State judicial systems. It provides the means for reinvesting in all States the profits gained from judicial advance in any State.

It is essential, Mr. Chairman, that the National Center, like the FJC, have secure sources of funding that will permit it to plan and function on a longterm basis and maintain a professional staff of the highest quality.

In this regard, we are pleased to report that the center is continuing to develop funding from private and State court sources to implement its program. In 1979, for example, funds from Federal sources accounted for only 55.7 per cent of total revenues of $7,153,338. This compares to a Federal share of 62.7 per cent in 1978 when revenues totaled $5,662,497.

In closing I will note that the National Center for State Courts was established as a nonprofit organization because that is the only structure suited to its role as a national organization of the State court systems. It is in the nature of our Federal system that such an agency could be neither State nor Federal. Yet it is obvious that the center serves both State and national needs. As presently organized, the center's administration and policy are firmly under control of officials of the State judiciaries. That is essential if it is to be an agency serving State judicial needs. But it is equally clear that the center serves vital national purposes that merit and require national support. Many of its present national efforts are threatened by uncertain funding from LEAA and are made far less effective because of the short-term annual grant basis on which they are planned and funded. So its work, Mr. Chairman, best illustrates the kinds of programs the State Justice Institute can be expected to promote under a rational, long-term program reflecting national objectives subject to congressional input and oversight as well as the needs of the courts as perceived by State and local judiciaries.

The State Justice Institute will not only provide a constitutionally correct mechanism for providing Federal assistance to State judicial systems but it will do so in a far more efficient and effective manner than the present hodgepodge of uncoordinated programs. I recommend its creation to you as the single most important step the Congress can take to improve the quality of justice in our land.

Senator HEFLIN. We run these hearings in this subcommittee informally and we have Mike Remington, who is staff director of the House Subcommittee on Courts of the House Judiciary Committee. We are delighted to have you, Mr. Remington, here with us today. Do you have some questions you would like to ask?

Mr. REMINGTON. Not at this time, other than to agree and to thank Judge Newman for his excellent testimony.

Senator HEFLIN. We have some other staff people who should feel free to ask any questions. Mr. Velde or Mr. Feinberg, if you would like to, we would be glad to have any questions from you, or any other staff people who have any questions.

Thank you, Judge Newman. We appreciate your testimony.

I think our next witnesses are from LEAA, Jim Swain and Tom Madden. If they will come forward, we will be delighted to hear from them. Mr. Madden is the General Counsel of LEAA and I have had the pleasure of knowing him for a number of years, and working with him. I consider him one of the most intelligent and most knowledgeable lawyers in the whole field of government. Sometimes his testimony and judgment may differ from mine, but I have a great respect for his ability. Jim Swain is the Chairman of the Courts Division of LEAA. He has been a great supporter of the State court systems and, in my judgment, is responsible for substantial improvements in the State court systems. So, Jim, we are delighted to see you.

Mr. Madden, I believe you have some prepared testimony which will be entered into the record and we would be delighted to hear from you on anything you would like to state.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS MADDEN, GENERAL COUNSEL, LEAA, ACCOMPANIED BY JIM SWAIN, CHAIRMAN, COURTS DIVISION,

LEAA

Mr. MADDEN. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your very kind comments. It has always been a pleasure for me to work with you over the years, both as a chief justice in Alabama and as a Senator here. I think that we have had a few disagreements on judgment, but I don't think that on principles we have essentially disagreed. I certainly support your efforts to improve the State judiciary. I think it is extremely important.

It is my pleasure to appear before your subcommittee today. In my testimony, I would like to briefly provide some background information which may assist you in your consideration of the legislation as well as to highlight some of the efforts of LEAA, the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Office of Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics, to assist State and local government to improve the State and local judicial systems.

There is no doubt that as crime rates have increased in the country public dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system and public cynicism has grown. The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals in 1973, in its task force on courts, noted that while components of the system have been criticized, it is becoming apparent, as the Nation's crime consciousness grows, that the role of the court in crime control is becoming the center of controversy. The task force further commented that the court system in the United States is in serious difficulty; the existing system has too many defendants to handle efficiently and effectively; backlogs are enormous; workloads are increasing; and the entire court system is underfinanced. These conclusions, I feel, are still valid today.

As you know, the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, reauthorized and restructured the Justice Department's assistance program for State and local law enforcement and criminal justice improvement. The act built upon many of the strengths of LEAA, and I might note parenthetically, as a result of the act, I have now become the General Counsel of the Office of Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics which provides overall support for LEAA, NIJ, and BJS. Senator HEFLIN. But you still get the same enjoyment?

Mr. MADDEN. That is still there, the enjoyment. The title changed but the job hasn't except possibly to make matters a little more difficult in trying to coordinate to include new units.

The Justice System Improvement Act still keeps LEAA as the principal funding mechanism of the Federal Government to strengthen and improve State and local court systems. The National Institute of Justice will do research, evaluations and administration programs in the court area and the Bureau of Justice Statistics will carry out statistical functions that will support court efforts.

Both the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics have some added responsibilities in the Federal area to do some research on Federal justice systems, particularly as they might impact on State and local systems, and to collect Federal law statistics such as uniform crime reports that are now being collected by the FBI.

At the inception of the LEAA program, as Judge Newman noted,

there was a very low rate of participation by courts. This occurred for many reasons. For example, there was little attention, by the Congress, to the role of courts in the criminal justice system in the initial legislation establishing LEAA. The early authorization legislation made few explicit references to courts. LEAA itself concentrated much of its early program development efforts on police and corrections, and not courts. Additionally, because of the separation of powers doctrine at the local and State level, active involvement by the State courts was discouraged. The LEAA program was viewed as essentially a State executive branch planning function.

The Crime Control Act of 1976 contained numerous amendments designed to increase the participation of the judiciary in the LEAA program. These amendments were in large part the direct result of your personal efforts, Mr. Chairman, and of your colleagues, in the court system. Prior to the enactment of the 1976 amendments, numerous representatives of the judiciary, including yourself, testified at hearings and expressed strong concern about the lack of court involvement in the LEAA program.

Many references were made to the study done under the leadership of John Irving, then Dean of Seton Hall Law School. This landmark study was financed by LEAA and performed by American University. It was initiated at LEAA's direction after you and other representatives of the Conference of Chief Justices expressed concern to LEAA about the involvement of courts in the LEAA program. The Irving study provided important recommendations for increasing court planning efforts with LEAA funds. It was a most valuable resource to Congress when it considered the Crime Control Act of 1976.

The 1976 amendments adopted by Congress, which essentially_remained intact in the most recent legislation, the Justice System Improvement Act, can be grouped into three categories:

(1) Judicial representation on the supervisory boards of State planning agencies, now the criminal justice councils, was mandated and was made a specific condition to the receipt of funds by the States:

(2) Judicial planning committees were authorized to be established, now called judicial coordinating committees; and

(3) There was a strong requirement for provision of an adequate share of funds for courts.

Today, at least 37 States have created judicial coordinating committees, and a National Council for Judicial Planning has been formed. As a result of your efforts and the work of your associates of the bench and the bar, LEAA has dramatically adjusted over the last 12 years its efforts to effectuate a greater involvement of the judiciary, involvement reflected both in funds allocated to courts and in the determination of how these funds should be applied.

an

My testimony outlined a number of past efforts by LEAA and some future planned efforts in the national area, such as our court delay reduction program and our fundamental court improvement program. I won't make any further reference to those. It will just be part of the testimony that has been submitted for the record.

Over the years, entire State court systems have been revamped completely with LEAA assistance. Most notably, in Alabama under your efforts, Mr. Chairman, and in Kentucky, Missouri, Massachusetts,

Kansas, North Dakota, and Iowa. The National Center for State Courts now provides assistance on a daily basis nationwide, whereas it was only the hope of judicial reformers 10 years ago. Technical assistance without direct cost is now available to every court in need and is a valuable asset. Judicial training is available as never before, and contributing, I feel, to the quality of justice. A substantial reduction in court delay at both the trial and appellate level may now be possible as a result of new information about the causes of court delay. A variety of new techniques that have been developed and implemented under the direction of Jim Swain through LEAA technical assistance, discretionary grant programs and through some State efforts developed with the help of the National Center for State Courts.

Early returns on some of our court delay projects are beginning to give promise that the next decade may witness dramatic improvement in our State courts, improvements which will put the State courts on a sound and enduring basis with a quality of justice delivery in which all citizens can take pride.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the proposed State Justice Institute Act of 1980 demonstrates your concern, and that of your cosponsors by requiring an adequate funding mechanism for the State courts of this country. The administration shares this concern. However, we do not think that the Federal Government should finance the institute at issue here. Substantial Federal assistance has been given to courts and further financial assistance at this time of severe budgetary constraint could impact upon other disciplines within the Federal justice system. If the State courts feel that a pressing need does exist for the services to be provided by the institute, the administration must urge them to look to the States to fund these activities. The administration is therefore unable to support a new Federal program at this time of fiscal

constraint.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to question.

Senator HEFLIN. Thank you, Mr. Madden. Mr. Velde is here with us today also. I used to have to go up against you sometimes. But it is a delight to have Mr. Velde with us here today. I want him to feel free to ask any questions he would like as well as any other staff people who are here.

Of course, your testimony is centered on the idea that we are now in an era of moving toward balancing the budget by cutting down on Federal expenditures. In this regard, I suppose that the degree of your opposition would depend on the amount of Federal funds that might be involved. That is, I suppose your opposition would be a lot stronger if there were a lot of money involved than it would be if it were a smaller amount of money involved in this. I imagine that you are not in a position to answer that.

We have seen some indications in the newspaper that the President is considering a cut in the Justice Department budget of up to $165 million. If, in fact, this is the case, how much do you expect to be cut in the LEAA appropriation?

Mr. MADDEN. The President, to my knowledge, has not made any final decision regarding the LEAA budget. LEAA has been asked for comments, and the President is weighing different priorities, consulting with State and local governments, asking them for priorities, and consulting the U.S. Congress. The projected budget cuts could mean

a total elimination in 1981 of the formula, discretionary and national priority grant programs of LEAA.

Senator HEFLIN. Those would be the discretionary programs?

Mr. MADDEN. It could be the formula grants which replace block grants. There would be no new funding for that. It would be an impossibility. There would be no funding for discretionary at all, no funding for national priority, which is one of the new programs that was created by the legislation and which is in the nature of a discretionary grant program. There would be no funding for community anticrime. That would be a worst case situation given the figure you have provided.

The only official statement is that the President, in a press release on Monday, March 14, indicated that there would be substantial cuts in the LEAA program.

Senator HEFLIN. You have given us the worst that you anticipate. Do you have a judgment of what will occur?

Mr. MADDEN. I am afraid I don't.

Senator HEFLIN. There is a figure in the statement of Attorney General Civiletti of $165 million in the Department of Justice, and that most of this would come from LEAA, which I would assume mean, if he says most, would mean more than 50 percent. This would put it in the category of close to $90 million or $85 million. If that were our figure, what would you anticipate, say the President's recommendation comes up to a figure of a $90 million cut, where do you anticipate those cuts would occur in LEAA?

Mr. MADDEN. I think it is important to put that $165 million in context. I did not see the Attorney General's testimony, but I have seen the $165 million figure. That generally refers to what we call outlays, as apposed to budget authority, outlays being actual expenditures in a given fiscal year. In order to achieve a reduction in outlays of that nature, the actual new budget authority has to be decreased by many times that figurfe, because many of our outlays come from grants made in prior fiscal years that are already obligated, on which LEAA can have no effect. So in order to reduce outlays, you would have to reduce new grants.

In the block grant program, for example, outlays are only incurred at about a 20-percent rate in the first fiscal year. So you have to make a much larger decrease in budget authority to arrive at a reduced outlay. I must emphasize that the final decision hasn't been made regarding actual figures. A lot of people have expressed concern about the cuts in LEAA and CETA and revenue sharing and a whole host of other programs, as we have seen from the newspaper.

It could mean a major reduction, or as I say, a worst case situation, elimination of the block grant program and the discretionary grant program and the national priority grant program. Those are the only large budget areas that we have. When you look at the rest of the program areas, the outlays are very small. The present budget calls for $571 million for LEAA, and almost $400 million of that $571 million, I think actually $370 million, was in the formula discretionary, national priority grant area. The rest are much smaller, such as the small research fund. I am using relative terms. There is approximately $25 million for research, $20 million for statistics, and $12 million for the public safety offices program. We have about 20 different budget