judicial system is that they generally go unconsulted when it comes to budgeting of money. That's why I ask that question.

Mr. MADDEN. I am not part of the process. I am basically telling you what we have seen from the newspapers, what we have seen in our discussions with Justice Department officials, and from State officials that are calling us and telling us that this consultation process is going

on.

I know the chief justices did send some telegrams to the President urging the support for the LEAA program, as I am sure telegrams have gone in from groups in the CETA area and from revenue sharing and a host of other program areas. So those views are there and are being evaluated. The President has some very tough decisions to make in balancing this budget. He will take into account, I would assume all the different inputs and arrive at what he feels is the best decision, given the national priorities as he sees them.

Mr. REMINGTON. Thank you.

Mr. VELDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe, Mr. Madden, next week the Judiciary Committee is going to begin hearings on the Juvenile Justice Act.

Mr. MADDEN. Yes; there are hearings going on today, right now, in the House. Judge Renfrew is testifying on the juvenile justice reauthorization this morning.

Mr. VELDE. One of the things that will be considered in those hearings is the future of the Juvenile Justice Institute. As far as I know, the administration stand on the bill, which was submitted last year and so far has not been introduced, but you may know Senator Dole introduced a bill similar to what we understand the administration's bill is or was, yesterday.

Would you care to comment as to what the administration will look at in terms of the juvenile justice reauthorization and extension in light of the budget situation?

Mr. MADDEN. Judge Renfrew is testifying essentially in support of the bill that was submitted by the administration last year, as a result of efforts made by Judge Wald's task force.

Judge Renfrew will be commenting favorably on some of the provisions in Congressman Andrews' bill for the juvenile justice reauthorization, making some additional recommendations, include a provision that juveniles be removed from adult detention facilities within 5 and placed in totally juvenile detention facilities or some other type of program.

years

The juvenile justice authorization hinges on the continuing viability of the State planning agency structure. The juvenile justice program is administered by the State planning agencies, now the criminal justice councils. Although there is money in the Juvenile Justice Act for administrative costs involved with the juvenile justice program, the costs are not enough to cover the full expenses of administering the juvenile justice program. The juvenile justice program, for example, has to draw on planners, evaluators, accountants, financial people, and civil rights specialists, that are funded from the formula grant program of the State Justice Improvement Act. So if there are some extension cuts, there will be serious effects on the Juvenile Justice Act in that context.

But at this point, we are standing behind the administration bill and the Justice Systems Improvement Act.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Madden follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. MADDEN

It is my pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to appear today before the Subcommittee on Jurisprudence and Governmental Relations in connection with hearings on the proposed State Justice Institute Act. In my statement today, I would like to provide some background information which may assist in your consideration of this legislation as well as discuss the efforts of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Office of Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics to assist State and local governments to improve State and local judicial systems. There is no doubt that as crime rates in this country have increased, public dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system has grown. The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals Task Force on Courts noted some years ago that "While all components of the system have been criticized, it is becoming apparent that, as the Nation's crime consciousness grows, the role of the courts 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 effectively and efficiently; backlogs are enormous; workloads are increasing; and the entire court system is underfinanced.

As you know, the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, enacted on December 27, 1979, reauthorized and restructured the Justice Department's assistance program for State and local law enforcement and criminal justice improvement. The act built upon the strengths of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration program.

LEAA remains the principal funding mechanism of the Federal Government to strengthen and improve law enforcement and criminal justice at the State and local level. The National Institute of Justic (NIJ) supports basic and applied research into justice issues. Programs are evaluated and their impact on the quality of justice is assessed by NIJ. Demonstration programs are funded to test the effectiveness of different approaches to law enforcement and criminal and civil justice problems. A wide range of information is available for dissemination to interested individuals and organizations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) provides a variety of statistical services for the criminal justice community. It recommends standards for the generation of data, analyzes and disseminates statistics and provides for the security and privacy of criminal justice statistics. It aids State and local governments in the development of data bases and the information and communication systems needed to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

At the inception of the LEAA program there was a low rate of participation by courts for a number of reasons. There was, for example, little attention by the Congress to the role of courts in the criminal justice system. Early LEAA authorization legislation made few explicit references to courts and LEAA concentrated much of its early program development efforts on police and corrections, not on courts. Additionally, because of the separation of powers doctrine, active involvement by State courts in what was essentially a State executive branch planning program was limited.

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 the personal efforts of the chairman of this subcommittee. Prior to enactment of the amendments, numerous representatives of the judiciary testified at hearings and expressed concern about the lack of court involvement in the LEAA program. Many references were made to study done under the leadership of John F. X. Irving, then dean of Seton Hall Law School. This landmark study was financed by LEAA through American University and was initiated at LEAA's direction after 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. The study was a most valuable resource to Congress when it considered the Crime Control Act of 1976 and to LEAA in administering the program.

The 1976 amendments adopted by Congress which directly affected the judiciary can be grouped into theree categories: (1) judicial representation on the supervisory boards of State Planning Agencies, (2) judicial planning committees, and (3) provision of an adequate share of funds for courts. All of these

provisions remained intact when the Justice System Improvement Act became law last December.

Today, at least 37 States have created judicial coordinating committees (formerly judicial planning committees), and a National Council for Judicial Planning has been formed. As a result of your efforts, Mr. Chairman, and the work of your associates of the bench and bar, the LEAA program has been dramatically adjusted over its 12-year history to effectuate a greater involvement of the judiciary, an involvement reflected both in funds allotted and in the determination of how those funds should be applied.

The Office of Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics announced the fiscal year 1980 national priority and discretionary programs in the Federal Register on February 15, 1980. Several programs outlined in the announcement are aimed exclusively at improving court systems:

(1) The court delay reduction program has two primary objectives: (a) To demonstrate methods of reducing criminal and civil court case backlog and processing time while maintaining standards of fairness and due process; and (b) to demonstrate mediation alternatives to court processing for minor disputes. $1.3 million has been allocated for this program.

(2) The fundamental court improvement program supports state-level efforts to analyze and develop significant alternatives to the present organization, management, and structure of State court systems or State indigent defense delivery systems. Some assistance may be available for organizational studies, strategy development, public education, and implementation associated with statewide defense or court reform. The general program objective is to improve the operations, financing, and services of statewide court or indigent defense systems. A total of $2.5 million has been allocated for this program.

(3) The juror utilization and management program is a 2-year effort designed to achieve permanent improvements in State trial court jury systems through the planned application of specific, proven techniques of juror utilization and management. The basic objectives are equity, savings, and satisfaction. Equity is achieved through better representation of the community on the jury and wider sharing of the burden of jury service. Savings to jurors, to the court, and to the community will result from the application of program techniques for efficient selection and use of jurors and improved management. Satisfaction with the experience of jury duty will result from the more effective use of jurors. Increased community satisfaction with the justice system should result from the respect for the juror built into the program. The development of a permanent capacity at the State level to upgrade and maintain the quality of jury systems within the State is a major objective of the program. While emphasis is placed on statewide programs, local individual courts which can demonstrate statewide impact through implementation of the program are also eligible. This program has been allocated $1.3 million.

The State judicial information systems program (SJIS) was initiated by LEAA in 1973 to promote the development of State judicial information systems for improving the administrative functions of the courts and to provide the court generated data elements of other LEAA-funded systems (Offender-Based Transaction Statistics and the Computerized Criminal History file). The data gathered through SJIS is essential for effective management of the courts and the development of a comprehensive state-level criminal justice information system for tracking criminal offenders through the entire justice process and reporting final dispositions.

Initially, this program was administered by SEARCH Group, Inc. (SGI). Later, it was decided to use the services of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to direct future phases of the SJIA project because of NCSC's role as a nationally recognized focal point for State court improvements. NCSC is expanding SJIS participation to all States that are members of the Conference of State Court Administrators and providing technical assistance and systems technology transfer to States developing SJIS. Included in activities undertaken are update of the SJIS state-of-the-art report, guidelines for systems transfer, documentation of model systems for transfer, technical assistance to States developing SJIS and a Users' Group Conference. The approximate amount of funds awarded for the SJIS Program are:

Project coordination (SGI/NCSC). 20 States (individual SJIS grants).

Total

$2,300, 000 7,600.000

9, 900, 000

There are programs not exclusively designed to improve courts alone, but certainly have a positive effect. Since LEAA first announced the PROMIS program in 1972, $4.5 million has been obligated for software development and transfer assistance to State and local criminal justice agencies. As of today, there are 37 operational PROMIS systems, 71 in transfer and 88 in the planning phase. Developed originally for the prosecutor, the system was first transferred to Cobb County, Georgia, where it was found applicable to the administration of the court as well as the office of the prosecutor. Over the years, PROMIS has been implemented in a slightly different manner in each jurisdiction, depending upon local policies and initiative. In some jurisdictions the system is controlled by the prosecutor, in some by the court administrator, in others by a committee of diverse criminal justice officials; it is not always called PROMIS.

The system is currently used in trial courts and appellate courts; it is being expanded to include jail inmate accounting, normally the province of the sheriffs, and on-line booking, usually performed by the police.

Because PROMIS is very flexible, it is readily adaptable to case tracking of any sort. Its use promotes the interchange of information among various elements of the criminal justice systems in accordance with the policies of the officials concerned. Approximately one quarter of the $4.5 million effort has gone exclusively to courts as opposed to prosecutors and others.

Similarly, the comprehensive data systems program benefits courts throughout the country. This program is designed to create statistical analysis capabilities for criminal justice. Of course, courts play an important role in the program. $4.5 million has been allocated for this program.

LEAA's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, created in 1974, has provided the impetus for dramatic improvement in the juvenile adjudication process. OJJDP initiatives have had a major impact in such areas as juvenile code reform, diversion, restitution, training for juvenile and family court judges, and advocacy.

LEAA, OJARS, BJS, and NIJ have other programs which affect courts in varying degrees, however, time does not allow a detailed description of each. If the subcommittee wishes additional data regarding these programs, I will be pleased to submit it at a later date.

In sponsoring research on the criminal adjudication process, the National Institute of Justice supports studies of the overall court process, defense and prosecution functions, law reform, and alternatives to traditional adjudication. NIJ has two long-range priorities in the area of courts: Pretrial process (delay reduction and consistency) and sentencing. Solicitations for fiscal year 1980 include such topics as: Pre-Indictment Practices and Policies; Analysis of the Role of Bail Bondsmen; Intrastate Sentencing Variation; The Use of Fines as a Criminal Sanction; and Comparative Research on State Court Organization.

LEAA annually provides over a million dollars for organizational assistance to six court training institutions. Limited and general jurisdiction judges receive instruction from the National College of the State Judiciary (Reno) and the American Academy of Judicial Education. Juvenile judges are trained at the National Juvenile Judge College at Reno. Appellate judges are trained at the Institute for Judicial Administration and the ABA Conference of Appellate Judges. Court administrators as well as administrative judges receive instruction at the Institute for Court Management. Annually, these institutions instruct 3,000 judges and 600 court administration personnel, many of whom individually receive travel and per diem reimbursement from State formula funds to offset the cost of their attendance. The contribution that such large-scale instruction makes to the quality of justice in this country's State courts is difficult to calculate. Nonetheless, many court leaders attest to the major impact judicial education has made in the operation of courts in their States and individuals readily assert that the training has had a pronounced benefit for them.

In addition to training funds awarded by LEAA. NIJ has sponsored regional workshops and field tests throughout the country since 1973. Examples of some of the workshops include:

Juror usage and management.-23 regional workshops with approximately 950 participants;

Improved lower court case handling.-5 workshops with approximately 400 participants; and

Developing sentencing guidelines.-18 workshops with approximately 800 participants.

In order to be brief, I have outlined the efforts of LEAA, NIJ, BJS and OJARS in the area of courts. Over the years, entire State court systems have been com

pletely revamped with LEAA assistance in Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, Massachusetts, Kansas, North Dakota, and Iowa. The National Center for State Courts provides assistance on a daily basis nationwide, whereas it was only a hope of judicial reformers just a few years ago. Technical assistance without direct cost is now available to every court in need and is a valuable asset. Judicial training is readily available as never before, contributing especially to the quality of justice being delivered in State courts. A substantial reduction in court delay at both the trial and appellate level may now be possible as a result of new information about its causes and a variety of new techniques to combat those causes developed with LEAA funds.

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

With regard to Federal funding of State and local courts, it is extremely difficult to obtain accurate data because many projects that directly relate to the courts may have other components relating to such areas as corrections or enforcement. Eliminating all defense and prosecution services, our information system indicates that as many as 1,200 projects may have been funded with over $256 million in LEAA discretionary funds. In fiscal year 1968, one project was funded with $5,100. In fiscal year 1978, 194 projects were funded with over $52 million.

With regard to formula funds (formerly block grant funds) awarded to the States, where the States and localities select the individual projects, the following information was obtained, again using a narrow definition of courts. Over 13,100 projects have been funded with over $344 million in formula funds since fiscal year 1969. It should be noted that this data is based on reports submitted by the States. I have additional data with me and will be happy to submit it if you wish.

The proposed "State Justice Institute Act of 1980" demonstrates your concern, Mr. Chairman, and that of your cosponsors regarding an adequate funding mechanism for the State court systems of this country. The administration shares this concern, but we do not think that the Federal Government should finance the Institute at issue here. As outlined by my testimony today, substantial Federal assistance has been given to State courts and further Federal 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, we would urge them to look to the States to fund these activities. We therefore are unable to support a new Federal program at this time of fiscal constraint.

Senator HEFLIN. Do any other staff members have questions? Thank you. You may want to stick around, we would be delighted if you would. You may want to make some statements as to what Chief Justice Utter or Chief Justice Sheran have to state.

Mr. MADDEN. Senator, unfortunately, I have to get back to help Mr. Dogin and Mr. Broome prepare for their confirmation hearing scheduled for this afternoon. I would be glad to answer any additional questions you have if they could be in writing.

Senator HEFLIN. We will submit them in writing to you.

We will take a 5-minute recess right now.

[A short recess was taken.]

Senator HEFLIN. This is Chief Justice Sheran and Chief Justice Utter. I understand you don't have prepared statements, but if you come to the witness table, we can have some discussion.

Any statement you might want to make you might want to do it at the end, or you might want to do it at the front.

We are pleased to have Chief Justice Utter who is the chairman of the conference of the Chief Justices' task force on the matter of Federal participation in the State justice system. You all did a remarkable job with Prof. Frank Remington. I think the statement you have made showing the rationale for the creation of a State Justice Institute Act were excellent.