
governments to combat violent and drug-related crime and to
help improve the criminal justice system. Its programs include
the Edward Byme Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance formula and discretionary grant programs and the
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) program. BJA also
administers the new Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Program,
the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and the Regional
Information Sharing System (RISS) Program.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collects and analyzes
statistical data on crime, criminal offenders, crime victims,
and the operations of justice systems at all levels of
government. It also provides financial and technical support to
state statistical agencies and administers special programs
that aid state and local governments in improving their
criminal history records and information systems.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) supports research
and development programs, conducts demonstrations of innovative
approaches to improve criminal justice, develops new criminal
justice technologies, and evaluates the effectiveness of OJP-
supported and other justice programs. NIJ also provides major
support for the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS), a clearinghouse of information on justice issues.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) provides grants and contracts to states to help them
improve their juvenile justice systems and sponsors innovative
research, demonstration, evaluation, statistics, replication,
technical assistance, and training programs to help improve the
nation's understanding of and response to juvenile violence and
delinquency.
The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) administers victim
compensation and assistance grant programs created by the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA). OVC also provides funding,
training, and technical assistance to victim service
organizations, criminal justice agencies, and other
professionals to improve the nation's response to crime
victims. OVCs programs are funded through the Crime Victims
Fund, which is derived from fines and penalties collected from
federal criminal offenders, not taxpayers. OJP's six Program
Offices are:
The Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) coordinates the
Department of Justice's policy and other initiatives relating
to violence against women and administers grant programs to
help prevent, detect, and stop violence against women,
including domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
The Corrections Program Office (CPO) provides financial and
technical assistance to state and local governments to
implement corrections-related programs, including correctional
facility construction and corrections-based drug treatment
programs. The Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) supports the
development, implementation, and improvement of drug courts
through grants to local or state governments, courts, and
tribal governments, as well as through technical assistance and
training.
The Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS) helps
communities build stronger, safer neighborhoods by implementing
the Weed and Seed strategy, a community-based, multi-
disciplinary approach to combating crime. Weed and Seed
involves both law enforcement and community-building
activities, including economic development and support
services. United States Attorneys are essential partners in the
implementation of Operation Weed and Seed in communities
throughout the country.
The Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education
(OPCLEE), which in November 1998 was moved by the Attorney
General to OJP from the Justice Department's Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), provides college
educational assistance to students who commit to public service
in law enforcement, and scholarships--with no service
commitment--for dependents of law enforcement officers who died
in the line of duty.
The Proposed Office of State and Local Domestic Preparedness
Support (OSLDPS) is responsible for enhancing the capacity and
capability of state and local jurisdictions to prepare for and
respond to incidents of domestic terrorism involving chemical
and biological agents, radiological and explosive devices, and
other weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It awards grants for
equipment and provides training and technical assistance for
state and local first responders.
In addition, OJP's American Indian and Alaskan Native Office (AI/
AN) improves outreach to tribal communities. AVAN works to enhance
OJP's response to tribes by coordinating funding, training, and
technical assistance and providing information about available OJP
resources.
This unusual structure with five bureaus each headed by a
Presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate and six offices managed
by the Assistant Attorney General has evolved over our 30-year history,
with various statutes and Administration programs leading to the
establishment of one new ``box'' or organizational component or another
to address that specific issue. I think it important to emphasize that
this evolution has not been political or partisan. In fact, it is
simply the consequence of various actions by both the legislative and
executive branches.
NEED FOR CUSTOMER ORIENTATION
However, in today's world, with a renewed attention to customer
service, efficient delivery of products and services, and
accountability to stakeholders, today's OR with its many agencies and
offices acts in opposition to the mantra of modern management, which
is, to first be responsive to one's ``customers.'' We must bring our
``business'' of criminal justice and juvenile justice leadership and
change into line with modern management practices and greet the new
millennium with forward vision.
As you can see from this ``alphabet soup'' of agencies, not only
are there opportunities for overlap and duplication, but for our
``customers''--government leaders, state and local criminal and
juvenile justice practitioners and researchers, and you, the Congress--
it is a difficult organization to navigate--even with ``maps,'' such as
our program plans, reports, and dynamic Website.
In recognition of this increasingly complex situation, in Fiscal
Year 1998 the Congress asked me to report on the extent of coordination
within the agency and the steps overtaken to reduce duplication of
effort. Noting that OJP had made substantial progress in its
coordinating efforts, the Congress still evidenced its concern about
the stewardship of the funds they were appropriating and so, in the
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act the Congress directed the OJP
Assistant Attorney General and the Justice Department to develop a plan
for ``a new organizational structure with streamlined, consolidated
authorities, which will ensure centralized management'' of OJP programs
and submit the plan to the Congress by March 1, 1999.
DEVELOPING A REORGANIZATION PLAN
In response to this Congressional directive, the Department
developed a plan for a new OJP organizational structure that would
enhance OJP's stewardship of criminal and juvenile justice grant-in-aid
initiatives.
The Department undertook a concerted, four-month long effort to
seek out and consider the ideas and observations of as large and as
representative a group of officials, both within and outside the
Justice Department, as time and resources would permit. This outreach
effort involved telephone interviews and in-person meetings with some
50 Justice Department officials and dozens of public and special
interest group representatives and criminal and juvenile justice
practitioners. In addition, both the NIJ director and the OJJDP
administrator convened special focus groups to discuss research and
statistics issues.
Based on the thoughtful comments and recommendations of these
various groups and individuals, as well as direction from Congressional
conferees, the Justice Department devised a reorganization plan for OJP
and submitted the plan to the Congress on March 10, 1999. Mr. Chairman,
I have provided the Subcommittee with a copy of the Report to Congress
and ask that it be submitted for the record.
ELEMENTS OF THE REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL
The plan would streamline and consolidate functions within the OJP
infrastructure and eliminate duplication and overlap of agency
functions by integrating similar and related responsibilities into
coherent organizational components. This represents a move away from
the historical practice of creating separate, and virtually
independent, agency bureaus and program offices to administer specific
federal funding streams authorized by the Congress.
In line with that, the plan sets forth a new OJP organizational
structure under which the overall authority for the management and
administration of OJP programs and activities would be vested with the
OJP Assistant Attorney General (OJP/AAG). As under current law, the
OJP/AAG would carry out the duties and responsibilities of that office
under the general authority of the Attorney General. Further, to meet
the objective of centralizing administrative authority within OJP, and
in the interest of sound management, the plan would eliminate the
Senate-confirmed presidentially appointed directorships of the existing
five OJP bureaus, yet retain political appointments for these key
positions, which I will describe in a moment.
The new organizational structure would preserve the integrity of
the more than 50 congressionally mandated funding streams currently
managed by OJP, while enhancing the efficiency, effectiveness, and
accountability of its program and administrative functions. The plan
proposes a new OJP structure comprised of a research institute, a
statistical office, two programmatic offices, two program support
offices, and six administrative offices.
The six substantive offices of the new OJP structure would be: the
National Institute of Justice; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the
Office of Criminal Justice Programs Development; the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Programs; the Office of State and
Local Information Transfer; and the Office of Formula Grants/State
Desks.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) would assume responsibility
for all OJP research and evaluation activities, including those
currently administered by OJJDP's National Institute of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention-related research and evaluation would be managed by a new
Institute for Juvenile Justice Research (IJJR) within NIJ. IJJR would
engage in regular consultation with the new Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Programs to develop juvenile justice
research and evaluation plans and programs. Similarly, NIJ would
consult with the various OJP program offices in developing research and
evaluation plans, programs, and strategies, and the OJP program offices
would consult with NIJ in developing grant, technical assistance, and
training programs.
The goal of the Department's proposal is not to take away from the
research effort in any one area, but rather to work towards the
knowledge-based program testing, evaluation, and replication cycle
envisioned in the Safe Streets Act of 1968, the original authorizing
legislation. In addition, the proposal would continue the central and
independent role of federally supported research and ensure that
federally supported criminal and juvenile justice research and
evaluation continue to be a high priority for the Justice Department.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) would have responsibility
for all OJP statistical collection and analysis-related plans,
programs, and strategies. The development of these plans, programs, and
strategies would be carried out in consultation with the various OJP
program offices. Likewise, the various OJP program offices would
consult with BJS in developing grant-funded initiatives to ensure that
statistical knowledge informs the programmatic work of the agency.
To ensure that juvenile justice continues to be a prominent and
visible focus for OJP and the Justice Department, the new
organizational structure proposes to retain a separate juvenile justice
office. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Programs would have lead responsibility, and leadership role, within
OJP for developing juvenile justice and delinquency prevention plans,
programs, and strategies. The new Juvenile Justice Office would retain
responsibility for monitoring state formula grant recipients'
compliance with Congressional mandates under the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act, although the ministerial paperwork
functions associated with awarding of these grants would take place
under the Office of Formula Grants/State Desks. In addition, because of
its subject area expertise, the new Juvenile Justice Office would work
closely with NIJ's Institute of Juvenile Justice Research and BJS in
formulating those offices' juvenile justice-related research and
statistical work.
The Office of Criminal Justice Programs Development would be
comprised of offices, each of which would be responsible for program
development-related activities in a general substantive subject area:
crime victims; violence against women; community-based programs; law
enforcement; adjudication; technology and information systems;
corrections; counter terrorism; and substance abuse. Our goal with this
structure is to be flexible enough to accommodate new issue areas if
and as they arise.
This proposal specifically responds to practitioner concerns that
the existing OJP administrative structure fosters a fragmented approach
to topical criminal justice issues and creates duplication, overlap--
and sometimes conflict--among related OJP program initiatives. The
proposed restructure would help to build substantive knowledge and
expertise in each respective section and would facilitate the
formulation of comprehensive, cohesive, cross-disciplinary strategies
for addressing crime.
In addition to policy, planning, and program development, the
Office of Criminal Justice Program Development would also develop,
implement, and manage technical assistance and training programs.
The Office of Formula Grants/State Desks would assume all routine
grants management, administration, and program and project monitoring
functions for all congressionally authorized formula and block grant
programs currently administered by OJP. The state desks would be
organized geographically and comprised of five sections, each of which
would cover one geographical region: Northeast, Southeast, North
Central, South Central, and West. Each state would be assigned to one
of these regions. Our state and local customers will be able to contact
a specific individual who is responsible for overseeing management,
administration, and monitoring of all formula and block grants within
that state. In addition, state desk staff would be responsible for
transmitting knowledge and assistance to the states, not simply for
processing grants, and my expectation is that each state desk officer
would be intimately familiar with that state, and its special needs and
issues, and serve as a ``broker'' in its accessing help from OJP.
The Office of State and Local Information Transfer would provide a
``one stop shopping'' capacity for information concerning the
organization, grant programs, technical assistance, training, and other
resources of OJP. In virtually every OJP constituency focus group
conducted in recent years, as well as in interviews conducted during
the development of the reorganization proposal, criminal and juvenile
justice practitioners have described problems encountered in accessing
information about OJP-administered technical assistance and training
resources.
The Office of State and Local Information Transfer would serve as a
de facto ``traffic cop'' in directing OJP constituents to available
training and technical assistance and information on ``what works'' and
grant opportunities. In addition, the new office would be charged with
the primary responsibility within OJP to convey knowledge and
information to state and local constituencies and others, including the
printing and dissemination of OJP publications.
In thinking about customer service, I've often thought about the
newly elected official of Smalltown, USA. This new mayor doesn't know a
BJA from an OJJDP from a DCPO or an OSLDPS. What he or she does know is
that their town has a gang problem, or a methamphetamine problem, or a
rising crime rate. My goal for this mayor is that he only has to make
one phone call to our Information Transfer Office, where a
knowledgeable staffer-like triage--can sort through the problems that
jurisdiction faces, point to available grant programs, technical
assistance and training opportunities, printed or Internet materials,
and to other similarly situated communities that have successfully
attacked the specific problem. In many respects, this new office is one
of the most essentially needed functions we must implement to ensure
that those who are most affected by crime and issues of public safety
in the country have an easy way to access the many resources, and the
knowledge and help, we can bring to bear.
CONCERNS EXPRESSED ABOUT ELEMENTS OF THE REORGANIZATION
Concerns have been expressed by a number of organizations and
practitioners about some recommendations contained in the OJP
reorganization proposal, particularly as they affect juvenile justice,
crime victims, and violence against women. Let me address each of
these:
Juvenile Justice: Juvenile justice practitioners and
advocates have opposed the proposed changes to OJJDP on the
basis that they would diminish needed attention and visibility
to juvenile issues within the Department of Justice and OJP, as
well, they argue, as undercutting OJJDP's ability to deliver
services and information to the field. Let me state at the
beginning that the Administration--and Attorney General Janet
Reno--remain strongly committed to ensuring priority attention
to juvenile justice, youth violence, and children's issues in
general.
Many observers may be unaware that, at this time--with the focused
national attention on juvenile crime over recent years--virtually all
of OJP's 11 program offices and bureaus are now addressing juvenile
justice in some fashion. For that reason, the restructure proposal
calls for all OJP-related program work on juvenile justice to be
overseen by the Juvenile Justice Office, whether or not it is supported
under the funding streams currently administered by OJJDP. This could
ensure more coordinated, focused, and effective attention to the issues
surrounding juvenile delinquency and prevention.
Underscoring its leadership role, the Juvenile Justice Office would
continue, under the plan, to have responsibility for all discretionary
grants, technical assistance, training, and publications development
relating to juvenile delinquency, youth violence, and prevention. In
addition, the Juvenile Justice Office would continue to have all
responsibility for policy, conceptualization, and oversight of the
juvenile-related formula grants, with routine grant management support
from the proposed state desks.
The plan also calls for consolidation of all research across OJP
into NIJ and all statistics into BJS; this has triggered much concern
in the juvenile justice community. The Department's goals in making
this recommendation are several. First, while acknowledging the
excellence of work in this area by OJJDP, especially in recent years,
the Department made the judgment, after much consideration, that
consolidation can help ensure a higher quality of product and value to
the field by pulling together the knowledge and expertise of both adult
and juvenile researchers. Issues of human development and anti-social
behavior cannot be neatly divided into an ``under 18'' category and an
adult category. In fact, knowledge about early childhood development
and problems that develop early in life and influence later behavior
can greatly illuminate our understanding of adult criminality.
If we are to successfully advance our understanding of these
critical issues, we must be pulling all of this ``knowledge building''
together, not be supporting separate and frequently disconnected
efforts. This becomes even more critical should future OJP budgets, as
seems likely, not remain at the high levels they are today. It is
important however, to ensure that juvenile justice issues--and the
special and different challenges of the juvenile justice system--are
not lost within the broader agenda of the National Institute of
Justice. To address that, the plan calls for creation of an Institute
for Juvenile Justice Research within NIJ to ensure, not only that
juvenile issues receive focused, priority attention, but also that they
receive a specific and separate funding allocation. Under the
restructure plan, the new Institute for Juvenile Justice Research would
be required to work closely with the Juvenile Justice Office in
developing the research agenda. Similarly, the Juvenile Justice Office
would be deeply engaged with BJS in the development of an agenda for
statistical work. This advances the important goal of ensuring that
knowledge gained from research informs the development (and funding) of
programs, and, concomitantly, that practitioner feedback from the
``front lines'' helps shape research agendas.
Second, the Department, in making this consolidation
recommendation, was very cognizant of the need for the independence of
research and evaluation in order to ensure credibility of resulting
findings. Nowhere else in OJP, and rarely across the entire Executive
Branch, does a program office evaluate its own work. The credibility of
research and evaluation rests, not only on its scientific validity, but
also on the independence--and the perception of independence--of those
performing the work. If it appears the evaluations are being undertaken
by those with a stake in their outcome, credibility obviously is
diminished. OJP's Drug Court Program Office, for example, does not
evaluate its own programs. If it did, those results would be less
persuasive--and viewed as less objective--than if a separate,
independent agency undertook the evaluation. For all these reasons, the
OJP reorganization plan assigns to the National Institute of Justice
all research and evaluation responsibilities across OJP to provide that
needed ``arms length'' relationship from those conceptualizing and
running programs.
Victims of Crime: Victim advocates have raised concerns that
the reorganization plan can undercut or diminish the important
accomplishments--and future work--of the Office for Victims of
Crime. The proposed restructure plan reflects the belief that
the needs and problems of crime victims must be principal
focuses of the activities of every component of the criminal
justice system. Accordingly, the development of programs,
plans, and strategies to address these needs and problems must
be an agency-wide priority for the Office of Justice Programs,
something that does not in reality occur today. Too frequently
in OJP, victim-related issues are shunted off to OVC; they are
not ``owned'' by the other bureaus and offices. This
compartmentalization has not benefited the move to ensure broad
support for crime victims issues.
Under the plan, the Victims Office would continue to have
responsibility for all discretionary grants, technical assistance,
training, and publications development relating to crime victims. It
would also have full responsibility for policy, conceptualization, and
oversight of the victims-related formula grants, with assistance on
routine grant management from the proposed state desks. In summary, the
Victims Office would remain the central ``leadership point'' for
addressing crime victim issues within the Department of Justice.
Violence Against Women: Concerns have also been raised about
whether the proposed OJP reorganization would adversely affect
the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO). It should be noted
that the OJP restructure plan was completed prior to the
decision by the Department's leadership to move the Violence
Against Women Office into OJP. Prior to March of this year, the
Violence Against Women Grants Office was part of OJP, but the
broader VAWO, headed by Bonnie Campbell, was housed in the
Office of the Associate Attorney General.
Nonetheless, the purpose and visibility of this issue will not be
diluted by the proposed OJP restructure because VAWO has a unique
status within OJP: First, its Director also serves as a Counselor to
the Attorney General. Second, it works with a National Advisory Council
on Violence Against Women made up of a high-level group of experts and
advocates who provide guidance to the office's effort. Third--as an
indication of the high level of attention to the office within the
Department--the Associate Attorney General personally chairs, at the
direction of the Attorney General, a Coordinating Committee on Violence
Against Women comprised of the heads of all pertinent components in DOJ
(including the Criminal Division, FBI, INS, the Civil Rights Division,
and OJP) to focus on these issues and to develop strategic plans for
advancing work across the litigation, prosecution, and programmatic
components of the Department.
In addition, under the plan, VAWO would continue to have full
responsibility for all violence against women discretionary grants,
technical assistance, training, and publications development, and would
continue to be responsible for policy, conceptualization, and oversight
of the formula grant STOP Violence Against Women program, with
assistance on routine grant management from the proposed state desks.
In summary, the leadership of both the Department and OJP remain
fully supportive of--and strongly committed to--the vision embodied in
the historic Violence Against Women Act.
PAS Issue: Finally, concern has been expressed concern about
the appointment level proposed for office directors under the
plan. Right now, OJP has six presidentially-appointed, Senate
confirmed (PAS) positions within a small agency, virtually
unique across the Executive Branch. The report calls for the
bureau head positions to remain political appointees, but not
confirmed by the Senate. This was not intended to diminish the
importance of these areas, but to reflect the organizational
structure of other components within the Department of Justice
and the federal government as a whole. It further reflects an
effort to address what has too frequently in OJP's history been
a situation where individual ``fiefdoms'' operated
independently, were uncoordinated and duplicative, and
frequently competitive--or even in ``open warfare'' with one
another. The need for effective responses to public safety
problems facing this country today is too serious to be
hindered by bureaucratic competition, and even ``wars,'' among
federal agencies. To continue with a structure that
compartmentalizes important work in frequently isolated
components does not further this nation's collective vision of
what is needed for the future of America's youth and the safety
of America's communities.
CONCLUSION
The organizing principle at the heart of this plan is to move OJP,
as the Congress directed, from a confusing, complex, decentralized
administrative structure to a more cohesive centralized administrative
structure comprised of coherent components with distinct functions and
competencies that share a common mission.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the reorganization plan submitted to
the Congress recommends creation of an OJP structure that would
centralize administrative authority to a greater degree, streamline an
agency that has grown from managing $800 million in 1993 to nearly $4
billion today with 55 funding streams, and integrate many currently
overlapping agency functions. Our plan is focused on the more effective
management of our current programs and funding streams. We are not
seeking to change the essence of those underlying statutes.
We are the size of many Fortune 200 companies. We need to apply the
rules of good management and good government to steer this organization
and to ensure that our resources are used to their best advantage, in
the most effective manner possible.
However, the goals of the proposal are not simply about efficiency.
The proposal sets forth a vision for what the federal criminal and
juvenile justice assistance program should look like and how it should
operate. We seek to ensure fully integrated program development, with
research and knowledge driving decisions about policy and programs.
This plan's objectives are also to improve responsiveness to the field,
to focus resources more effectively, and to eliminate confusion,
duplication, and overlap in programmatic activities. The Justice
Department strongly believes this restructure proposal would result in
better service to OJP constituents at the state and local levels by
reducing red tape, by making information on all available grant funds,
technical assistance, and training more accessible, and by streamlining
grant management processes to help ensure existing funding streams
reach state and local jurisdictions more expeditiously.
Further, we strongly believe that this restructure proposal would
provide for better stewardship of our considerable resources and
provide for a better means of accountability to the Congress and the
American people.
While there have been some concerns, as noted earlier, about
individual recommendations of the OJP reorganization proposal,
virtually every official interviewed in developing the Report to
Congress emphasized the need to improve coordination and collaboration
and eliminate duplication and overlap among OJP bureaus and offices,
and to eliminate what one interest group representative called ``silly
distinctions'' in the alignment of program-related responsibilities.
As you may know, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department is continuing
to meet with concerned constituent groups and individuals to farther
discuss the reorganization plan and its impact on funding and other
assistance to the field. Every detail of our proposal is not ``cast in
stone;'' clearly we are at the beginning of this process. But as
changes are being considered by Congress, I think the gravest mistake
would be to sidestep the need for change altogether.
I appreciate your personal interest in and support for OJP, Mr.
Chairman, and the support of the other Members of this Subcommittee. I
look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure we are meeting
the needs of state and local criminal and juvenile justice
practitioners, and I would be happy now to respond to any questions you
or the Subcommittee Members may have.
[The subcommittee stood in recess from 2:45 p.m. to 3:04
p.m.]
Senator Sessions. Sorry to be interrupted. It has been one
of those weeks, a lot going on, and I guess it will continue
that way until we get out of here this October or November.
This panel will have some individuals with particular
expertise on it who will share their insights about this
reorganization. It is our Government; it is appropriate that
things not be done until people have had a chance to digest it,
all interest groups. Sometimes, that slows us down and makes us
feel inefficient, but I think that is what democracy is all
about.
Mr. Alfred Blumstein is a Johnson Professor of Urban
Systems and Operations Research at the Heinz School of Public
Policy and Management of Carnegie Mellon University. His
degrees from Cornell University include a bachelor's in
engineering and physics, and a Ph.D. in operations research.
His public service dates back to the Johnson administration
when he served as a member of the President's Commission on Law
Enforcement and Administration of Justice.
Professor Blumstein has researched many aspects of criminal
justice policy. He has researched crime measurement, criminal
careers, sentencing, deterrence and incapacitation, prison
populations, demographic trends, juvenile violence, and drug
enforcement policy. And that is quite a number and there are
some critical issues within those. He has served as both a
member and leader of many professional organizations. Most
notably for the purposes of this hearing, Professor Blumstein
served as chair of the committee to design the structure of a
justice research and statistics program in the Department of
Justice, part of the group that produced the report we are
receiving today.
Mr. Gene Voegtlin is legislative counsel for the
International Association of Chiefs of Police. He is a graduate
of the Catholic University of America and holds a master's in
legislative affairs from George Washington University, as well
as a law degree from Georgetown University Law Center. Mr.
Voegtlin directs the implementation of the IACP's legislative
and governmental agenda.
Donna Edwards is executive director of the National Network
to End Domestic Violence, a national membership organization of
State and domestic violence coalitions representing more than
2,000 local domestic violence programs across the Nation, and
is the author of several journal articles on the subject.
Besides her work on domestic violence issues, Ms. Edwards
has worked with Public Citizen on campaign finance issues.
Before changing careers to public interest law, she was a
project engineer on space shuttle programs at NASA for Lockheed
Corporation. That is wonderful. Ms. Edwards is a graduate of
Wake Forest University and earned her J.D. at the Franklin
Pierce Law Center in New Hampshire.
So we are delighted to have this panel. I would note that
the hurricane has prevented Prof. Jimmy Gurule from joining us
this afternoon. His written testimony will be made a part of
the record, and I look forward to receiving and reviewing that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gurule follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jimmy Gurule, Professor of Law,
Notre Dame Law School
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to testify on the proposal under consideration
for the reorganization of the Office of Justice Programs (``OJP''), an
office that I had the honor and privilege of supervising from 1990-1992
as Assistant Attorney General (``AAG'') in the Bush Administration.
While I do not agree with every aspect of the OJP proposal, the
plan has much merit and represents a substantial improvement over the
current organizational structure. If implemented, the effectiveness and
accountability of OJP programs, as well as the overall administrative
management and efficiency of OJP would be greatly enhanced.
Furthermore, the OJP plan would result in increased coordination and
reduced duplication and overlap of agency functions by consolidating
similar and related responsibilities within specific OJP bureaus.
Historically, coordination at OJP in program development and research
efforts has been rare. In short, at OJP coordination has been the
exception, rather than the rule. Moreover, this lack of inter-bureau
coordination, communication and cooperation has hampered the
effectiveness of OJP programs. The OJP restructuring plan attempts to
remedy this serious problem.
At the same time, while I applaud my successor, Assistant Attorney
General Laurie Robinson, for her leadership in developing the OJP
reorganization plan, and commitment to good government and efficient
management reflected in the plan, I am not convinced that eliminating
the Office for Victims of Crime as a separate office within OJP is
justified.
The OJP plan has several major reorganization elements, which would
significantly effect how OJP conducts its affairs. However, these
proposed organizational and operational changes have not been without
their critics. Three aspects of the proposal, in particular, appear to
have generated the most controversy. They include:
(1) eliminating the presidential appointee status (``PAS'') of the
directors of the five OJP bureaus and offices;
(2) consolidating the research, evaluation, and statistical programs
currently conducted by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (``OJJDP'') within the National Institute of
Justice (``NIJ'') and Bureau of Justice Statistics (``BJS''); and
(3) eliminating the Office for Victims of Crime (``OVC'').
I limit my remarks to these three aspects of the OJP reorganization
plan.
First, eliminating the presidential appointee status of the
directors of the OJP bureaus, and vesting the overall authority for the
management and administration of OJP programs and activities in the OJP
Assistant Attorney General is simply good government. Over the past
several years, including during my tenure as Assistant Attorney
General, the current organizational structure has impeded the important
work of OJP. With a budget of nearly $4 billion in federally
appropriated dollars, OJP can make a significant impact on important
issues related to violent crime, youth gang violence, and graduated
sanctions for youthful and young adult offenders, as well as develop
successful gang and drug prevention programs. However, this requires
that research and evaluation programs, and statistical studies by OJP
advise and inform public policy decision-making. For example, crime
trends identified by BJS should guide BJA priorities for funding
demonstration programs. Likewise, the results of evaluations (what
works and what doesn't) and research programs conducted by NIJ should
advise BJA and OJJDP program development. In other words, the
activities of the OJP offices should complement one another, rather
than co-exist in isolation. Of course, this requires communication and
coordination across the OJP bureaus and offices. Unfortunately, The
current organizational scheme discourages efforts towards coordination
by authorizing six presidential appointees of equal status to
administer OJP. Because of the equal status afforded each bureau head,
everyone, and therefore no one, is in charge of OJP. In effect,
coordinating efforts to establish priorities for program funding
remains discretionary with each Bureau director.
This lack of coordination became immediately apparent upon assuming
my position as Assistant Attorney General. One of my first tasks was to
establish a comprehensive, coordinated annual program plan for OJP
bureau-wide funding. Prior to my assuming office, each Bureau had
published a separate annual program plan. Needless to say, there was
little, if any, coordination between the OJP bureaus in developing
these earlier annual plans. The idea of establishing OJP-wide
priorities and publishing a comprehensive program plan was initially
greeted with strong resistance. While a single, comprehensive annual
program plan was finally published, it was only after the expenditure
of countless hours attempting to convince the bureau directors and
others of the value of a coordinated plan of action based on
established priorities.
On the rare occasion when the OJP agencies have agreed to work
together, the results have been impressive. ``Operation Weed and Seed''
is an excellent example of what can be accomplished when the OJP
bureaus set aside their turf disputes and coordinate and concentrate
resources. ``Operation Weed and Seed'' was launched by the Department
of Justice in 1991. As Assistant Attorney General at the time, I was
one of the principal architects of the program, ``Operation Weed and
Seed'' is founded on the principle that reducing violent gang-related
crime requires a comprehensive plan, involving the coordinated efforts
of the OJP bureaus, Federal and State law enforcement, as well as
community-based organizations, targeted at high crime areas plagued by
serious gang-related crime. A recent national evaluation of the ``Weed
and Seed'' program conducted by NIJ reveals significant reductions in
crime in a substantial majority of the early weed and seed sites. In
short, coordination and concentration of OJP resources is an effective
strategy to combat gang-related violent crime.
A second controversial aspect of the OJP reorganization plan
involves the consolidation of OJJDP research, evaluation and
statistical programs within NIJ and BJS. While members of the juvenile
justice community have advanced several arguments against the current
proposal, none are particularly compelling reasons for maintaining the
status quo, It is alleged that consolidating OJJDP's ``core functions''
within NIJ and BJS will have a devastating effect on the juvenile
justice field. This is mere hyperbole and simply not true. In fact, as
a practical matter, it makes better sense to have NIJ evaluate OJJDP
demonstration programs, rather than have OJJDP evaluate itself. Having
OJJDP administer the evaluations of its own programs raises an
appearance of impropriety, suggesting a possible absence of
impartiality. On the other hand, the integrity of the evaluation
process is enhanced by having an agency other than OJJDP evaluate the
juvenile justice program. Furthermore, rigorous program evaluations are
essential to determining whether a particular demonstration program has
been successful and therefore justifies continued funding. More
evaluation testing of programs is needed to ensure accountability and
responsible expenditure of the federal taxpayers' dollars. On this
point, the OJP proposal to transfer OJJDP evaluation functions to NIJ
represents an important step in the right direction.
Consolidating juvenile justice research and statistics in NIJ and
BJS is further justified by the fact that both offices have established
and attractive track records in their respective fields. NIJ and BJS
are certainly up to the task and capable of handling these additional
responsibilities. Additionally, no good reason exists for maintaining
two statistical research offices within an agency the size of OJP.
The critics of the OJP plan further maintain that consolidating
juvenile justice research and statistical programs in NIJ and BJS would
somehow impede the current system of ``one stop shopping'' where
primary consumers of OJJDP's work have a single source of information
for all juvenile justice matters. To the extent that this poses a
problem, it is easily remedied. Under the OJP proposal, OJJDP would
remain the primary contact point for persons seeking information on
juvenile justice matters. If the information requested was located
within either NIJ's Institute of Juvenile Justice Research (``IJJR'')
or BJS, the OJJDP staff person handling the request could forward it to
the appropriate person in either NIJ or BJS, or personally retrieve the
requested information and forward it to the practitioner. Thus, any
inconvenience to the person requesting the information would be minimal
and certainly outweighed by the benefits afforded under the OJP plan.
It is further asserted that transferring OJJDP functions to NIJ and
BJS would have deleterious effects on juvenile justice research and
demonstration programs by ``blurring the line'' between the juvenile
justice and criminal justice systems. While there is some truth to the
statement that the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems are
different, and those differences should properly be preserved (e.g.,
separation of juvenile offenders from adult offenders, the juvenile
justices system deals with youngsters not only as offenders but also as
victim of abuse and neglect), it simply does not follow that
transferring juvenile justice research to the newly created Institute
for Juvenile Justice Research (``IJJR'') would make the research less
relevant to the juvenile justice community. There is no good reason to
believe that OJJDP and IJJR, both offices being committed to improving
the juvenile justice system, would not work closely and effectively
together.
The real criticism voiced by members of the juvenile justice
community is that the OJP proposal reduces the prominence and autonomy
of the OJJDP by having its Administrator appointed by the Attorney
General, rather than appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate, and vests in the Assistant Attorney General overall authority
for the management and administration of OJP programs, including OJJDP.
In essence, the OJP plan offers a clear choice between the current
system where the OJJDP Administrator is answerable to the President,
and the reorganization plan where the Administrator is answerable to
the Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney General. For
reasons of administrative efficiency, accountability, and program
effectiveness already discussed herein, good government prefers the OJP
plan.
Finally, the OJP reorganization plan proposes the elimination of
the Office for Victims of Crime (``OVC''). In its place, the plan would
create a Crime Victims Section within the newly created Office of
Criminal Justice Programs Development. While OVC would be reduced from
an OJP bureau to a section, it is unclear whether the size of the OVC
staff would be significantly reduced as well. The wisdom of diminishing
OVC in this manner is highly questionable.
The rights of crime victims is an important issue often overlooked
by the criminal justice system. As Assistant Attorney General, I made
implementing policies and programs to improve services to crime victims
an OJP priority. The 1991 OJP Program Plan targeted victims of Federal
crimes, particularly on Indian reservations, and child victims of
pornography, prostitution and sexual exploitation as well as other
aspects of crime victimization. Once again, in 1992 the OJP Program
Plan made crime victims a funding priority with specific focus placed
on minority victims of crime to assure that the services are made
accessible to them at the Federal, State, and local levels. For
example, NIJ conducted important research on the underutilization of
victim services in minority communities. In addition, emphasis was
placed on ensuring that innocent crime victims are not revictimized by
the criminal justice system by committing resources to train law
enforcement officers, prosecutors and other criminal justice personnel
who work with innocent victims of crime.
Services for crime victims remains an issue of paramount
importance. Crime victims need an advocate for their cause. Created by
the Victims of Crime Act of 1994, OVC has effectively served the role
of the nation's crime victims advocate. To that end, OVC has done an
outstanding job in--
(1) Monitoring compliance with the Attorney General's Guidelines for
the Fair Treatment of Crime Victims and Witnesses;
(2) Consultation with heads of Federal law enforcement agencies
regarding Federal crime victims; and
(3) Coordination of crime victim services among Federal and other
public and non-profit agencies.
Under the proposed reorganization plan, it remains unclear how
these important responsibilities will be handled. Fearful that the
emphasis placed on the rights of crime victims would be diminished
under the OJP proposal, I cannot embrace that element of the plan.
Senator Sessions. Also, Mr. Mark Soler, president of the
Youth Law Center, has submitted written testimony for today's
hearing. If there is no objection, that will be made part of
the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Soler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Soler
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Mark Soler
and I am the president of the Youth Law Center, a national public
interest law firm with offices in San Francisco and Washington, DC. For
more than twenty years my colleagues and I have worked on juvenile
justice reform issues with judges and other juvenile court personnel,
juvenile detention and corrections administrators, police and other law
enforcement, state and federal legislators, other public officials,
parents and community groups, and other advocates for children in
virtually every state in the nation. Our initial funding, in 1978, was
from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and we
have worked with the juvenile justice office regularly over the years,
as well as with the Office of Justice Programs and the Bureau of
Justice Assistance.
Since the Office of Justice Programs reorganization plan was
released in April, I have discussed it with researchers and academics,
juvenile detention and corrections officials (including heads of
several state agencies), service providers, mental health and child
welfare professionals, and children's advocates around the country. My
statement is based on those discussions as well as my own review of the
plan.
I believe that the plan contains many worthwhile ideas for
streamlining operations under the Office of Justice Programs as they
pertain to the adult criminal justice system. The Assistant Attorney
General at OJP and her staff have made a concerted effort to look
closely at issues of coordination of programs, duplication of effort,
and information dissemination among the OJP agencies, and to suggest
effective remedies,
With respect to the juvenile justice system, however, the
reorganization plan raises several serious concerns. First, it
transfers most of OJJDP's core functions--research, statistics,
publications, distribution of formula and block grants, monitoring and
evaluation--over to other new and existing agencies. It does this in
the name of efficiency, but it is a curious kind of efficiency that it
proposes. While these core functions now reside in a single agency
which is able to manage them in a coordinated way, the reorganization
plan would fragment OJJDP and distribute the functions to several new
agencies, which would then be required to liaison back to OJJDP in
order to achieve coordination of juvenile justice efforts.
Second, the plan removes control from OJJDP of nearly 75 percent of
its current budget. Although the written plan often refers to a central
role for OJJDP in developing national policy, in reality it strips the
agency of most of its resources. In this city perhaps more than any
other in the world, authority and influence generally depend on control
of the purse, and the plan all but empties OJJDPs purse.
Third, in part as a result of the first two problems, the plan
sends a message to the field, and to the country, that juvenile justice
concerns no longer occupy as high a priority as they have in the past.
Fragmenting the functions and drastically reducing the budget are clear
indicators that the federal government no longer cares as much about
studying, preventing, treating, and correcting juvenile crime. Indeed,
by aligning OJJDP's core functions with those of the adult criminal
justice system, the plan pushes the two systems together and
substantially blurs the distinction between them.
For these reasons, there is significant opposition to the plan
across the juvenile justice field. As but one indication of this, I
have attached to my statement a letter sent last month to Attorney
General Reno, stating these concerns and signed by the leaders of more
than two dozen national, state, and local organizations, including the
national juvenile court judges association, mental health
professionals, services providers, the faith community, and children's
advocates.
Although many in the field have spoken about the proposal to have
the OJJDP Administrator appointed by the Attorney General rather than
the President, upon reflection I personally am less concerned with that
change, if OJJDP retains its core functions and control of its budget.
I don't believe that the OJJDP Administrator (or the heads of the other
agencies under OJP, for that matter) have to be appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate, as long that person truly
retains authority to guide the nation's juvenile justice efforts. On
the other hand, transferring the core functions, cutting the budget by
three-fourths, and downgrading the appointment of the Administrator
would have a devastating effect on the juvenile justice field.
Indeed, there may well be room for improvement in coordinating the
activities of NIJ, BJA, OJJDP, and the other agencies under OJP. Every
federal agency, indeed every agency of government, has room for
improvement. OJP is right to want to improve coordination, eliminate
duplication, and promote efficiency in the federal government's
response to crime. But that does not justify virtually dismembering
OJJDP. There are less drastic, less radical means of accomplishing
worthwhile goals. For example, in the research area OJP could establish
small coordination committees made up of one or two representatives
from OJJDP, NIJ, and OR itself to monitor research proposals, assign
them to the appropriate agency, and insure that there is no duplication
of effort. That would accomplish the same goals without completely
fragmenting OJJDP.
We should remember that there are two great strengths of OJJDP, one
from the outside, the other on the inside. From the outside, public
officials, citizen groups, and others seeking information from all over
the country can contact one agency, OJJDP, and get access to virtually
the whole panoply of activities of the federal government's juvenile
justice efforts, as well as other research, interventions, and
initiatives going on in the states, The OJP plans calls for ``one-stop
shopping,'' but one--stop shopping already exists at OJJDP. It's not
perfect, it's not always a speedy and seamless system, but it works
pretty darn well and it makes enormous resources available to our
public officials and our communities. The irony is the OJP plan would
actually bust up the one-stop shopping that currently exists.
The second great strength of OJJDP is on the inside: the presence
of all the core functions in one agency allows a rational, coordinated,
and effective cycle of activity. The cycle begins with research and
proceeds to program development, testing, demonstration, and--if a
program is evaluated and found to be successful--either replication
nationally or dissemination through technical assistance, training, or
both. At all of these steps, information resources are made available
to the field through publications or electronic media. Again, it's not
perfect, but having all the A-to-Z core functions in one agency allows
coordination across disciplines, so that the whole can truly be greater
than the sum of its parts.
One example of this kind of coordinated vision is the Guide for
Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and
Chronic Juvenile Offenders, published by OJJDP in 1995. Here is an
effective marriage of research, statistics, program development,
program evaluation, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, graduated
sanctions, secure corrections, and references to the leading
publications in the field. It is an enormously useful resource. I have
copied sections and chapters of the book hundreds of times over the
past four years, for public officials, agency administrators and staff,
legislators, reporters, and citizen groups, I even use it in the course
I teach on Juvenile Law at the law school at American University. This
kind of publication would not happen if the OJP plan went through,
because the core functions that support the various sections of the
book would be dispersed into other agencies.
The analogy I would draw is if the federal government had a single
agency responsible for the prevention and treatment of cancer. It might
be called the National Office for Cancer Prevention and Treatment. But
research money would not be controlled by the National Office, but
instead by a different agency. And statistics on the incidence of
cancer and use of different treatments and the results of such
treatments would be in still a different agency. And the federal
government would give out millions of dollars to the states for cancer
prevention efforts, but that money would be given out, and the impact
monitored, by still a different agency. And new medications and
treatments would be evaluated by still a different agency. Does anyone
think that would be an effective way to fight cancer?
Finally, I want to point out that the national crime victimization
study reported recently that crime dropped again in the past year, by 7
percent, continuing the reduction in crime that began in 1994. That is
a remarkable record, one which can give all of us hope that we are on
the right track. In view of that record, is this the time to dismantle
the federal juvenile justice agency?
Senator Sessions. Mr. Gurule's comments which have been
received are in general support of reorganization and of the
plan that has been outlined.
Professor Blumstein, we are delighted to have you and would
be honored to have your comments at this time.
PANEL CONSISTING OF ALFRED BLUMSTEIN, PROFESSOR, JOHN HEINZ III
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, CARNEGIE MELLON
UNIVERSITY, PITTSBURGH, PA; GENE R. VOEGTLIN, LEGISLATIVE
COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE,
ALEXANDRIA, VA; AND DONNA F. EDWARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL NETWORK TO END DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WASHINGTON, DC
STATEMENT OF ALFRED BLUMSTEIN
Mr. Blumstein. Thank you very much, Senator. I am honored
to be here and pleased to have the opportunity, and so thank
you for that. And I think US Air for getting me in here this
morning from Pittsburgh so that I could be with you today.
Senator Sessions. Well, as Senator Trent Lott said--and I
am from nearby Mobile and we have had some real hurricanes--we
respect them, but this one didn't look like it was close enough
to keep us from working today. I feel confident we will all be
getting home, but I know you had difficulties and I thank you
for taking the extra effort to be here.
Mr. Blumstein. I am pleased to do it.
I come to you with my 30 years of background and research
on crime and criminal justice from a variety of perspectives,
and also as a consumer of the research. Dick Thornburgh, when
he became Governor of Pennsylvania, asked me to chair the
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, which was the
group in Pennsylvania that did criminal justice planning and
that managed the Federal grant programs there. So I view issues
from both sides of that house.
I particularly want to focus on the issue of the report of
this committee that I chaired, a committee that was convened by
Jeremy Travis and by Laurie Robinson to try to figure out how
best to bring research into a more effective means of
developing knowledge. I was very pleased at your reference to
Senator Thompson's comments earlier today because that
highlights the fact that research is an inherently public good.
It is the sort of thing that the Federal Government must do
because it is not going to be done at a decentralized level.
We have made lots of progress in understanding crime and
the factors that contribute to it, and I am pleased that this
National Consortium on Violence Research that I lead has been a
participant in that. But our level of ignorance is just
enormous and it is very tough to bring enough knowledge to bear
to improve the practices, and I think the theme in the Senate
of making sure that we build our knowledge capability is
absolutely critical.
As one looks at the history of the research program within
the structure that was initially LEAA, the history has been one
that recognizes that we are currently in a golden age of
management, with really excellent individuals managing research
and statistics and an excellent individual managing the Office
of Justice Programs, and we are seeing real coherence and
integrity in that process.
I think it is fair to say that that has not always been the
case, and the failure in that is by no means a partisan
statement. I think whichever party had been in control of the
Justice Department, there had always been various kinds of
pressure to make the research results or the statistics conform
to what was politically acceptable and appropriate either in
the micro or the macro.
Therefore, a major theme in the committee I chaired was the
essential need that the research function be independent, and
in order to do that having credibility and integrity and
independence was a necessary condition for making that happen.
I think the need for that is inherent in an issue that is so
inherently political as the issues of crime and criminal
justice. And I think the recognition of that was made very
clear in the distinctions made in the Robinson report between
the two very different functions, one of giving out grants,
supporting local activities, providing technical assistance to
professionals. She has brought those together in an appropriate
way to create some order out of the currently chaotic
situation.
Research and statistics has to generate knowledge that is
not intended to generate political goodwill, but is intended to
generate improved knowledge, improved understanding, and more
effective operation of the criminal justice system, as well as
the other elements in the society that deal with juvenile
delinquency, that deal with crime prevention, and that deal
with the problem of crime.
There are three issues I want to address. First is some
brief overall comments about the Robinson report, particularly
from the perspective of research and statistics, and two
aspects of it. One is the issue of consolidating research
within NIJ and statistics within BJS, and the second a point of
difference with the Robinson report, and that is a concern
about the nature of appointment of the directors of NIJ and
BJS.
I think the report is an excellent one, and it does bring
considerable order out of chaos and provides appropriate
assessment for the need for the integrity of research and
statistics by making them report in different ways and giving
their directors sign-off authority on grants, and particularly
sign-off authority on publications. And it is the publications
that provide the knowledge that will improve the operation of
the system that should not be tainted by a need to address
partisan interests or political concerns.
About 20 years ago, I was a member of a committee at the
National Research Council that was asked to review the program
of the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal
Justice, the predecessor agency of NIJ, and we found in that
exploration that LEAA was making considerable efforts to
distort the findings of research projects so that they would be
supportive of the programs that were then the favored programs
of LEAA. And our recommendation was one of generating a
separation and independence, and we were all very pleased when
the Congress also recognized that distortion that diminished
the value of the research findings, lost its credibility, and
made it a necessary condition that there be independence and
strength in that operation. And I think the Robinson report
displays clear sensitivity on that by its structure.
Let me turn to the issue of the consolidation of the
research and statistics programs. There is inherently a natural
tension between dispersing research among the various
functional operating agencies and putting it all into one
agency. And our committee debated these issues and basically
came to the conclusion that we would be much better served and
the research and statistics programs would be strengthened if
they were put together within NIJ for research and BJS for
statistics. And we are pleased that that recommendation was
incorporated in the Robinson report.
Clearly, when they come together, you get much more
effective coordination and much more effective consolidation. I
think Laurie Robinson's testimony highlighted the fact that
there is continuity between juvenile developmental experiences
and adult criminality, and I think that is just an absolutely
important issue.
It is also the case that the criminogenic environment that
juveniles, as well as adults face doesn't do any carding of the
individual to decide whether they are juveniles or adults. Drug
dealers, drug marketers, gun pushers, they don't make
distinctions between juveniles and adults, and so much of the
crime is associated with juvenile involvement in the criminal
justice system and in criminogenic environments.
There has been a concern raised that there wouldn't be
enough proximity between the action folks in the program
agencies and the research, and therefore the research should be
out there. But I think it is very important to keep that
research separate and integrated, and keep its integrity. To
the extent that OJJDP under a future administration is
responsive to the political wishes of the director of OJP,
their research program might have the same fate if it were in
OJJDP. Their research program might have the same fate as the
one I referred to earlier because they would not have the
independence and the sign-off authority that the reorganization
plan puts in NIJ and BJS, and that is an issue of some concern.
So I think it is important that the consolidation is a much
more effective means, a much more efficient means of getting
strong, solid and credible results. And I was certainly pleased
that the Senate, in 254, put that National Juvenile Justice
Institute within the National Institute of Justice.
The one further point I would like to raise is that the
presidential appointee position of the current directors of NIJ
and BJS has been one that enhanced their independence, that
enhanced their stature, and has permitted them to recruit
individuals like Jeremy Travis and Jan Chaikin. To the extent
that there were no longer presidential appointments, that would
diminish the stature; it would diminish their independence.
And I appreciate that in the Robinson report they want to
eliminate all of the presidential appointments under the
director of OJP. But I think these are two special cases, and
it is represented by the fact that similar positions in other
Federal departments are also presidential appointments. And my
concern is that there is a suspicion that the Justice
Department doesn't care much about research and statistics, and
demoting these positions would both establish a difference with
other departments and confirm the suspicion that the Justice
Department really doesn't want straight numbers.
So I would urge you to at least keep the two of those, and
in the Robinson report they recognize an asymmetry between
these two agencies and the other grant-giving agencies, so that
one doesn't have to make them all the same with regard to
presidential appointees.
Senator Sessions. So you referring there to the Bureau of
Justice Statistics and the----
Mr. Blumstein. National Institute of Justice.
Senator Sessions. National Institute of Justice.
Mr. Blumstein. BJS being the statistics agency, NIJ being
the research agency, and they clearly are important. And the
Robinson reports recognizes----
Senator Sessions. And you are satisfied that they remain
separate and not be merged?
Mr. Blumstein. I think the history throughout the Federal
Government has been keeping the statistics agencies separate
from the research agencies, for reasons that the statistics
agency collects data. Research agencies inevitably have to be
responsive to what are the critical issues today, whereas the
statistics programs develop long time series and don't have to
have even that much responsiveness to contemporary issues
driven by Congress and the administration.
Thank you very much, Senator. Sorry I ran over a few
minutes.
Senator Sessions. No; that was very worthwhile and we thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blumstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alfred Blumstein
Senator Sessions and Members of the Subcommittee: I am honored by
the opportunity to appear before you today as you consider the various
issues involved in the proposed reorganization of Office of Justice
Programs in the Department of Justice.
As background information on my own involvement in this issue, I
have engaged in a variety of criminological research since my
involvement as Director of Science and Technology for the President's
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1966. I
have also been involved in practical policy matters as a member of the
Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission since 1986, and I served as the
chairman for over eleven years of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime
and Delinquency, the state's criminal justice planning agency, which
manages Federal criminal justice funds in Pennsylvania. Attached to my
testimony is a short biographical statement for your information.
My current position is as a University Professor at the H. John
Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management of Carnegie Mellon
University. I also serve as the director of the National Consortium on
Violence Research (NCOVR), a program of research supported by the
National Science Foundation on issues of violence--with particular
emphasis on youth violence. If there is any way in which that project
can be helpful to your Subcommittee, we would be most pleased to do so.
More directly relevant to the hearings today, at the invitation of
Jeremy Travis, the Director of NIJ, and Laurie Robinson, the Assistant
Attorney General in charge of OJP, I chaired a balanced committee of
distinguished academic researchers that was asked to provide our views
on the reorganization of the research and statistics functions
currently within OJP. The members of that committee represented a broad
diversity of perspectives on the issues involved, and the report
represented a strong consensus of their views. A copy of the
committee's report, including a listing of the committee members, is
attached to my prepared testimony.
In my discussion today, I would like to focus primarily on three
issues:
A brief overall appraisal of the Robinson report from the
perspective of research and statistics, and two items
emphasized in my committee's report:
The importance of consolidating the research and statistics
activities in OJP within NIJ and BJS, and
The need to keep the directors of NIJ and BJS as
Presidential appointees in order to ensure that they possess
the ability, competence, and stature to execute their
responsibilities effectively.
I. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE REORGANIZATION PLAN FOR OJP
I have read the reorganization plan for the Office of Justice
Programs proposed by Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson. I
believe that her report is an excellent one, and one that will bring
considerable order out of the chaos that now prevails with the variety
of agencies that are intended to provide research and statistical
knowledge, technical assistance and Federal funding to strengthen state
and local crime control and criminal justice operations.
The report recognizes the important distinction between the
allocation of Federal funds and the provision of technical assistance,
on one hand, and the generation and presentation of research and
statistical knowledge, on the other. The former category requires the
development of favorite programs and an assessment of local needs;
here, considerations of local need and self-justification of programs
become an important part of the decision-making by the agencies serving
a diversity of constituencies, and that is inevitable and not
inherently inappropriate.
Those features would poison the integrity and the credibility of
the research and statistics programs. Those areas must be and must be
seen to be free of the bias that can often creep into management of a
politically sensitive program--and we all know that almost any program
related to crime and criminal justice has strong political
sensitivities.
About twenty years ago, I was a member of a committee of the
National Research Council that was asked to review the program of the
then-current version of NIJ, which was under the control of LEAA (the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration), the grant-giving arm of the
Justice Department at the time. The NRC committee found that the
research organization was subjected to unreasonable pressure to justify
the programs being funded by LEAA rather than providing objective and
honest evaluations of those programs. In its report, Understanding
Crime, the NRC committee addressed this incompatibility with a strong
recommendation that a new National Institute of Justice be created
independent of the grant-giving agency, and the Congress endorsed that
recommendation with enthusiasm, and that is the structure that prevails
today.
I believe that the Robinson report displays a clear sensitivity to
those issues. It took special steps to ensure the credibility of the
research and statistics functions by enhancing the independence of the
NIJ and BJS directors by giving them--rather than the OJP Director--
final sign-off authority on grants, contracts, and publications. I urge
this Committee to endorse those recommendations.
II. CONSOLIDATION OF THE RESEARCH AND STATISTICS PROGRAMS WITHIN NIJ
AND BJS
Our committee recognized the natural tension between a strategy of
dispersing the research and statistics activity to the various program
agencies within OJP and one of consolidating the research within a
single research institute or statistics agency. After debating these
issues at length, particularly with regard to matters of research on
juvenile matters, the committee recommended that:
The entire [OJP] research program be consolidated within
[NIJ], and similarly that the entire [OJP] statistics program
be consolidated within [BJS].
We were very pleased that this recommendation was incorporated into the
Robinson report.
We were convinced that a consolidated arrangement will assure
greater coordination in the overall research program and avoid
redundancy. Consolidation would enhance the quality of the research by
using the combined expertise of the total research staff and would make
it possible to recruit a stronger research staff because of the primary
commitment of the organization to research. More generally, it would be
able to capitalize on the economies of scale in having a single strong
research organization.
Also, since program agencies such as OJJDP must be responsive to
political concerns, it will diminish the risk that they will try to
shape the research and statistics to be self-justifying. The
independence provided for the NIJ and BJS programs will not be
available to a research program located within a program agency, and so
there will be greater concern about the quality and integrity of the
research they produce.
With respect to research on juvenile offending in particular,
bringing them together will enhance the ability of researchers to
address the important continuity of offending between the teen and the
adult years. Also, juveniles and adults operate in the same
criminogenic environments, with adult drug dealers and gun pushers
often targeting juveniles specifically. Similarly, statistics on
juvenile offending and on the handling of juveniles within the criminal
justice system will benefit from the economies of scale and of scope
associated with the consolidation of the research and statistics
programs. We recognize that there is a strong argument for courts to
deal with juveniles differently from adults, but there can be no such
argument for such a partition in structuring a research or statistics
program targeted at understanding crime and finding effective means of
prevention and intervention.
I understand that some of those who have argued against this
consolidation have claimed that juvenile matters have not been a major
part of the NIJ program. That, of course, is understandable in the
presence of an OJJDP research program. Even in the face of that turf
restraint, NIJ has made major investments from its meager budget on
juvenile issues. The Project on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods, for example, recognized the importance of developmental
experiences on future criminal activity. The juvenile component of the
ADAM program monitoring drug abuse of arrestees recognized that drug
traffickers do not card their customers. I am confident that
introducing a Juvenile Institute into NIJ will make juvenile issues an
increasingly important part of the NIJ program and reap the efficiency
and effectiveness benefits of a consolidated program.
For all these reasons, I was pleased that the logic of the
consolidation is reflected in the judgement of the Senate, which
established (in Senate Bill 254) `` * * * within the National Institute
of Justice [emphasis added] * * * a National Institute for Juvenile
Crime.
III. PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF NIJ AND BJS DIRECTORS
The one concern I would raise about the otherwise excellent
Robinson report is the degree to which the stature of the directors of
NIJ and BJS would be diminished by removing their status as
presidential appointees. I am concerned that this will make it more
difficult to recruit individuals who are as excellent as the ones that
currently occupy those positions, and thereby diminish the quality of
their operations. I think that it is important also to recognize that
people in similar positions in virtually all other government
departments are presidential appointees, and this downgrading could
well be seen as reflecting less interest in those functions by the
Justice Department, thereby seeming to confirm the widespread suspicion
that these functions are not valued in the Justice Department.
I appreciate Ms. Robinson's desire to deal symmetrically with all
of the current Presidential appointees within OJP. On the other hand,
her report clearly recognized the fundamental differences between the
research and statistics functions and the other program areas by the
differences in the sign-off authority and in the appointing authority.
Thus, it could certainly be reasonable to have those two positions
retain their status as Presidential appointees, while discontinuing it
for the others.
IV. SUMMARY
I hope these thoughts are helpful to you and to the Subcommittee on
Crime in the development of the reorganization plan. I believe that
adoption of the Robinson report, with particular attention to the
issues I raised above, and with modification to retain Presidential
appointment for the NIJ and BJS directors, could make a significant
improvement in the structure and operation of OJP, and of its research
and statistics programs in particular.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Voegtlin.
STATEMENT OF GENE R. VOEGTLIN
Mr. Voegtlin. Thank you, Senator. On behalf of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, I am pleased to
be here today to offer our views on the proposed restructuring
plan for OJP. IACP's president, Ronald Neubauer, had really
wanted to be here today to personally express his views on the
plan, but unfortunately he, along with the rest of our
leadership right now, is participating in IACP's Asian policing
conference in Ulan Bator, Mongolia. So they weren't able to get
here, hurricane or not.
As you know, the IACP, with more than 18,000 members in 112
countries, is the world's oldest and largest association of
police executives. Our mission throughout the history of the
Association has been to identify, address, and provide
solutions to urgent law enforcement issues. It is in our effort
to fulfill this mission that the IACP has had the opportunity
to work with the Office of Justice Programs on many projects of
vital importance to law enforcement. Just over the last 10
years, IACP has entered into a collaborative relationship,
including grant and cooperative agreements, with every OJP
component.
Given our experience and our understanding of the vital
role that OJP plays in advancing the policing profession, and
in assisting state and local law enforcement, you can
understand why IACP was very interested in any proposal to
restructure the office, and why we are paying close attention
to this particular plan.
It is obvious that IACP would be concerned over any plan
that, in our view, would impair OJP's ability to assist State
and local law enforcement. However, I am pleased to say that
that is not the case with this proposal. The IACP executive
committee, in early August, met in New York City, and our
committee consists of chief law enforcement executives from
both large and small agencies at every level of Federal, State
and local government. This executive committee examined the
proposed reorganization plan and unanimously voted to endorse
it.
The IACP believes that Attorney General Reno and Assistant
Attorney General Robinson have done a tremendous job in
crafting a reorganization plan for OJP that will both enhance
the coordination in the office and reduce confusion and
unnecessary competition. We applaud their efforts.
Time and time again, the IACP's experience with the Office
of Justice Programs has demonstrated the high level of
professionalism and expertise of its employees and their
commitment to assisting State and local law enforcement
agencies. However, at the same time we have seen how the
duplication of effort and complicated administrative procedures
have diminished the effectiveness of these same employees and
limited the capabilities of OJP.
The IACP believes that the proposed restructuring plan, by
streamlining current administrative procedures, eliminating the
duplication of functions, and promoting greater integration and
the sharing of critical information between programs, will
assure that OJP is able to fulfill its mission in a more
efficient and effective manner.
And while there are many important changes contained in
this plan, the key to this restructuring program, in the IACP's
view, is its focus on increasing the accessibility of OJP to
State and local law enforcement agencies. Over the years, the
ability of the local police chief to successfully navigate the
intricacies of OJP's bureaucracy has been diminished because of
the bewildering array of separate programs and contact persons
that are in place at each of OJP's components or agencies.
I can tell you that nothing is more frustrating to a local
law enforcement executive than knowing that assistance is
available, yet being unable to procure it because they cannot
connect with the proper official. This problem is especially
acute in our Nation's smaller departments, which are often
those that are most in need of assistance. These smaller
departments simply do not have the personnel resources to spend
the time that is currently necessary to decipher what one chief
described as the inscrutable monolith of OJP.
As a result, some chiefs in smaller communities feel that
the larger cities or State agencies have a better chance at
receiving assistance, simply because they have full-time staff
employees who have worked with the OJP for years and have
developed an understanding of the intricacies of the OJP
bureaucracies. Let me illustrate this point by a plan that we
all hope will come into full funding in the near future.
Last year, Congress enacted the Criminal Identification
Technology Act. Once this Act is funded, it should put in place
more than $1 billion that will be made available to State and
local police agencies to modernize their criminal databases and
improve their ability to communicate with each other.
However, as the IACP understands this Act, if this program
were to be administered by OJP in its current structure, these
funds will be split between, at a minimum, the National
Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the
Bureau of Justice Statistics. If a local police agency wanted
to take advantage of some aspect of this program, it would be
necessary for them to independently identify and contact the
appropriate office. Given the past experience of many of our
chiefs, it is clear that this can be both a daunting and a
disheartening process.
However, under the new structure, the same agency would
have to place just one call to the Office of State and Local
Information Transfer. This office would be able not only to
provide information about the specific grant or assistance
program that the local police chief was interested in, but
would also have the ability to provide information on related
training opportunities and the availability of other technical
assistance.
This central contact is, in the opinion of the IACP, the
critical component of this entire plan. By providing State and
local police agencies with information about available
assistance and training programs in a timely and, more
importantly, understandable fashion, the proposed restructuring
plan will allow these agencies to better serve the public they
are sworn to protect.
Just one final thought as I conclude. Although the IACP
strongly supports this plan and believes that it will establish
an essential and practical framework for making the resources
of OJP more accessible to State and local law enforcement,
there is no guarantee that this new structure will be
immediately successful.
Therefore, if this or any version of a restructuring plan
is adopted, the IACP recommends that immediate and consistent
evaluation of the new framework be performed in order to ensure
that it is meeting its goal of streamlining the OJP's process
and improving its ability to assist State and local law
enforcement agencies.
This concludes my statement and I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Voegtlin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gene R. Voegtlin
Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On
behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, I am
pleased to be here to share our views on the proposed restructuring of
the Office of Justice Programs (OJP).
As you know, the IACP, with more than 18,000 members in 112
countries, is the world's oldest and largest association of police
executives. IACP's mission, throughout the history of our association,
has been to identify, address and provide solutions to urgent law
enforcement issues.
In our efforts to fulfill this mission, the IACP has had the
opportunity to work closely with the Office of Justice Programs on many
projects that are of vital importance to the law enforcement community.
Over the past decade, IACP has entered in collaborative relationships,
including grant and cooperative agreement with every OJP component,
BJS, BJA, OVC, OJJDP, VAWO and NIJ.
Given the IACP's experience and understanding of the role that the
Office of Justice Programs plays in advancing the policing profession
and in assisting state and local law enforcement agencies, it is easy
to understand why the IACP would pay close attention to any proposed
restructuring of the Office of Justice Programs. Obviously, the IACP
would be very concerned with any proposal that, in our opinion, would
impair the ability of the Office of Justice Programs to serve the
interests of law enforcement. However, that is not the case here and I
am pleased to inform. you that the IACP Executive Committee, whose
membership consists of law enforcement executives from both large and
small agencies at every level of government, has examined the proposed
reorganization plan and unanimously voted to endorse it.
The IACP believes that Attorney General Reno and Assistant Attorney
General Robinson have done a tremendous job in crafting a
reorganization plan for the Office of Justice Programs that will
enhance coordination and reduce confusion and unnecessary competition,
We applaud their efforts.
Time and time again, the IACP's experience with the Office of
Justice Programs has demonstrated the high level of professionalism and
expertise of its employees and their commitment to assisting state and
local law enforcement agencies. However, at the same time, we have seen
how the duplication of effort and complicated administrative procedures
have diminished the effectiveness of these employees and limited the
capabilities of the Office of Justice Programs. That is not to say
however, that the OJP and its employees are not accomplishing their
mission, only that their current structure is preventing them from
operating at their full potential.
The IACP believes that the proposed restructuring plan, by
streamlining current administrative procedures, eliminating the
duplication of functions and promoting greater integration and the
sharing of critical information between programs, will ensure that the
Office of Justice Programs is able to fulfill its mission in a more
efficient and effective manner.
For example, by keeping the National Institute of Justice and the
Bureau of Justice Statistics separate from OJP's grant operations, this
plan ensures that there will continue to be independent and aggressive
research of programs in the field and also ensures the availability of
independent statistical collection. In addition, the creation of an
Office of Criminal Justice Program Development ensures that OJP will be
able to provide a coordinated and consistent response to agencies in
the field. This will be a welcome change from the current duplicative
and often unnecessarily competitive relationships between many of OJP's
current bureaus and programs offices.
However, in IACP's view the key to this restructuring proposal is
its focus on increasing the accessibility of the Office of Justice
Programs to state and local law enforcement agencies. Over the years,
the ability of a local police chief to successfully navigate the
intricacies of the OJP bureaucracy has been diminished because of the
bewildering array of separate programs and contact persons in place at
each OJP component or agency.
Nothing is more frustrating for a local law enforcement executive
than knowing that assistance is available, yet they are unable to
procure it because they cannot connect with the proper official. This
problem is especially acute in smaller departments which are often
those most in need of assistance. These smaller departments simply do
not have the personnel resources to spend the time that is currently
necessary to decipher what one Chief described as the ``inscrutable
monolith of OJP''.
As a result, some chiefs from smaller communities feel that the
larger cities or state agencies have a better chance at receiving
assistance simply because they have full time staff employees who have
worked with the OJP for years and have developed an understanding of
the intricacies of the OJP bureaucracies.
Let me illustrate my point. Last year, Congress enacted the
Criminal Identification Technology Act. Once this act is funded more
than $1 billion will be made available to state and local police
agencies to modernize their criminal databases and improve their
ability to communicate with each other. However, as the IACP
understands the act, if this program were to be administered by OJP in
its current structure, these funds would be split between the National
Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Bureau
of Justice Statistics. If a local police agency wanted to take
advantage of some aspect of this program, it would be necessary for
them to independently identify and contact the appropriate office.
Given the past experience of many chiefs, it is clear that this can be
a daunting and disheartening process.
However, under the new structure, the same agency would have to
place just one call to the Office of State and Local Information
Transfer. This office would be able to not only provide information
about the specific grant or assistance program that the local police
chief was interested in, but would also have the ability to provide
information on related training opportunities and the availability of
technical assistance. This central contact point is, in the opinion of
the IACP, the critical component of this entire restructuring proposal.
By providing state and local police agencies with information about
available assistance and training programs in a timely and
understandable fashion, the proposed restructuring plan will allow
these agencies to better serve the public they are sworn to protect.
In conclusion, I would like to offer one final thought. Although
the IACP supports this plan and believes that it will establish an
essential and practical framework for making the resources of the
Office of Justice Programs more accessible to state and local law
enforcement, there is no guarantee that this new structure will be
immediately successful. Therefore if this, or any other restructuring
plan, is adopted, the IACP recommends that immediate and consistent
evaluation of the new framework be performed in order to ensure that it
is meeting its goal of streamlining the OJP and improving its ability
to assist state and local law enforcement agencies.
This concludes my statement. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today and I will be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
__________
Gene R. Voegtlin, Legislative Counsel
Gene R. Voegtlin serves as the Legislative Counsel of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police.
As the Legislative Counsel, Voegtlin is responsible for directing
the day-to-day implementation of the IACP's legislative and
governmental affairs program, meeting with Members of Congress, Capitol
Hill staff, and various Clinton Administration Officials to advocate
IACP policy positions, and providing legal analysis on legislative
proposals, regulatory actions, and federal court filings. In addition,
the Legislative Counsel provides strategic advice and counsel to IACP
Executive Board as it formulate, plans and implements the association's
biannual comprehensive, legislative agenda and strategy.
Prior to joining IACP, Voegtlin served as the Director of
Legislative and Political Affairs for the National Federation of
Federal Employees. His prior experience includes serving as the
legislative representative of the Federal Managers Association and the
American Chemical Society.
Voegtlin received his law degree from the Georgetown University Law
Center. Additionally, he holds an M.A. in Legislative Affairs from the
George Washington University and a B.A. from the Catholic University of
America.
Senator Sessions. Ms. Edwards.
STATEMENT OF DONNA F. EDWARDS
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would it be possible
to have my entire statement submitted for the record?
Senator Sessions. We certainly will be glad to receive
that.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the National
Network to End Domestic Violence, I really do thank you for the
opportunity to comment about the proposed restructuring plan at
the Office of Justice Programs.
Let me begin by saying that we have been really grateful
for the commitment both of this administration and certainly
those at the Department of Justice and the Congress for the
support that you have shown for violence against women
programs, for funding of those programs, and to the tremendous
amount of work that has gone in over the last 6 years since the
passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 in support of
those programs.
When I had a chance to, over the last several months, both
digest the proposal and also get it out to many of our member
programs across the country, we received tremendous response.
And I think on one level, one could question whether that was a
response because it is such a detailed administrative kind of
issue. But I think that the reason that our programs at the
State and local level responded to the proposal is because we
have been able to see the change that has been brought about,
one, with the passage of the Violence Against Women Act in
1994, but with the plan that the Department of Justice put into
place to implement the Violence Against Women Act, and that is
what I would like to talk to you about today.
I had an opportunity before the testimony today, before the
hearing today, to speak with programs in Alabama and one of the
program persons I spoke with is a woman named Kathy Wells, who
runs the Shelter and Crisis Services of Northern Alabama. They
run two shelters, Hope House and a legal assistance program, a
really comprehensive domestic violence program.
And she has been doing this work in Alabama for about 25
years, and one thing that she told me was that she has been
able to see the tremendous change in the 25 years of her work
on the local level that has been to the benefit of victims in
her community. And she points very strongly to the role that
the Violence Against Women Office and the current structure of
really--and I would use this term--centralized operations that
both do grant-making and deal with policy issues and technical
assistance, and provide guidance to the States about
implementing these critical programs. And she has had a
tremendous relationship in her State that has been brought
about precisely because of the structure of the Violence
Against Women Office here in Washington.
What she says is this, that before 1994 programming in her
State was very uncoordinated. No one talked to each other. The
police were going one direction, prosecutors going another
direction, domestic violence programs in yet another direction,
and the judiciary someplace over on the side. And today that is
not true because the Violence Against Women Office provided
guidance about the implementation. They stressed, both in their
work with the States and encouraged work at the State level,
coordination, collaboration, and communication to really
enhance resources and implementation in the local community.
She told me about a program that they run that is called a
first responder program in the Huntsville area, and Decatur and
Madison. In that program, they have recruited about 35
volunteers who have responded to about 340 crisis calls with
law enforcement officers in that wide area. She said that she
approached the Violence Against Women Office, along with their
prosecutor and their local police chiefs in the various
jurisdictions, about this project. They were just trying to
figure out how to do it.
It turns out that the way that the Violence Against Women
Office helped is that they knew what was going on in other
jurisdictions around the country. They knew what was working
and what wasn't working, and they were able to provide the kind
of guidance that the folks in Huntsville really needed to fully
implement their first responder program.
And today all of these sort of various folks--the police
officers, the prosecutors, and others who are in the
implementation process in their community around the Violence
Against Women Office--not only work together, but they share
space together. And this has been a tremendous difference from
the way things were 10 years ago or 20 years ago, and in large
measure that has been brought about because of their very sort
of centralized approach that the Violence Against Women Office
has taken toward implementation of what Congress wanted them to
do.
And I think that this is very instructive for us; it is a
local lesson that is very instructive. It is a lesson from what
the Assistant Attorney General would call the consumer. And
what we as consumers are saying to the Department is that while
there may be a sort of 20-year history of the way that these
programs have been structured through the Office of Justice
Programs over the years, that indeed what the Violence Against
Women Act did was create an environment in which the Violence
Against Women Office actually could do all of those functions
that we are talking about in this reorganization plan. And they
do that from an issue perspective and not from a function
perspective.
What I see here, in fact, is something that I think we
wouldn't want consumers to face, and that is at the Crisis
Services of Northern Alabama, in their area they have got a
STOP grant, so that is a State formula grant. They also have a
legal assistance grant, which is a discretionary grant program,
and they have a program that comes out of the Grants to
Encourage Arrest Program.
Even if they called that information central desk to find
out really what is going on with their discretionary programs
and with their formula programs and with any technical
assistance and with any research that might be going on in
their area, they would still have to make five telephone calls.
And right now, today, they can call the Violence Against Women
Office and find out all of those things.
So at least with respect to the functions that are
implementing the Violence Against Women Act, I really do not
see that this plan at all would centralize operations. In fact,
it would take what is already a very centralized function and
decentralize that greatly.
The role of the Violence Against Women Office is not a role
of simply giving out Federal grants. It is really making sure
that implementation takes place in a responsible way, so that
policies are guided by the best practices in the field, so that
people who are making those grants and overseeing those grants
have a substantive knowledge of what is going on in the broader
field of violence against women so that the Federal dollars are
used in the most efficient way.
And I do want to conclude by saying that I think that you
had asked a question earlier about the desire for a
multidisciplinary approach to so many issues so that we really
do see the overlap and can deal with issues more holistically
and serve the American public in a more holistic fashion. And I
would argue to you that indeed the last 6 years of
implementation through the Violence Against Women Office is
doing exactly that.
And I suggest that if there are some very small functions
that deal with violence against women in some of the other
bureaus, as the Assistant Attorney General indicated, those are
very sort of smaller function areas and they could be brought
in the house of the Violence Against Women Office and a number
of areas could be better served by having issue-specific focus
with all of the grant-making and administrative functions
within those issues. That would both elevate the issues in the
way that Congress intends and gets out the message that some of
these issues do enjoy high Federal priority.
At the same time, it would ensure that those who are out in
the field don't spend all of their time making telephone calls
and figuring out the maze of Federal programs, but really do
get to spend their time implementing those laws and
implementing the important grant programs that go along with
them.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donna F. Edwards
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
National Network to End Domestic Violence, thank you for providing the
opportunity for me to share with you our thoughts about the U.S.
Department of Justice proposal to reorganize the Office of Justice
Programs. The National Network is a network of statewide domestic
violence coalitions around the country--through our members, we
represent nearly 2,000 domestic violence shelters and programs. Our
member coalitions and the various justice system components within
their states, including the state administrators who administer
violence against women funding, are in the unique position of working
directly and closely with the existing Violence Against Women
Office.\1\ Our day-to-day working relationship with the VAWO since its
inception is a critical lens from which to view the Department's
proposed reorganization plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ During this past spring, the grant making function of the
Violence Against Women Grants Office and the policy making function of
the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) headed by Bonnie Campbell were
brought together formally though they had functioned in harmony since
the initial establishment of those functions in 1994. The NNEDV support
strongly the natural merger of these two functions. For clarity, I
refer to the grantmaking and policy making functions together as VAWO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me begin by saying that we are grateful for the commitment of
this Administration and this President to ending domestic violence and
all violence against women. The Administration, and particularly the
Department of Justice, has been incredible in their work implementing
the numerous programs, policy changes, and system advancements that are
the vision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Moreover, the
decisive leadership of Congress has given much needed support for the
efforts of local communities and states to end violence against women.
Congress has provided states with critical funds and policy direction
through the state formula grants and discretionary programs such as the
pro arrest grants, rural, tribal, civil legal assistance, research and
training and technical assistance programs that collectively comprise
the VAWA 1994. In the field, and throughout the states, we know that
Congress--Republicans and Democrats--are committed to funding these
important VAWA programs. The challenge, of course, is not just in
making the resources available, but in ensuring that implementation is
coordinated, thoughtful, and informed by work and practice in the
states.
We applaud the Administration's efforts to streamline the
operations of the Office of Justice Programs. Nonetheless, the proposal
at hand would deal a tragic blow to the now nearly six years of
coordination, collaboration, and communication within and outside of
the VAWO. The Department's proposal to create separate departmental
functions to serve across divergent and unique programs would result in
severely fragmenting and undermining the progress we've made in
implementing violence against women programs. The single biggest reason
that so much is going on so well and so swiftly in the states is in no
small measure due to the guidance, leadership, and staff commitment of
the VAWO. The VAWO has demonstrated what is required by statute of the
states: coordination, collaboration and communication.
In retrospect, Congress conceived a brilliant formula for
successful implementation. The very process by which VAWO began their
work in 1994 continues today. VAWO reached out to experts in the field
and talked with community and state-based stakeholders (law
enforcement, victims services, prosecution, judiciary) to establish a
grantmaking process that fully integrated formula and discretionary
grantmaking, policy development, and training and technical assistance.
Implementation of VAWA 1994 through a coordinated, focused function
within VAWO has contributed mightily to accomplishments that we can
point to today. The only thing lacking is that the VAWO should be a
statutory office, with the highest level of access within the
department, not subject to the designs of whatever Administration might
be in place. Violence Against women, and particularly domestic
violence, is a critical national concern--it merits national attention
in the Department of Justice. The adage ``if it ain't broke, don't fix
it'' is most applicable here.
The fact that Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act of
1994 and committed much needed resources to states and local
communities for the purpose of addressing violence against women was a
sea change in the nation's conception of violence against women and
especially domestic violence. In effect, Congress said to the nation,
``Violence against women is wrong and we intend to bring human and
capital resources to bear to end this violence.'' But, it would not
have been enough simply to confine the role of the Department to that
of a ``money tree.'' Instead, the Attorney General took on this work
enthusiastically, appointing a high-level policy person to give vision
and leadership to violence against women--Bonnie Campbell. The Attorney
General separated, elevated, and consolidated the various grantmaking
mandates of VAWA 1994 under one house. There are a number of reasons
this structural concept has contributed to successful VAWA
implementation. Among the most important is that the structure enabled
the Department to move swiftly to implement this important
legislation--Congress should have expected no less. And, yet here we
are today, with a proposal before us that would again relegate domestic
violence to the closet of government bureaucracy. On behalf of the
millions of women who are battered each year and the many systems that
are closer than ever before to ``getting it,'' please do not sacrifice
action for administration.
Let me share with you why in the case of violence against women
programs a coordinated, focused effort is appropriate and critical. On
a policy level, the Congress passed a law that required states to honor
and enforce other states' protection orders. This was a tremendous step
forward for victims who continued to be victimized from one
jurisdiction to another. The VAWO recognized that implementation would
be easier said than done by the states. The states needed model
implementing legislation, coordination among various components of
state government, model protocols, practices and standardized forms,
and guidance with data base design and development, to name just a few
things. VAWO is helping states figure out how to implement the
protection order law by facilitating meetings with regional and
neighboring jurisdictions, training, and other more state specific
assistance. This is coordinated implementation that comes from the
leadership of the VAWO.
On the program level, the story of state VAWA administrator Barry
Bryant in North Carolina is not unlike many states. Barry administers
Victims of Crime Act funds and VAWA funds for his state. He first
received word of the impending federal funds in 1994 from the director
of the newly created grants office. Barry was so enthusiastic about
this new federal program that he immediately called the VAWO to talk
about all that he would like to do in North Carolina. Knowing the
complexity of the Department of Justice, given his work administering
Victims of Crime Act funds, Barry was surprised to actually speak with
the grants director. Since that time Barry has had untold number of
conversations, meetings, training, technical assistance and policy
guidance from the VAWO. In Barry's words, VAWO has provided ``guidance,
coordination, opportunities for collaboration and learning from other
states, and flexibility.'' Barry directly attributes his state's
ability to move forward in developing innovative programs, creating
policy and systems change, conducting training, and establishing
collaboration among law enforcement, victim services, and prosecutors
(to name a few) to the way in which VAWO has coordinated the formula
and discretionary grantmaking, policy making, and technical assistance
resources.
As an example of how he has worked with VAWO, Barry cites his
desire early on to engage law enforcement officers in learning about
domestic violence and strengthening policing and evidence collection.
He talked about these challenges with the VAWO staff. They recommended
that Barry attend a site visit to the model court and community
coordinating program in Quincy, Massachusetts. It was there that Barry
learned about developing a coordinated community response to domestic
violence, facilitating communication among the justice system
components, and the Polaroid project to teach the use of photographic
techniques to police officers responding at the scene of a domestic
violence call. Barry used this information and his new contacts to
develop a training program in his state. He used VAWA resources to
purchase Polaroid cameras for police officers, prosecutors and victim
services providers. The ``catch'' was that if you attended the training
(which covered multiple levels of domestic violence issues) you would
get a camera for use at your community location. The result was that 38
of 39 jurisdictions sent multidisciplinary teams to the training.
Today, these teams are not just taking evidence. They are actively
engaged in coordinating efforts in their communities on an ongoing
basis. Barry says that had it not been for VAWO facilitating training
and technical assistance, providing guidance on policy and
implementation, and coordinating grantmaking to North Carolina, they
would not be where they are in implementation. From state
administrators to nonprofit domestic violence programs to law
enforcement units to prosecutors, the stories are numerous about ways
in which this coordinated, focused effort we call VAWO has contributed
directly and indirectly to six years of accomplishments throughout the
states in VAWA implementation. The VAWO has encouraged replication,
mentoring, state-to-state communication and collaboration for the
people who are on the ground every day trying to make headway in ending
violence against women.
Since 1994, millions upon millions of federal dollars have been
sent purposefully and speedily to states to tackle the tremendous
problems of violence against women. It is not an exaggeration to say
that this maneuvering through the ordinary maze of federal grantmaking,
policy making and technical assistance would not have been possible
without the coordination and leadership provided through VAWO.
VAWO does not tell states what to do, rather it provides capacity
to see the state's vision through. VAWO's attention to collaboration,
communication and coordination has been replicated in amazing ways
throughout the states. Their focus on mentoring among the states has
encouraged states to focus on mentoring among communities within their
own states. VAWO itself is a seamless web of resources for state
administrators and justice system stakeholders--this seamless web
concept is percolating throughout the states as well, Barriers to
sharing information, resources, successes and failures are breaking
down. The bureaucracy is becoming more transparent to victims--we are
by no means there yet, but it's happening. We are enhancing law
enforcement, prosecution of crimes, and safe and accessible services
for victims. This is your vision of VAWA 1994, and it is one in which
the VAWO is the wheelbearing that has enabled us to realize that
vision. VAWA 1994 programs give life and breath to a policy of creating
systems and institutional changes to end violence against women. Such
an approach cannot be achieved in a centralized, one-size fits all
approach that may satisfy administrative concerns but ultimately
defeats the goal of successfully implementing the law.
The Department of Justice could have begun implementation of the
VAWA 1994 like so many other federal programs--one element disbursing
formula grants to states, another handling discretionary grants,
another promoting policy in absence of direction from the field, and
still another doling out technical assistance that's uninformed by
existing need and practice. I'm pleased that the Attorney General had
the foresight in 1994 to resist the urge of fragmentation. Mr.
Chairman, for state administrators like Barry Bryant of North Carolina
and for victims across the country, I urge this Subcommittee to do the
same today. Thank you for your consideration.
Senator Sessions. Well, those are very good insights and
factors that all of us ought to consider as we go through this,
and I thank you very much for sharing those with us.
Ms. Edwards, on this proposed new structure, there would
still be--I guess it looks a little small on that chart; it
might make you nervous because it is just a little bit smaller,
but it does maintain these individual sections. I guess they
are less autonomous, less independent, and on their own.
Right now, for example, I understand that programs to
combat family violence are funded through OJJDP, the Violence
Against Women Office, NIJ, BJA, and the OVC. Is it possible
that we can streamline this in a way to make that more
effective? Are you convinced personally that we just need a
single quasi-independent Violence Against Women Office?
Ms. Edwards. I guess rather than talking about the
independence of the office with respect to whether it is a
presidential appointee or not, I think that we can get there.
But if you look at the proposed restructuring plan, although
there is a violence against women section, that section really
is designated to handle the discretionary grant programs,
things that are not the formula State grant programs. Those
programs fall under the State desks, and then the research
falls under NIJ and some smaller level of work falls under the
Bureau of Justice Assistance and under the OVC currently.
Well, what I would suggest to you is that there is a great
relationship between discretionary grant-making and the State
formula grants. I know from my own experience doing those
grants here--I have supervised the planning process here in the
District of Columbia locally, and when we sit down at the table
with all of the different folks--police, prosecutors, and all
of us who need to figure out what grant programs to apply for--
we really consider what the potential is under the various
discretionary programs and then structure the formula program
application based on what we might do with discretionary
grants.
What I see here is a bifurcation of those functions so that
one hand really could not know what the other is doing, so that
you force competition. So as a local law enforcement agency, I
might decide I would go and apply for a Grant to Encourage
Arrest, and also include that same program in the formula grant
plan that goes out. That then creates overlap, whereas if I am
doing this in a coordinated fashion and the person who is
responsible for that is all sort of in one house, they will
know and I will know that we would be better served by actually
coordinating those applications, applying for a first responder
program under a STOP grant and applying for a legal assistance
program that supported that under the discretionary grants and
not overlapping.
I do see, however, that, for example, with the National
Institutes of Justice providing a research and evaluation
function, that function with respect to violence against women
actually has worked in a very coordinated fashion and has
really been informed by the sort of programmatic people in the
Violence Against Women Office to construct that research
agenda.
I actually don't see a problem with that as long as there
really is, whether it is by statute or understanding,
communication between the research function and the other
grant-making function so that you make the research have
validity with respect to what is going on in the field.
Senator Sessions. Very good.
Mr. Blumstein, do you have any comments about that, in
general, that whole concept?
Mr. Blumstein. I really appreciate Ms. Edwards' comments
about, first, the research having to be connected to
programmatic activity, but having its own separate
independence. I thought that comment was important and a good
model in relationship to the potential juvenile justice
programs downstream.
Another observation that her comments triggered was the
inherent need for coordination at the State level and the local
level, so that in developing their grant-applying and grant-
making strategy they do the coordination so that in the Mobile
case and in the Alabama case the discretionary grants they seek
are coherent with their uses of the formula grants. And it is
particularly important that that be done at the State level and
at the local level, which is where I have had some grant-making
and grant-getting experience. And I think that is important to
do.
I like the reorganization plan because it brings a
similarity in dealing with this diverse array of issues,
whether they be corrections, whether they be violence against
women, whether they be police operations. There is a similarity
to the way they work, and because they all report to the OJP
director, that director and his or her office should be very
conscious of making sure that there is coordination across
those offices, that they aren't merely letting issues fall in
the cracks, because so many criminal justice issues will
involve two or more pieces of this complex puzzle, as you
pointed out in the earlier discussion.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Voegtlin.
Mr. Voegtlin. Well, I disagree. I mean, I do agree with
what he was saying, and I think what we are talking about here
is, yes, there is a need for coordination by the practitioners
at the State and local level. But there is also a need--and I
think this is what the plan is striving to do--to coordinate
what is going on at the Federal level here.
I do not deal directly with OJP all that often myself, but
our research folks do, and they would explain to me that
looking at that chart over here to the left that those boxes
would be better defined as walls; that the offices don't talk
to each other, that they have similar programs running in each
of the offices on many different types of activities and they
are not talking. So the same kind of coordination that Ms.
Edwards was just talking about between the police, the
prosecutors, the advocates, and the State and local level would
be taking place under the new structure at the Federal level,
and I think that is what we are striving for.
Now, I understand her concerns with losing, or fearing to
lose--and I can't speak to what the actual effect of it would
be--a certain level of visibility and priority for certain
programs, not just violence against women, but all important
programs. So I understand there is a legitimate concern there
and I think it needs to be addressed. But I think that what we
can't lose sight of is the need for coordination at the Federal
level more than anything, trying to get these folks talking to
each other, because they have all got good programs and good
ideas, but sometimes it is already being done. So instead of
wasting the energy to do it twice, they could be working
together to find a better solution for another problem.
Senator Sessions. In your experience of the Association of
Chiefs of Police, have you found that some departments are
frustrated with dealing with the Government bureaucracy and
have just given up making applications, or have heard it is so
complex that they oftentimes don't make the effort, when they
might benefit if they did?
Mr. Voegtlin. Well, I don't know if they have given up
because of frustration. I think a lot of it is they have just
given up because they don't have the time. They don't have the
people in place. I spoke earlier about how there is a fear
among small departments that the State and larger cities are
getting more grants than they may otherwise get just because
they know who to talk to.
We have some police departments in this Nation that are
three people, you know, a chief and two officers, and maybe a
part-time civilian. They just don't have the time, if they even
know of a grant, to go through the process of finding it. So it
may be not so much giving up, just saying it is not worth it,
but just having to focus on other issues, you know, dealing
with felons and other more actual policing matters.
Senator Sessions. In your opinion and the unanimous opinion
of the Executive Committee, this would improve their ability to
have access?
Mr. Voegtlin. Absolutely. If they can call one person and
say, here is what I am trying to do, I have heard about this,
who do I talk to, and getting an answer, getting some
assistance, getting somebody to point the way would make it
just--I can't tell you how much easier it would make it. When
the Executive Committee debated this, I was in the room and we
had chiefs from places like Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and even
smaller departments than that just talking about how they hear
about all these great programs, but they don't know what to do.
One program that came up was the Bullet-Proof Vest
Partnership Grant Act, something that many chiefs want to
participate in and is actually one of the easier programs to
get in touch with at OJP. But still they were confused. They
had talked to somebody on one program in the past. They tried
to call the same person up and that person either no longer
worked there or didn't know about this new program. So they
thought, OK, I have got the wrong office. And then they tried
to call Main Justice and they just got frustrated.
Senator Sessions. Better not try to call Main Justice.
[Laughter.]
They call my briefcase the black hole, but a call to Main
Justice is--it is hard to get through from there, it really is.
I can understand that. I have at times tried to do that myself.
Well, I will say, Mr. Blumstein, that I think you are
correct in insisting on the integrity of statistics and
research. That is a very, very important issue. I remember when
I was a U.S. attorney, I had done some research on it
personally, on the boot camps. We thought that was going to
cure juvenile crime. Do you remember that?
Mr. Blumstein. Certainly.
Senator Sessions. I mean, Newsweek and everybody, and the
first numbers came out of Louisiana and it was stunning that it
didn't seem to be quite as good as everybody had thought.
Subsequent research has replicated that, I think, to the extent
to which you have got to run them right and it is a very
sophisticated program. But just getting people up and making
them say ``yes, sir'' and running them up and down the road
doesn't necessarily change their lifestyle.
Mr. Blumstein. And it is very hard for an organization that
has initiated a program----
Senator Sessions. To admit that.
Mr. Blumstein [continuing]. To do the analysis that says,
gee, it doesn't work.
Senator Sessions. That is right. I remember the judges from
Miami who started the first drug court. I hosted them to speak
in Mobile, AL, and the numbers were something like a 95-percent
cure rate. And I remember telling the judge, I said, judge, I
do not believe those numbers, but if you could get 50-percent
cure rates, we ought to adopt your program. And I don't know
where the progress rate is or what the latest data is, but it
doesn't get that high a level. But that was their program that
they believed in, and they saw the good side maybe more than
they saw the adverse side.
So I think an independent analysis and review, independent
statistical data, is important. I don't know that you have to
have a presidential appointee to achieve that, but there needs
to be something done to ensure it.
Mr. Blumstein. Well, the other Federal departments do seem
to believe that is an important part of it, and I think that is
an important model to use here. I might note that what you
don't want is a resolution from the 95 and the 50 by the judge
saying, OK, it will be 50, rather than going out and doing an
independent measurement.
Senator Sessions. Well said. You mentioned a phrase that we
need to bring order out of chaos. How would you describe what
you see as the chaos part of this problem?
Mr. Blumstein. I think Laurie Robinson in her testimony
defined the chaos, and you in your introductory statement
defined the chaos that one doesn't know where to go. Activities
that have a similar nature of grant-giving, of discretionary
grant-giving, sometimes are at independent levels, sometimes at
a subordinate level.
As much of the testimony has suggested, there is no place
that somebody who has a good idea knows where to go. And so I
think there is a chaos of lots of autonomous entities that are
doing very similar things, and I think grant-giving, I think
technical assistance, I think administration of discretionary
programs have a similarity and there should be coordination
across those so that they are not trying to do the same thing
and so lots of things don't fall into the cracks. That is where
the order comes in terms of coming to understand where the
needs are.
And those needs change with time and those needs are going
to be very different in different jurisdictions. And so there
has to be both a responsiveness to local requirements, as well
as a recognition that what we have is a system that isn't
coordinated very well in its operations. But this plan moves it
toward a system that is intended to achieve better effort at
reducing crime and making the criminal justice system more
effective, as seen at each locality and its distinctive needs.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think that is true. Would you
agree that when you have an agency that goes from $800 million
to $4 billion in funding, we have gone through a pretty
significant change in its demands and it would be appropriate
to review its organizational structure?
Mr. Blumstein. Absolutely. The timing is right, and if any
Federal agency can be described as having grown like topsy,
this one has because there are things all over the place. And
it is clear that some order is necessary to make it more
effective and to reduce the inconsistencies in the operations.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Voegtlin, on the State desk concept,
is that what is most attractive to you? Do you think that is a
key part of what you find attractive?
Mr. Voegtlin. Well, it is both the State desk and the State
and local information transfer areas. As we understand it, the
actual State desk is for the administration of grants. The
information transfer office is kind of the place you call when
you are just starting out, trying to find out where things are
and where to go. So I think those two in tandem, one to help
you get started, the other one to help you keep moving after
things get in place, are the key components of this.
I don't remember who spoke earlier about--I think it might
have been Ms. Robinson when she talked about how Missouri would
have 12 separate folks that you would have to talk to, as
opposed to one person who would be able to deal with all the
comprehensive need to refer what is in your area. You know,
anything that eases simplicity and makes it easier for a chief
or a mayor or whoever is detailed from the department to call
up and get an answer so they can get back to actually doing
police work is vital in this plan and, in our opinion, the
critical component.
Senator Sessions. It is just extraordinarily hard, and I
have every now and then had a direct insight, a clear view of
it, and it slips out of my brain at other times. But I really
believe that the key to a major improvement in our effort
against crime and a lot of social problems related with crime
is bringing the agencies together in a coordinated whole.
A family which has spousal abuse may have child abuse, or a
child who grows up to be a spouse abuser may have an alcohol
problem that is exacerbating an anger problem or mental health
problems. Financial problems cause those kinds of things. And
you go from the pre-school to school, the truancy programs, the
drug intervention testing programs. We are spending money on
all of those, but they are not very well working together in a
comprehensive program.
I think Jimmy Carter tried it with the Atlanta Project to
see if he could make agencies work together. We tried it in
Mobile and I think made some progress in having agencies agree
on sort of a memorandum of understanding. The sheriff will
designate somebody for juvenile cases, and judges will have
this and that and the other. Anyway, it is just hard to
accomplish. Why I am intrigued by this is I believe it moves us
somewhat more in that direction than the stratified programs,
the walls, maybe, that you suggested.
Let me ask you sincerely, is there anything you would like
to add, any comments or overall views that you think this
committee should be aware of before we adjourn this afternoon?
Mr. Blumstein, do you have anything?
Mr. Blumstein. No; I think we have covered much of it.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Voegtlin.
Mr. Voegtlin. We are good.
Senator Sessions. Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Just one last comment. I am concerned that we
haven't really gotten into a discussion about what other kinds
of statutory changes might have to be made because of the
statutory creation of these various bureaus and program areas
which I think opens up a whole process that I am not sure any
of us can quite have a vision of yet. And I would like to see
some further discussion of that because it really directly
impacts whether any changes at all would be able to be made to
the organizational structure of the Office of Justice Programs.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think that is an important
insight. We do need to consider what other creations have
occurred over a period of years. It is sort of like we have
added on to this big house room by room, not very well thought
out. But we may have some statutory problems as we go forward
that will have to be addressed and we will certainly have to
look at that.
We will keep the record open for an additional 5 days if
anybody would like to submit any information or any of the
other Senators wish to submit questions to you. We would
request if you receive written questions that you respond to
those.
We will look at this. I am glad that OJP is wrestling with
the problem. I think it is important that all agencies be
involved. I know, like in violence against women, there was a
group of people that worked their hearts out to get that
legislation passed. It is probably like raising a child that
somebody is messing with that child that you helped create.
And, actually, it is true for each one of these; some are just
older than others. Whether we can make the kind of changes that
have been suggested here, I am not certain, but we are going to
receive it positively and work at it and we are open to hear
any questions and criticisms you may have.
If there is nothing further to come before the
subcommittee, we will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions and Answers
----------
Responses of Laurie Robinson to Questions From Senator Sessions
Question 1. Has the Center for Domestic Preparedness met all its
goals for training First Responders to this point? Have the consortium
schools likewise met the annual goals you set out for them?
Answer 1. The Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) and the other
Consortium sites have met the fiscal year 1999 training goals set for
them by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). The goal set for the CDP
was to train 1,300 students in fiscal year 1999 they have met and
exceeded that goal. The cumulative goal set by OJP for the other
consortium members was for them to train a total of 1,300 students.
They also have met and exceeded that goal.
Question 2. What other initiatives are you considering for Ft.
McClellan next year that will strengthen this facility, and get us
closer to the goal of training 10,000 resident students annually? How
will the Department fulfill the guidance in the fiscal year 2000 CJS
Appropriations Bill to work with the National Guard to develop a
comprehensive distribution network for non-resident, distributed
training?
Answer 2. OJP is currently working with numerous federal agencies
to put agreements in place to train their responder personnel. OJP is
working with the Public Health Service (PHS) to strengthen the CDP
training curriculum and to fully integrate future PHS training at the
Army Noble Hospital into the current CDP training courses. OJP is also
working with the National Guard and the responder community to
determine the types of courses that can be delivered through distance
learning, such as via the Internet and CD-ROM, as well as
teleconferencing, and the costs associated with delivering the courses.
Question 3. Is Ft. McClellan the Department's primary training
location for first responders? What do you envision as its secondary
training facilities around the country?
Answer 3. The Center for Domestic Preparedness at Fort McClellan,
Alabama is a central component of OJP's overall training program for
first responders. In addition to the CDP, OJP administers training
programs through the other four sites in the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium (NDPC) (the New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology, the National Exercise, Test and Training Center at the
Nevada Test Site, Louisiana State University, and the Texas Engineering
Extension Service at Texas A&M University). Further, based on authority
received under the ``Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996,'' OJP administers the metropolitan Firefighter and Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) Program. This program, developed in partnership
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Fire
Academy, provides direct training, train the trainer, and self-study
training to firefighters and EMS personnel nationwide. Beginning in
October 2000, OJP will also have responsibility for the administration
of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program, following its
anticipated transfer from the Department of Defense to the Department
of Justice. These programs collectively comprise the major elements of
OJP's first responder training effort, and are administered in a
coordinated fashion by the proposed Office for State and Local Domestic
Preparedness Support (OSLDPS).
Each program represents a unique and critical component of OJP's
overall training effort, with no single program or location serving as
the primary element. Rather, the various programs function as discrete
points on a training continuum, with the train-the-trainer program
providing basic, awareness level training, and more specialized
training provided in different areas at each of the NDPC sites.
Question 4. Has OJP and the Department made any budget concerns
known to the CJS Appropriations Committee since the House and Senate
mark up? If not, when do you expect to speak with Senator Gregg? What
is the current out-year budget forecast for Ft. McClellan?
Answer 4. OJP understands that the Department of Justice, of which
we are a part and which manages the Appropriations process on our
behalf, has forwarded its formal fiscal year 2000 Appeal Package to
both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. OJP agrees that an
appropriation of at least $15 million is required to administer an
effective training program at Fort McClellan in fiscal year 2000, and
OJP has appealed for funding at the level requested in the President's
Budget: $17 million.
As for fiscal year 2001, the Department's request will be submitted
formally to the Congress in February 2000, when final decisions have
been made in the Executive branch. At this point, the Department's
budget request has not yet been formally submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget, and is not available for dissemination.
ADDITIONAL TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES
Question 1. It appears that the State Department's Antiterrorism
program is requesting assistance in setting up a program for foreign
law enforcement personnel training. This six week, 21 course training
curriculum might be well suited for co-location with the Center for
Domestic Preparedness, as both seem to have similar objectives. Have
you personally looked into training in order to maximize the taxpayers'
investment in Ft. McClellan?
Answer 1. OJP is open to a training partnership with the State
Department, and has engaged the State Department on this issue. State
Department officials have visited Fort McClellan to determine if the
facilities there meet the State Department's training needs. OJP will
continue to engage in training partnerships with other federal
agencies, including the State Department, as long as those partnerships
do not interfere with the CDP's primary mission: training the nation's
state and local first responders.
Question 2. In light of recent events, many have noted the need to
look at the necessity for training school officials and administrators
in emergency and disaster preparedness. Is the Department of Education
or the Department of Justice better suited to conduct this needed
training? Where is the best place to do it, and how much funding do you
think is necessary to carry out a week long workshop that would be both
resident, and conducted by mobile training teams?
Answer 2. DOJ is working with the U.S. Department of Education and
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to support coordinated
school and community safety efforts. The Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory has been awarded a grant to operate the National Resource
Center for Safe Schools. This center, funded by the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools Program and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, will offer training and technical
assistance that will enable schools and communities to create safe
school environments.
In addition, OJJDP offers the SAFE POLICY training course
nationwide. School Administrators for Effective Police, Prosecution,
Probation Operations Leading to Improved Children and Youth service
(SAFE POLICY) trains law enforcement and school personnel on:
1. Effective use of school tiplines by schools and others and threat
assessment.
2. Information sharing between schools, police and other agencies
serving troubled, problem and delinquent youth.
3. Use of information by schools, police and other youth serving
agencies to assist troubled, problem and delinquent youth and to
enhance threat assessment and threat reduction.
4. Police, school, parent, social service partnerships to maximize
collection and use of resources for the most troubled youth.
5. Media/police protocols to better manage live broadcast of hot
situations.
6. Realtime surveillance of school property.
7. Early recognition of the sips of danger in the most troubled
children and youth by schools, police, and other service agencies
and a community case management process to deal with those cases.
Further, OJP is continuing to participate in interagency efforts
with FEMA, Education, and HHS to develop a coordinated federal response
to communities that experience crisis incidents in schools, such as the
recent shootings. The interagency working group, which includes
representatives from OJP, OJJDP, and OVC, is finalizing the School
Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) proposal, using comments
from constituency groups and school violence experts who reviewed an
earlier draft. Guidance from the field was sought on such issues as the
kind of crises the federal government should assist, services to be
provided, and application procedures. A $12 million request to support
the project was included in the Department of Education's fiscal year
2000 budget request. The working group is now developing program
guidelines and an accelerated application process, similar to FEMA's
emergency response grant procedures. It is anticipated that the program
will be ready for operation when Congress takes final action on
Education's fiscal year 2000 appropriation. President Clinton first
announced plans to propose Project SERV at the October 1998 White House
Conference on School Safety.
CONSOLIDATION AND STANDARDIZATION OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS
TRAINING
Question 1. How and when will the Department create a standardized
training program?
Answer 1. The Office of Justice Programs' (OJP) proposed Office for
State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support (OSLDPS) is currently
working on the development of a strategy and plan for its training
programs. This strategy, anticipated to be completed in the first
quarter of fiscal year 2000, will lay out plans for curriculum
development, student selection, and the matching of available training
with jurisdictional needs identified both through past and ongoing
needs assessments. Focus will also be given to protocols for training
execution, forecasting of future training needs, and identification of
existing training shortfalls. A critical element of the strategy will
be the standardization and tiering of OJP's existing and forthcoming
training programs. This will ensure that a standardized level of
training is provided through all of OJP's delivery mechanisms.
Question 2. When will the Committee see a comprehensive national
training strategy that provides the type of guidance that all our
national, state and local training sites need to eliminate any
potentially wasteful duplication of effort, resources, and funding?
Answer 2. The proposed National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO)
has been directed under the Attorney General's Five Year Interagency
Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan to develop a comprehensive
national domestic preparedness strategy for the federal government.
This strategy is anticipated to focus on planning, training, equipment
and exercise initiatives, with the specific objectives of eliminating
duplication of effort, identifying gaps in existing efforts, and
proposing solutions to meet those shortfalls. When completed, this
strategy will provide guidance to all federal agencies involved in
domestic preparedness, and will serve to streamline and integrate their
programs into a coherent and focused federal effort.
As a participating agency in the proposed NDPO, OJP will be
actively involved in the development of the national domestic
preparedness strategy, as well as in its implementation. Additionally,
OJP will ensure that the work conducted under OJP's own internal
domestic preparedness training strategy dovetails with, and does not
duplicate, work conducted at the NDPO. OJP's internal strategy is
focused on the implementation of OJP's training programs, and their
delivery nation-wide. The national strategy to be developed at NDPO
maintains a macro-level focus, looking at domestic preparedness efforts
across all federal agencies and how they fit together to form a
complete program effort. The two strategies, therefore, are
complementary in nature, and not duplicative.
Question 3. What is OJP's plan to implement the Nunn-Lugar II
training program once it is transferred from the Department of Defense,
and who within OJP will manage it? How will OJP manage the transfer of
the program? Has OJP considered delegating the management of the
program to the Center for Domestic Preparedness Director and his staff?
Answer 3. In accordance with an anticipated designation by the
President, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the
Department's of Defense and Justice, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
will assume programmatic and funding responsibilities for several
elements of the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici (NLD) Domestic Preparedness Program
beginning in fiscal year 2001--specifically, the City Training program
and portions of the Improved Response Program and the Expert Assistance
Program. Following the transfer, it is anticipated that the Attorney
General will delegate responsibility for the City Training Program and
the Improved Response Program to OJP, and responsibility for the Expert
Assistance Program to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Within OJP, OSLDPS will administer the NLD Program. After
considerable thought about the management of this program, OJP believes
it is best to base it in Washington, DC. The rationale for this
decision is four-fold. First, the NLD program will only be a part of
OJP's overall national training effort, and must be closely coordinated
with other OJP programs administered by OSLDPS. Second, as only some
portions of the NLD program will be transferred to OJP, it is essential
for program continuity that the administration of these portions be
closely coordinated with the administration of other program elements
by DOD and the FBI. Moving the program's nerve center outside of
Washington, DC would make both of these coordination efforts more
difficult. Third, state and local officials are accustomed to working
directly with OSLDPS to meet their equipment and training needs. The
administration of the NLD program will require extensive contact with
state and local communities, locating the program away from OSLDPS'
main offices will create a second point of contact within the
organization, complicating communication efforts for the end users.
Finally, the CDP has a specific mission to provide on-site, specialized
training for emergency responders. By contrast, the NLD program
provides more basic, awareness, and operations level training delivered
locally to each city. This is a very different program orientation, and
falls outside the mission of the CDP.
To ensure the smooth transition of the City Training Program and
the IRP from the Department of Defense (DOD) to OJP, OSLDPS plans to
begin working on the administration of the program through active
participation with DOD in program activities during fiscal year 2000.
Active involvement in the program during fiscal year 2000, the
transition year, will enable OJP to navigate its learning curve with
respect to the administration of the program before the formal
transfer, allowing the transition to appear seamless to the end user.
Additionally, this plan will place OJP in a position to fully engage in
the program's administration with no disruption in programmatic
activities once the official transfer takes place on October 1, 2000.
Finally, the time line of the City Training program is such that many
cities initiating the training process in fiscal year 2000 will not
complete their training until sometime in fiscal year 2001. By actively
participating in all elements of the training conducted for these
cities in fiscal year 2000, OJP can maintain continuity in the program
for these cities through the transition.
Question 4. During your presentation on OJP's reorganization last
week it was obvious you spent a great deal of time working out the
details. It seemed, however, that you may have placed first responder
training into part of your organization which has an overwhelming
number of key issues assigned to it. Is it possible that in doing so
the need to focus on the training and development of first responders
will be limited and lost? Have you considered any other management
options within your restructuring initiative which would enhance,
rather than limit, the development of the first responder training
initiative at Fort McClellan and elsewhere?
Answer 4. Yes, I have looked again at the placement of the Office
of State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support (OSLDPS) in the
proposed reorganization, and looked at the following management option:
As described in the restructure report sent to Capitol Hill in March
1999, OSLDPS would be one of nine program offices reporting to the
Assistant Attorney General through an Office of Criminal Justice
Program Development. Because of concerns expressed by constituents in
several other areas contained in the proposed Office of Criminal
Justice Program Development, I have, with the concurrence of the
Associate Attorney General, suggested as an alternative that these
offices--including OSLDPS--retain their current status in reporting
directly to the Assistant Attorney General. The benefit of this
revision is that the issues of first responder training and domestic
preparedness would remain ``front and center'' for the Assistant
Attorney General, with its head reporting directly to the AAG. The
Department and the Office of Justice Programs share your commitment to
the issues of first responder training and domestic preparedness, and I
believe the revised proposal can meet any concerns you may have. (A
proposed revision organization chart is attached.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7858.001
POTENTIAL AREAS FOR CLARIFICATIONS/COMPROMISES: REFLECTED ON DRAFT
REVISED CHART
Potential areas of change/clarification from 3/99 reorganization plan
Formula grants: Retain formula grants in their ``home''
bureau or program office. Under this change, the JJ formula
grants would still go to the Juvenile Justice Office, victim
formula grants to the Victims Office, the STOP Violence Against
Women grants to the VAWO office, etc. These offices would
thus--as now--have all responsibility for conceptualization,
planning and oversight (including the creation of application
kits and guidance) for these funding streams. The state desks,
through the Office of Grants Management (renamed from the
Office of Formula Grants), would play a support role, handling
the routine processing and administration of OJP grants once
grant decisions were made by the program office--in the same
way that OJP's Comptroller's Office provides a support role on
financial matters to every program office and bureau in OJP
today. This has the benefit of relieving program staff of
mundane day-to-day grant management chores, and also,
importantly, protects OJP and the Department from criticism for
failure to handle, in a timely fashion, needed grant management
tasks like filing of monitoring reports, close-outs, etc.--an
issue on which the Inspector General and other auditors have
consistently criticized the Department. Right now, for example,
program office bureau staff across OJP are burdened with close-
outs on the first cycle of the early Crime Bill grants--this is
nearly 4,000 grants across OJP. Under this proposal, the state
desks could efficiently handle tasks like close-outs, grant
adjustment notices, food & beverage approvals, etc. These tasks
are ministerial, but critical for the Department's ensuring
sound grant management, particularly when OJP is managing such
large sums of money. These mundane, and often unexciting, tasks
far too frequently get pushed to the side by program/policy
staff, and OJP is, right now, vulnerable in this area.
Moreover, monitoring through the state desks--something many
state and local agencies have told us they heartily endorse--is
a more efficient and cost-effective means of handling this area
of responsibility. Staff on the state desks would regularly
share with program staff feedback from the field. This would in
no way preclude program staff from getting out into the field,
observing projects underway, and interacting regularly with
grantees.
Office of State and Local Information Transfer: The revised
chart clarifies that this ``information central'' office would
act as a pointer system about technical assistance, training,
publications, grants and other help available across OJP. This
office would not itself write the publications, perform the
field TA, administer the TA grants and contracts, or perform
the training. The program offices and bureaus would continue to
handle and control these areas.
Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention
Programs: Retain the juvenile justice formula grants in the
Juvenile Justice Office, while providing routine grant
management support from the state desks. The chart clarifies
that the JJ Office would also continue to handle all juvenile
justice-related program grants, TA, training, and publications
(except for mechanics of printing).
Office for Victims of Crime: Re-elevate OVC to a ``higher
level'' on the chart. Retain its present name. OVC would be
responsible for all crime victim TA, discretionary grants,
publications and formula grants (with routine support on the
latter from the state desks).
Office of Criminal Justice Program Development: Eliminate
the ``intermediary'' Office of Criminal Justice Program
Development between the Assistant Attorney General and the
various program offices. All would report directly to the AAG's
office. This responds to a concern, primarily from the violence
against women community, about ``downgrading'' these offices.
The chart also reflects a change in the use of the name
``sections'' to ``offices.''
* * * * *
Areas where there would be no change from the Administration's 3/99
proposal
PAS's: This proposal continues to provide for only one PAS
in the Office of Justice Programs (the Assistant Attorney
General).
Final grant authority: This proposal would continue to carry
forward current law providing for final grant authority in the
AAG (except in the areas of research, evaluation and
statistics). This, and other streamlining features of the
restructure plan, result in clearer lines of authority within
OJP and the opportunity that a more unified agency can work
toward a common mission, rather than a collection of largely
independent components pursuing separate agendas.
Research and statistics consolidation: This proposal would
continue to provide for the consolidation of all research and
evaluation in NIJ, and all statistical work in BJS.
Subject area consolidation: This proposal continues to
provide for offices which consolidate programmatic work in
topical areas, eliminating much of the overlap and duplication
which exists under OJP's current structure.
Geographically-based grant administration: This proposal
continues to provide for place-based routine grant
administration. This concept, which grew out of the Attorney
General's notion of ``city desks'' early in the Administration,
has received broad support from many state and local
practitioners.
``Information central'' concept: This proposal continues the
recommendation for one central point of information for
interested state and local jurisdictions, elected officials and
practitioners about the wealth of assistance available from
OJP. This Office would provide more sophisticated and more
comprehensive ``triage'' help for the field than do the
plethora of current OJP bureau and office clearinghouses.
Practitioners with established contacts within OJP would, of
course, be free to continue to communicate with those offices
and bureaus directly.