and perhaps they would need more funds and perhaps you would then be allocating in a disproportionate manner, and I can't go along with

that.

Mr. SYNAR. You have stated many times that 67 percent of the serious crimes within the State of Illinois are committed in Chicago. That leaves 33 percent for the rest of Illinois. Are the statistics for the rest of Illinois accurate, or is there a possibility that the 33-percent figure may be less accurate, based upon what you have already stated; that is, that they may not have the same technology or expertise in southern Illinois as they do in Chicago?

MS. HUMES. In addition to that, the causal socioeconomic factors. might not be as great in a nonurban area and that is part and parcel— that is why we in big cities lobby so hard for increased funding and when we get that, perhaps, and we are able to do a better job of crime prevention, perhaps we can come to you and say, now, we don't need as much money. You can have some more in the small towns and cities. Mr. SYNAR. I hope you will be back when that day comes.

Let's go back to your reference to the level of participation in LEAA as cited by Deputy Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti. You stated there were 331 jurisdictions in this country who are eligible for LEAA funds, of which only 75 even participated in the program.

As a city council person yourself, you have been involved with what government is all about, local control and local people solving local problems. How would you, as a member of a city council, analyze the success of a program where only 25 percent of the people even use the program?

MS. HUMES. What you are saying is you are not analyzing the success of a program because in the city of Chicago we don't have any minibloc grants for the simple reason as Civiletti has said, because of redtape, that it would cost us more time, more money to try to administer the program, and we would simply be losing time, effort, and not. getting results.

Now, if you are able to cut through the redtape and develop some guidelines, we will be happy to use any funds that are available.

Mr. SYNAR. If you were considering a program that had been less than successful and participation in the program had been very poor, wouldn't you rather clean up a program before pumping more money into it?

Ms. HUMES. I think, first of all, you are talking about a fixed alloca tion because in many instances you are dealing with a basic allocation and a stepdown in funding the first year, the second year, and with cities having to pick up cash match and so forth, that really precludes, you know, really using these small grants.

I think you're right. I have grave concern personally about continuation, but as we have indicated, we would like the action cleaned up, in essence; that's what we are asking, so there will be more available and we have less redtape.

Mr. SYNAR. You cited the statistics of $336 million ued to fight crime in Chicago, of which only $7.8 million were LEAA funds. What percentage of your budget is that $7.5 million

MS. HUMES. 1.5 percent.

Mr. VOLKMER. Sorry about that.

Mr. SYNAR. If we were to take that same $7.8 million and distribute it to those areas of Illinois out of Chicago where, according to you, 33 percent of the serious crime is committed, do you think the money would be used more efficiently?

MS. HUMES. The money would be best used where it is in the city of Chicago. In fact, what we are asking is the allocation be increased so that since the city of Chicago, of course, has, of course, the kind of community and local government kinds of programs that have shown these kinds of results, we are saying to you what we deserve is a better percentage.

We deserve a fair share. But, speaking for the National League of Cities, let me say we made our position perfectly clear because the National League of Cities represents the 50,000 jurisdictions, it represents small and large. I think every community ought to be able to set its priorities and ought to be able to have some funding for the support.

Mr. SYNAR. I find this very interesting because at various points in your testimony and your answers you have suggested that LEAA funding should be used for those programs that emphasize crime prevention.

I totally agree with you. I don't see it as a measure to stop crime, but to prevent it. It seems especially appropriate in working with juveniles. Take the State of Oklahoma. You give me $7.8 million, which is only 1.5 percent of your budget in Chicago, and I will solve the problem of crime in the rural areas of Oklahoma outside of Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

MS. HUMES. What we have said is it's not all money that solves crime. It is money and people, and it is that cooperation that, in fact

So, when we talk about that being 1.5 percent of the budget, what we actually have done is, using it very accurately, in that what we have done is to bring together people as well as that money to help solve whatever problems there are in crime.

Mr. SYNAR. I totally agree with that. I think participation is vital. In fact, I believe the key to alleviating the crime problem is to get people involved in programs that emphasize crime prevention.

What I think is very clearly indicated by testimony previously is that the money which has been appropriated by LEAA does not serve the real interest of people, and I would tend to agree with you on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Sensenbrenner?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Alderman, since we are all talking about our relationship with the city of Chicago, I was born there and left when I was 4 years old, but I haven't been back since.

Ms. HUMES. I invite you back.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I represent a suburban and rural district in Wisconsin and my local government officials, whether elected officials or in the police department and sheriff's office, have been less than unanimous in their support of the LEAA program, basically because they don't think suburban and rural areas are getting their fair share either, so there seems to be a common complaint not shared by people in big cities.

The Nations League of Cities wants to short circuit emmans" "u agencies and to have direct grants being given to cities without having the approval in the State capito, Girer, the choice of hay ng the so prova, by a State criminal justice agency or not having LFAA si s. which would you choose!

Ms. HUMES, I would choose not having the State planning scency and having direct entitlement of cubes and municipalities.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That Is Dot my question.

The two choices on the ballot are continuing the present system of going through the State criminal justice agencies or having LFAA die at the end of the period for which it is authorized.

MS. HUMES. That is not a viable alternative, but, of course, it would mean that at some point we would still receive funding if LEAA is still alive and so we are not asking to K. LEAA.

We are simply not supporting totally coming to the Siste agONOV. So you asked whach do 1-'s not an either or as far as I am concerned. You are saying am I willing to see LEAA die or would I rather see it come through the State planning agency.

I am saying to you that I am not willing to see LEAA die nor am I willing to see it continue to come as it has

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That might be the alternative the Congress considers.

Ms. HUMES. That might be the alternative that Congress considers If that is the alternative, of course, it is narrow, I think. I think that, in fact, the Congress does have to give some real considera. tion to the fact that local jurisdictions do have expertise and are able to set their priorities and best, since they are closest to the people.

I am an alderwoman and I am the elected official closest to the people. I have the understanding perhaps of what then the community might need whereas, like in the State of Illinois where there is no other city as large as Chicago and, when you are dealing with a State planning agency, that basically deals with smaller municipalities sometimes there is not that sensitivity that is needed in order to be able to combat the kind of crime issue. We are saving that we have that expertise. We are able to set those priorities. We are asking Congress to allow us to be able to show what we can truly do, and I am not willing to let LEAA die even if it has to continue to come through the State planning agency if that is the answer you are looking for.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes; it is.

To follow up on Mr. Hyde's point that he made, the bill that has been introduced on LEAA by Chairman Rodino contains a specific ban on the use of LEAA funds for capital improvements which I interpret would include the construction and renovation of jail and prison facilities.

Given the fact that there are a limited number of dollars available. would you support this stand on capital improvements being financed partially by LEAA funds in order to increase the number of dollars that are available through institution of the formula or not?

Ms. HUMES. Let me say this, the amount of money is so small with construction costs what they are that we couldn't use it for capital improvements anyway.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. OK, thank you.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much.

Mr. O'Connell is the executive director of the Criminal Justice Commission for Chicago in Cook County.

Did you have an observation that you wanted to make?

Mr. O'CONNELL. Thank you for the oportunity, Mr. Chairman. No, I just commend your interest in the LEAA program.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you.

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, could we get from their staff a list as to the cities that belong to the League? Send it to me at the office, please.

Mr. CONYERS. Ms. Humes, would you comply with the request of the gentleman from Missouri who would like to get the list of the cities that are participating members of the National League?

Mr. SYNAR. I would like a copy of that, too, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Our next witness is the director of the National Center for Juvenile Justice in Pittsburgh, Mr. Hunter Hurst who has for a good number of years worked in the criminal justice area in Louisiana, Texas, and now in Pennsylvania, authored numerous articles and worked at all levels, and whose testimony is very important to this subcommittee today.

We are delighted to have you before the Subcommittee on Crime and we incorporate your prepared statement and allow you to make the points of emphasis that you feel this committee would benefit from. Welcome.

[Written statement of Mr Hunter Hurst follows:]

STATEMENT OF HUNTER HURST

Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to have this opportunity to appear before the House Subcommittee on Crime. The focus of my remarks will be the role of the Congress, and consequently the Federal government, in formulating policy affecting the lives of our children.

To the best of our knowledge (this is a key assumption to which I will return later), deliquency in the United States (deliquency defined as children found to be within the jurisdiction of the court for a law violation) has grown from ten cases per thousand eligible children (ages 10 through 17) to twenty cases per thousand in the past two decades. Please note that these figures are expressed in terms of cases, not children. We don't know how many children are affected by our intervention, but our best estimate is in the realm of 400,000 per year of a potential eligible population of 33,000,000.1

The point is that there has been significant growth in official deliquency. Why? Here the answers leave the realm of general estimates and become best guesses. Some of our best guesses are: improved reporting, social deprivation, parent and state over-control, emotional deprivation, geometric expansion of geneticallydetermined misfits, ineffective rehabilitation, inadequate education, learning disabilities, disintegration of the nuclear family, excessive social labeling and mislabeling, over-protection (mollycoddling), over-punitiveness, indiscriminate and disproportional dispensation of sanctions, racism, classism, economic deprivation, over-stimulation from the communications media, the threat of nuclear annihilation, substance abuse, a general breakdown in morality stemming from all of the above plus the failure of religious institutions to keep pace with dynamically changing society, growing normlessness, poor self-image, differential association and the perpetuation of a Killer Society through continued emphasis on military aggression. I trust that I have slighted no one and extend my apologies to anyone whose best guess may have been ignored, but I wanted to limit the

Vereb, T. S. and Finnegan, T. A., Juvenile Court Statistics-1975. National Center for Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, PA, 1977.

list to those opinions that have directly affected governmental actions in beba!f of children during the last twenty years,

My own best guess is that all of the above have probably bad some impact on the apparent growth in the numbers of children officially labeled del inquent but that their com?ned contribution is negligible compared to the in ure vi vur government to deliver on its promises. I would further contend that this Inilure to keep promises has its basis in faulty reasoning

Let me explain. Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying that the error of opinion may be tolerated as long as reason is left free to combat it. Suffice it to say, I think reason should be kept free and that, as today when you are listesizing to opinion, you should be especially diligent in keeping reason before you because it is precisely that failure (to keep reason free) which has caused us to default on our commitments and subsequently frustrated our efforts to stem increases cli juvenile crime. You, the government, have been selling wolf tickets to the chal dren of this nation for many years now. You have developed your policles on the basis of opinions: opinions of pollsters, opinions of charismatics, opinions of the news media, opinions of wise-appearing scholars from noble institutions, opinion of mean-looking and kind-looking police chiefs, dignified appearing Judges and irreverent-appearing judges, and public interest groups by the score. And just as systematically, you have written the new-found wisdom into legislation and dis carded last year's defunct truth. Certainly, wise people change their minds and so do a lot of folks who may not fall in that beknighted category. Hut does a wise man change his mind every season without subjecting new knowledge to the hard test of reason?

I would submit that there are few abiding truths about the nature of man. Most are interim truths, at best. And, yes, government policy should be dynamie, but arbitrary and capricious? No! Because when you do, you create a false hope and the inevitable broken promise (wolf ticket).

Permit me to illustrate by example what are, in my opinion, some of the more devastating broken promises in recent years, growing directly out of poor reasoning.

Some fifteen years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a child who was being waived from juvenile to criminal court must have benefit of baste due process protections. A short time later, the same court ruled that a child charged with conduct which could result in incarceration must receive the same basic due process as an adult in similar circumstances. Most knowledgeable people hailed those decisions as landmark decisions. And today, the beauty and wisdom of the Kent and Gault decisions remain in tact, and we all feel good that a blow was finally struck for that forever-disenfranchised minority children. Finally, justice for all did truly include children, Kent and Gault were soon followed by Winship, Goss v. Lopez, Morales v. Turman, Bartley v. Kremens, and we felt better and better: more and more children were people, somebody with righta not chattels. A few of the more socially responsible law schools even began to offer an elective course in juvenile law. The Yale Law School Class of 1992 Cal ways being in the front) spawned a bevy of abie young attorneys to people the New Haven Legal Services Clinic and defend the rights of youth. But wear while. back in the police stations, courts, and places of incarceration for chidren, counsel was slow to show, but that was only tereuse attorneys were in Buort supply and this deficit would be erased soon. But here it is 19is, and condes La still rare And when she shows she is employed by the sale of the yorul sul we continue to feel good and confident that our day wool The Circulle will change But for the present auber promise a very aku brant prouas been broker. Cal you imagine how betrayed our ei järel uus tee, after cultiuk through the propaganda of “e.gut to counse it to fo¢ ruetonenver aqueles) il fik jaws of our juvelje of criminal process noiding on) a wolf teze z

How could we berperale suri a crue, uvaz? are we grumica y denoue? Air we beli-bent to heap the same deceptions of our culären wien we day live recurvad↑ I prefer to trunk not but we are gulity of your reasoning. If we would stog and scrutinize our theses for a moment' a ma

tha: would keep us from engaging 11 suri grep 201 mur's ar outra i sociaadig DEWAĆ BOMATt vot ger counse in this country if you live tog