mittee; however, I would urge the committee to consider the addition of other areas which would allow for the continuation of successful programs. For example, a recently LEAA-funded program provided victim and witness assistance in eight American cities. Faced with a lack of knowledge about our court system and overcrowded court dockets, which as you know are a fact of life in my home city of New York, many witnesses have felt alienated by what they perceive as the courts' indifference to them. This alienation is reinforced through their frequent court appearances for continued cases and the difficulties often experienced in getting property returned. Some of the services provided for victims and witnesses include: a general orientation to courtroom procedures, notifications to appear in court, call-off services (if the case is continued or postponed), social service referral, child care, property return, notification of case disposition and transportation. I am certain that other equally worthwhile projects exist which could not be placed within the four national priorities indicated in part A. section 104 or the special emphasis grants as outlined in part A, section 110 of this bill.

Community participation is one of the most critical factors in addressing the problem of crime prevention. I commend you Mr. Chairman for recognizing the need for community involvement in the Nation's anti-crime efforts. By the establishment of a separate office for the community anti-crime program, as proposed by section 102 of this legislation, greater emphasis will now be placed on community anti-crime projects. Through the "Office of the Community Anticrime Program", the active interest and cooperation of our communities in coming to grips with local crime problems can be channeled in new and creative ways.

Yet, another section seems to contradict this stated goal of increased community involvement. H.R. 2108 lowers the required percentage of grants to private non-profit organizations from 30 percent under the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act of 1974. This is clearly a retreat from increasing community participation in anti-crime efforts. Section 103 on page five should be amended to reflect at least the current standard of 30 percent.

Regrettably, I cannot support the establishment of the office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, as outlined in section 103 on page five, with the same enthusiasm I feel for the new office of the community anti-crime program. In fact, as an original co-sponsor of the juvenile justice act in 1974, I must strongly oppose this section as well as section 103 on page 53 which repeals titles I and II of the '74 act. Frankly, I am shocked and disappointed that this committee would even entertain the notion of repealing legislation which has moved our juvenile justice system out of the dark ages in many cases into a period of enlightened and humane treatment of the problems encountered by our Nation's youth.

Admittedly, I have been a vocal critic of the current administration of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP. I have even accused its director, John Rector, of "Bureaucratic Doubletalk and Hypocrispy". It is true that portions of three years of special emphasis grant appropriations for 1976, 1977, 1978 were not spent until this year. The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council did not meet until very late last year. Also special emphasis initiatives for restitution, alternative education, school violence, and learning disabilities as they relate to juvenile delinquency have yet to be announced by OJJDP. These are well-known problems. But this does not justify repealing the only protective Federal legislation for juveniles. If the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act, specifically titles I and II, were repealed, then there would be no national standards for the treatment of juvenile offenders. The separation of juveniles from regular contact with adults convicted of criminal offenses or awaiting trial for such offenses, as stated in title II, part B, section 223 (a) of the 1974 Act, would no longer be a requirement in order to obtain Federal dollars. Status offenders would again be criminalized not because they had committed a crime but because they were dependent or neglected children. You, Mr. Chairman. have been an ardent supporter of section 223(a)12(A) of the 1974 Act which removes status offenders from detention or correctional facilities. I find it difficult to believe that you would now allow the incarceration of innocent victims of broken homes and troubled family situations.

Trder this legislation, States would not be required to provide equitable ussistance to disadvantaged youth which would include: "females, minority youth, and mentally retarded and emotionally or physically handicapped youth" us provided in section 223 (a) 15 of the JJDP Act. The elimination of this provi

sion would have an extremely detrimental impact on youth in those states with disadvantaged populations. Many of these States have been reluctant to participate in the JJDP Act since its inception in 1974. Any hope that such states would eventually provide equitable assistance for disadvantaged youth would be lost if H.R. 2108 passed Congress in its present form.

Further, your bill would eliminate any requirement that juvenile facilities be monitored to make certain that the above standards had been met as required by section 223 (a)14 of the 1974 Act. Generally, the problem of traditional incarceration of juveniles is further aggravated by your bill. In section 108(b) on page 13 of this bill, expenditures for the erection, acquisition, or expansion ... of new or existing buildings or other physical facilities” are prohibited. Yet your own comparison of major provisions of the conyers and administration proposals to restructure the law enforcement assistance administration indicates, on page five, that these prohibitions do not apply to the office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. This section will clearly serve as encouragement for states and localities to build more jails and prisons in an effort to “socially control” our young people. As we all know, disadvantaged youth would comprise a disproportionate share of the population in these new correctional facilities in New York and many other States.

Through agitation by myself and other Members of Congress, as well as local juvenile justice agencies and workers, initiatives for alternative education, school violence and learning disabilities as they relate to juvenile deliquency will be forthcoming from OJJDP within a few months. These initiatives are vital to maintaining an increasingly enlightened direction to the special emphasis prevention and treatment programs provided by the alternative education amendment offered by myself and the learning disabilities amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, Rep. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.). To wipe out these amendments to the JJDP Act would relegate juvenile justice to little more than the traditional approaches which have not served the vast majority of deliquent youth.

While I praise the elevation of community anti-crime efforts in H.R. 2108, I must object to the general submersion of funding for juvenile justice in the Criminal Justice Assistance Act of 1979. Section 414 on page 49 does not offer the separate funding authority necessary to ensure that juvenile delinquency programs are equitably funded with other programs within the new criminal justice assistance administration. History has shown that a concern for juveniles often takes the form of rhetoric rather than actual programmed expenditures. Consequently, if juvenile justice is only a "priority" rather than having separate funding authority with LEAA or CJAA, then it is likely to receive very little attention. Prior to the 1974 Act, only 13 percent of LEAA's Formula grants were allocated to projects dealing with juveniles. This low funding priority occurred despite the fact that more than 50 percent of all serious crime was caused by juveniles as compared to 41 percent today.

Politicians, as you and I are aware, Mr. Chairman, tend to heavily emphasize funding for the criminal justice system; they often have no interest in juveniles other than their removal from society which usually means incarceration in a traditional correctional or mental health facility. Although we can also assume that some formula grants and special emphasis grants will have juvenile justice projects, competition with "professional criminal justice courts, police and corrections" is likely to reduce actual allocations to youth service programs far below their current funding levels. Thus, H.R. 2108 offers no guarantees for funding youth service programs other than the 10 percent mandate for juvenile deliquency in section 414. If one assumes that $500 million is in fact appropriated for this bill only $50 million would be set aside for juvenile justice programs. Through the "maintenance of effort provision" contained in part F, section 520 (b) of the Crime Control Act, 19.15 percent of LEAA's formula grants must be spent in the juvenile justice area. With special emphasis grants as well as the maintenance of effort mandate, OJJDP now allocates approximately $212 million in service delivery programs for youth. In areas where young people are involved in LEAA-funded youth service programs, the rate for recidivism of previously delinquent youths range from 16 percent to 30 percent. This compares to 45 percent to 80 percent reported in other areas with delinquent youth populations that do not have such programs. I repeat, areas served by LEAA youth programs have recidivism rates for previously delinquent youths that are some 2 less than for other areas. The mandated 19.15 percent provision is necessary to

ensure that juvenile crime remains a national criminal justice priority and continues to receive adequate funding. Without it, we could easily revert to a pattern of rhetoric for juvenile justice concerns with no dollar commitment to actualize programs for our troubled young people.

I must join other noted juvenile justice authorities, Jerry Miller, Director of the National Center for Action on Institutions and Alternatives; Peter Edelman, Past Director of New York's Division of Youth; The Child Welfare League of America; The National Association of Homes for Children; and William Treanor of The National Youthwork Alliance in their opposition to this legislation as it relates to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and its programs. I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to raise any concerns about OJJDP and its relationship to LEAA during the reauthorization process next year. Since OJJDP has a three year authorization through 1980, there is no rational basis for disrupting juvenile justice programs at this juncture. Even the use of transition grants as provided by section 111 on pages 17 and 18 of this bill would create undue havoc for youth service programs. Further, $100 million has already been appropriated by the House and $110 million by the Senate for fiscal year 1980.

I hope and trust that this committee will consider the need for a progressive direction in dealing with the problems of our nation's youth. The stated rationale for repealing titles I and II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven tion Act of 1974 is that “juvenile justice assistance . . . must be integrated into our overall justice assistance program". This reasoning can hardly be viewed as moving the juvenile justice system forward in a progressive direction. In fact, it is clearly a regressive step for those of us who have fought for improved youth service programs in an effort to stem the tide of juvenile crime. I believe that the targeted approach of H.R. 2108 can be successful without repealing the Juvenile Justice Act. I hope my views and those of others will be persuasive on this issue.

Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF HON. SHIRLEY ANITA CHISHOLM, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 12TH DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ACCOMPANIED BY BRENDA PILLORS

Mrs. CHISHOLM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and the members of this committee for inviting me here today to present my views on H.R. 2108, the Criminal Justice Act of 1979.

As the gentleman knows, I've had a long, established interest in the criminal justice system, specifically in the areas of community involvement and juvenile delinquency.

It is for this reason that I applaud the targeted approach offered by H.R. 2108, establishing priorities for criminal justice assistance, which move LEAA away from a responsibility to solve all State and all local criminal justice problems to a more limited effort. This is a welcome and a much needed change.

However, my testimony today addresses many key issues raised by this legislation which I feel that this committee must consider. This bill's four criminal justice program emphases-neighborhood-based community anticrime effort, alternatives to traditional incarceration, programs to prevent juvenile delinquency, and efforts to combat whitecollar crime are crucially important areas that are all too often ignored in the rush to find the answer to America's crime problems.

I question, however, the necessity for such a narrow limitation. Although I share your concern, Mr. Chairman, for the overemphasis on street-related crime compared to white-collar offenses, the victims of street crime in our communities must also be considered in any crime prevention effort.

I would strongly urge the gentleman to reconsider his stringent limits on fundable program areas. I would not want to substitute my judgment for that of the committee. However, I would urge the com mittee to consider the addition of other areas which would allow for the continuation of successful programs

For example, a recent LEAA-funded program provided victim and witness assistance in eight American cities. Faced with a lack of knowledge about our court system and overcrowded court dockets, which are as you know, a fact of life in my own home city of New York, many witnesses have felt alienated by what they perceive as the court's indifference to them.

This alienation is reinforced through their frequent court appear ances for continued cases and the difficulties often experienced in getting property returned. Some of the services provided for victims and witnesses include a general orientation to courtroom procedures, notifications to appear in court, call-off services if the case is continued or postponed, social services referral, child care, property return, notification of case disposition, and transportation.

I am certain that other equally worthwhile projects exist, which could not be placed within the four national priorities indicated in part A, section 104, or the special emphasis grants, as outlined in part A, section 110 of this bill.

Community participation is one of the most critical factors in addressing the problem of crime prevention. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing the need for community involvement in the Nation's anticrime efforts.

By the establishment of a separate office for the community anticrime program, as proposed by section 102 of this legislation, greater emphasis will now be placed on community anticrime projects.

Through the Office of the Community Anti-Crime Program, the active interest and cooperation of our communities in coming to grips with local crime problems can be channeled in new and creative ways. Yet, another section seems to contradict this stated goal of increased community involvement.

H.R. 2108 lowers the required percentage of grants to private nonprofit organizations from 30 percent under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to 25 percent. This is certainly a retreat from increasing community participation in anticrime efforts. Section 103 on page 5 should be amended to reflect at least the current standard of 30 percent.

Regrettably, I cannot support the establishment of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, as outlined in section 103, on page 5, with the same enthusiasm I feel for the new Office of Community Anti-Crime Program.

In fact, as an original cosponsor of the Juvenile Justice Act in 1974, I must strongly oppose this section, as well as section 103 on page 53, which repeals titles I and II of the 1974 act.

Frankly, I am shocked and disappointed that this committee would even entertain the notion of repealing legislation which has moved our juvenile justice system out of the Dark Ages, in many cases, into a period of enlightened and humane treatment of the problems encountered by our Nation's youth.

Admittedly, I have been a vocal critic of the current administration, of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. I've even accused its Director, John Rector, of bureaucratic doubletalk and hypocrisy.

It is true that portions of 3 years of special emphasis grant appropriations for 1976, 1977, 1978 were not spent until this year. The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council did not meet until very late this year.

Also, special emphasis initiatives for alternative education, school violence, and learning disabilities, as they relate to juvenile delinquency, have yet to be announced by them.

These are all well-known problems, but to me this does not justify repealing the only protective Federal legislation for juveniles. If the Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention Act, specifically titles 1 and 2, as repealed, then there would be no national standards for the treatment of juvenile offenders.

The separation of juveniles from regular contact with adults convicted of criminal offenses, or awaiting trial from such offenses, as stated in title II, part B, section 223 (a) of the 1974 act, would no longer be a requirement in order to obtain Federal dollars.

Status offenders would again be criminalized, not because they committed a crime, but because they were dependent or neglected children.

You, Mr. Chairman, have been an ardent supporter of section 223 (a) 12 (A) of the 1974 act, which removes the status offenders from detention or correctional facilities. I find it difficult to believe that you would now allow the incarceration of innocent victims of broken homes and troubled family situations.

Under this legislation, as I interpret it-and perhaps I am misinterpreting it but under it, I understand States would not be required to provide equitable assistance to disadvantaged youth, which would include females, minority youth, and mentally retarded and emotionally or physically handicapped youth, as provided in section 223 (a) 15 of the JJDP Act. The elimination of this provision would have an extremely detrimental impact on youth in those States with disadvantaged populations.

Many of these States have been reluctant to participate in the JJDP Act since its inception in 1974. Now any hope that such States would eventually provide equitable assistance for disadvantaged youth would be lost if H.R. 2108 passed Congress in its present form.

Further, your bill would eliminate, in my interpretation, any requirement that juvenile facilities be monitored to make certain that the above standards have been met, as required by section 223(a)14 of the 1974 act.

Generally, the problem of traditional incarceration of juveniles is further aggravated by the bill.

In section 108 (b), on page 13 of this bill, expenditures for the erection, acquisition, or expansion of new or existing buildings or other physical facilities are prohibited. Yet your own comparison of major provisions of the Conyers and administration proposals to restructure the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration indicates on page 5 that these prohibitions do not apply to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.