Page images


[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Department of Justice, and using the vehicle of the census as a collection device on the other; and that the census should be used to collect and report into the National Criminal Justice Statistics Center.

Now, why is this so important? Congressman White, the First National Conference on Criminal Control was held on March 28-29, 1967. These are the proceedings (indicating). It was not in my judgment what it could have been by way of an effective occasion, but it was an occasion on which the President and Attorney General wrote to all the Governors and said, "Please send a representative and come.” I came from New York, among others.

A Mr. Lisle C. Carter, Jr., addressed that group; he was Assistant Secretary, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. If you were to søy who in the Federal Government has the most to do with what the U.S. Government does about juvenile delinquency, and has been doing for years, he is it. He was there addressing all the Governors' representatives in this group. I would like to quote what he said.

The problem of juvenile delinquency continues to challenge the Congress of this Nation. Our national programs to prevent and control delinquency which are carried on in a wide variety of public and private agencies, have not been adequate in the past; and each successive year shows a distressing increase in the national juvenile delinquency rate.

I might add I do not know how he determines that, but everyone seems to agree it is going up, and so do I.

Even were the juvenile delinquency rate to remain constant, the problem would still become more serious because the youth population is growing so rapidly. By 1970, more than half of our population will be under 25 years of age.

Our current methods of dealing with delinquency have been relatively ineffective, limited in contact and impact; in some cases, they have been positively harmful

. Many experts inform us that the process of being adjudicated, the stigma of the delinquency label, the experience of being dealt with by courts and correctional system, are quite sufficient to lead many youth into a criminal career.

The recidivism rate among youths who have been institutionalized, runs as high as 50 percent. Circumstances and lack of information make it very difficult to know which methods of delinquency control have been helpful and which have not. Services for youth and techniques to help delinquents tend to be fragmented or to be of such uneven and inadequate support that it becomes hard to tell what the effects are. Most delinquent activities are difficult to assess, evaluate,

Furthermore, there has been little effort to study program results and we have as a consequence, very little evaluation of programs. The National Crime Commission's Report and other studies, however, make it perfectly clear that we are far from being able to identify and classify delinquency, not only as to cause, but in the way it is constructed and constituted.

I have been reading from pages 82 and 83 of the proceedings of this conference almost a year ago. That was one of the principal Federal officials evaluating where we are after millions and millions of dollars of juvenile delinquency programs.

Well, I think that is a shocking assessment and statement even though accurate. What is the way out of this tunnel? More information. That is the only way one can see.

Now, I would like to go back again and talk a bit about New York State because we have been doing the best we could with the limited situation to try to construct new programs.

One question the Governor asked was, “What does it cost to administer criminal justice in New York State?” Nobody knew. Indeed, in no other State in the United States to this minute is there a State that can tell you how much their criminal justice system apparatus costs, an amazing simple absence.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

and to repeat.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

We spent 2 years putting together what resulted in this study (indicating), and New York was the first State that has ever done it. I offer it to you as an exhibit. It is my own copy; I would like to get it back. I wish I had more. I would be happy to give them to you. But as soon as it was published, the report went like mad. We ran out.

It is entitled “Local and State Government Expenditures for the Administration of Criminal Justice in New York State.” This study was the first detailed particularization of how much the sheriff does in civil work, how much does he do in criminal work, how much does this court do on the civil side, how much on the family court, how much on the criminal side, and so forth. It really went into the nuts and bolts of it.

It came up with a figure which is now back a couple of years, but which would project to the present time at around $800 million in New York State taxpayers' money on the State and local levels to administer criminal justice in that one State. If true, that figure would make wholly out of balance the Crime Commission's estimate; for example, that the whole apparatus costs the Nation's taxpayers $5 billion. I would myself estimate, if you had to project our New York data, that the national effort, costwise, is in the area of $7 billion.

I do not know whether Dr. Blumstein did the job for the Crime Commission. He is here to follow me. Yet, we find in as simple an element as how much do the taxpayers pay, a range in my judgment, from $5 to $7 billion. That is an enormous gap. I mention it to you to reveal the wholly enormous absence of information.

For New York State, I made a series of studies with some others which I summarized in a series of charts at Governor Rockefeller's Conference on Crime in April 1966. I hand a copy of the proceedings to you as an exhibit containing the results of that work. They run from page 15 and thereafter. Very elementary. It was the best we could do with an enormous struggle. We have, due to the lack of information, started in New York several developments that we hope will help greatly in expanding knowledge.

One is the new School of Criminal Justice in the State University of New York at Albany, which has as one of its major objectives the expansion of man's knowledge about crime and the criminal justice system. It is an entirely new interdisciplinary school which will get its first students next fall and, of course, is å very long-term, basic situation addressed to theoretical questions.

Far more immediate is the system called the New York State identification and intelligence system, which has research purposes as one of its avowed rationales. It will contain for the first time in any State, including the Federal Government, a large computer system, the largest of any State or local government for any purpose of those States or local governments, masses of information about individuals in the criminal justice system, past or present. So that for the first time, you can say if offenders were punished for rape under "X" program or “y” program what happend to those people 5 years later. You cannot even get the answers to such obvious questions today. With the use of the computer, that will be possible. NYSIIS, as we call it, will go on the air with the first section of these criminal histories or rap sheets in a month or two. Maybe in a year, the benefits of that program can be available. It has been 5 years in the building to date.

Mr. GREEN. How much does it cost to operate the system?

Mr. LUMBARD. The system is costing a wholly insignificant sum. I am glad you asked that. It will cost in the order of $5 million a year to operate. It has now cost about $10 to $12 million to build to this point, and it will service the whole $800 million structure in New York State for the administration in criminal justice. I say that is a wholly insignificant sum when you consider it as a service unit to the entire system.

Noir, I was in England in 1965—I am addressing myself in saying this to the chairman's question about what good would these statistics be, even if collected. Again, I am to be followed by Professor Wilkins who is one of the world's statistical experts in this field and might have had something to do with what I am to say; but over there, I was given by the Home Office a very interesting document. It is called, "The Sentence of the Court," a small red book given to each English judge (indicating). In the back of the book is some very interesting material that the British Government has started to begin to compile, for the purpose of assisting the judges who do sentencing, some reasonable idea of the probability of what might happen by way of repeater or whatever, depending on the course or sentence the judge selected.

Now, the underlying statistical data is directly relevant to the dayto-day functioning of our criminal justice system. At present, there iş no part of the system that is worse than sentencing. Our judges shoot in the dark. We cannot even get them reasonably coordinated among themselves, let alone put in their hand something that says to them: "You do not have to lose any discretion here; you can do whatever you want, but you should know that if you sentence this kind of offender under this road, here is what might happen." You would think some data of that nature would be available.

Not so.

I was delighted to see that the English system, while not perfect by any means, is groping in that direction. And it is a response to you, Mr. Chairman, about the practical day-to-day uses of statistical information.

I say to you, what use is it for a Governor today to be told that the rape rate is up 2 percent statewide according to the "Uniform Crime Reports” of the FBI? Those reports are wholly irrelevant to the kinds of policymaking questions confronting America today. Indeed, from a political point of view, that is a harmful document in many respects, because it is highly inflammatory in its presentation, the way it is made up, as well as the fact that the figures are so gross in nature that they defy further analysis as to what you do next, That is one of the real problems, one of the real frustrations in this area. The data available is not refined enough for any intelligent human being to say what you do next as a result of the data. Only one's alarm bells are sounded, not one's intelligence.

Now, what else would be a practical use of information? I would say management tools to reveal weaknesses.

And now, Congressman White, I have to talk to you directly. If Your Texas sheriff were to reply to your voluntary questionnaire card, he would probably rank in the minor third of all sherisis. As a field, crime statistics is notorious for an inability to obtain voluntary information. Why? Because that information is a measure of effectiveness of the people involved. And the chiefs and sheriffs and prosecutors

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

and the judges and the prison people of this country are not anxious to have people measuring how effective they have been. I will give you one minor story on that.

Some years ago, I was up in Buffalo when I was counsel to the State crime commission in New York. We were investigating the Buffalo police department, a rather bitter experience.

One of the things we did was run an accurate sample on police reporting to their community by the Buffalo police department. We found, in the accurate sample we made, that 75 percent of the crimes within the sample were never recorded or reported by the Buffalo police in their annual report, to the State, or to the FBI system. They were not reported for a variety of reasons, most of which add up to just what I am telling you—the officials involved do not want to have their effectiveness measured.

So the field is in such bad shape, and in my judgment will stay that way, that any system such as the present "Uniform Crime Reports" or any other voluntary reporting system of that nature, will be almost irrelevant to the true condition of crime in the community and what society might do about it?

Mr. OLSEN. That is about what would happen if we had a voluntary census.

Mr. LUMBARD. Or, Congressman-I do not mean to be flip-if Congressmen were asked to report to the public about their performance in office.

Mr. OLSEN. You are right, and you are not being flip.

I will tell you another thing. I do not like questionnaires coming to my office because I have other things to do. Ånd, likewise, the sheriff has other things to do. He does not have time for the record.

Mr. LUMBARD. I am not prepared to say, Congressman, that sheriffs or public officials should not be accountable to the public or others in government with some workload data. I think they should.

Mr. OLSEN. They are responsive to budget considerations.

Mr. LUMBARD. So, if I may conclude this one thought, the reason I like the aspect of having the Census inquire into crime victimization is that it will provide legislative and other public officials for the first time with an outside check on what the local police are, indeed, reporting. That is a very significant thing to me. It has never happened in this country. And if you handled the census properly, every so many years I would even do it every 5 years for this because the trends move so quickly—then for the first time the public would really be able to get some sense of what amount of crime is taking place in their community. And then, after 1 or 2 years of those censuses, you might begin to get accurate reporting, for the police would soon learn they could not get away with anything less. But I can report to you, from some years of experience, that unless you double check the criminal justice system all along the line, you just are not going to know what is happening

Mr. Olsen. What you are really saying is you want a reference point which would be a census of the citizens who are victimized.

Mr. LUMBARD. That is right.
Mr. Olsen. That would be good.
Mr. LUMBARD. I think that is vital.

Mr. White. Let me ask one thing, if I may, Mr. Chairman. It will take 4 or 5 years perhaps to get a bill through, at the minimum, to get

[ocr errors]

an organization set up. What I am talking about is the alternative as to

no information or some information. Mr. LUMBARD. I would not agree it would take 4 to 5 years if people really wanted to do it and they got mad about it and they began to see that there was nothing more important than to do something about the crime problem in this country because the next steps all require more and accurate knowledge.

Mr. White. But you have to have been agreeing on what has to be done. What do you envision the steps to be to get done what you think should be done?

Mr. LUMBARD. But first, may I finish the question as to why statistics would be important? Mr. WHITE. Certainly.

Mr. LUMBARD. What uses would there be? So I would say a management tool to reveal strengths and weaknesses for all purposes. That is true right through business or any other activity, changes, strengthening personnel, and so on.

The third major reason is resource allocation. That is why I think it is vital to have cost aspects of the system, dollars tied to workload, to personnel, to efficiency. At the present time it appears that in our State, in any event, about 70 to 75 percent of all the money that goes into the criminal justice system goes into police and only about 5 percent goes into what you might call rehabilitation. I think that trend, that ratio, is out of whack. But unless people follow it along over a period of time to develop a trend, unless New York can go to some other State and find out whether we are doing it in about the same order you are in other States and New York cannot now do so because no other State has a clue then you cannot really get to intelligently working at such judgments as I think must be made.

Where should those who have to do with allocating taxpayers' money put their dollars? Do we invest solely in police, practically the trend today, or do we also invest in rehabilitation, for example?

That is a very large question, wholly unable to be assessed at the present time, and it should be. So resource allocation is No. 3.

The fourth reason statistics are needed is to develop new programs. Everyone seems to feel that because the crime problem has always been around that all aspects of the crime problem have always been around. Not true. If one could look, for example, at the trend of drug addiction in my State, you would be well aware of the fact that we have a mushrooming problem, changing in some respects all the time. New York has had to create a wholly new agency addressed solely to this problem. We have had to get involved with who should collect the people, how should they be collected, under what laws and under what kind of program, including civil commitment? How do you relate those issues to those who are involved or are not involved in the criminal process; or those who are in the criminal process and also have civil aspects to their case?

Then how do you rehabilitate them? What kind of a program do you construct? What guides can you get from experience with other types of aftercare, parole, probation or whatever, so as to try and make the most effective narcotic program? Well

, one was erected in New York, and I had the privilege of assisting others in working on it. I am here today, in part, to say to you

« PreviousContinue »