Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
38 Appendix A CONGRESSIONAL ATTITUDES TOWARD THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE Instances of Congressional i n q u i r y were always on the surface of conversa- t i o n during i n t e r v i e w s w i t h I n s t i t u t e s t a f f . This was e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n the e a r l y years when Representative John Rooney, during h i s appropriations hearings, made a p o i n t of challenging I n s t i t u t e work. I n s t i t u t e s t a f f at t h a t time were o f t e n c a l l e d upon t o produce t a n g i b l e evidence of u s e f u l work. Interviews evoked many r e c o l l e c t i o n s of preparing m a t e r i a l f o r a hearing before Congress- man Rooney. Charles Rogovin, f i r s t Administrator of LEAA, commented (Rogovin 1973, p. 19): [Associate A d m i n i s t r a t o r ] Velde pursuaded me th a t the jaundiced view of the I n s t i t u t e by c e r t a i n members of Congress, p a r t i c u l a r l y members of the Appropriations Sub-Committee w i t h a u t h o r i t y over the agency budget, would be r e f l e c t e d i n continuing inadequate funding f o r the I n s t i t u t e . . . With regard t o the u t i l i t y of doing research on the X-Y-Y chromosome aber- r a t i o n , which had r e c e n t l y surfaced i n court debate over c a u s a l i t y of c r i m i n a l behavior, the f o l l o w i n g exchange took place (U.S. Congress, House 1969, p. 1038; he r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as Rooney Hearings 1969): Rogovin: ...the a b e r r a t i o n of the chromosome s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n the i n d i v i d u a l defendant, i t i s an X-Y-Y ab e r r a t i o n , would account f o r t h e i r v i o l e n t t e n - dencies and thereby be a defense t o the l e g a l r e - s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the commission of a crime. Courts
39 are being confronted w i t h t h i s s o r t of t h i n g and there i s no s c i e n t i f i c r e s o l u t i o n y e t . Rooney: Surely you are not going i n t o the s c i e n t i f i c area t o f i n d those answers, are you? Rogovin: We would hope t o s t i m u l a t e t h a t k i n d of reso- l u t i o n . Rooney: I t h i n k we should leave t h a t t o the s c i e n t i s t s . Rogovin: Properly so, s i r ; the s c i e n t i f i c research people. However, t h i s i s w i t h i n the I n s t i t u t e which e x i s t s under the s t a t u t e . Rooney: Rather than t o lawyers who have never known how t o p i c k a j u r y . Rogovin: I t i s a tough p r o p o s i t i o n a t best. Rooney: I don't know about t h a t . You should get 12 men t r i e d and t r u e who can understand the main issues i n the case and properly resolve them. This can a l l be covered by the judge's charge. I s t i l l don't know what t h i s chromosome business has t o do w i t h your program. A few minutes l a t e r , Rooney broadened h i s comments (pp. 1040-1): Rooney: ...You ought t o t e l l my f r i e n d s what I also said i n t h a t l e t t e r of a few days ago? Do you r e c a l l ? Rogovin: Yes, s i r , I r e c a l l i t v i v i d l y . Your comment was, I t h i n k , t h a t i n your judgment the agency could f u n c t i o n w i t h s i x persons and a checkwriter. Rooney: That i s r i g h t , and I t h i n k the same as I s i t here r i g h t now. Whoever had an idea t h a t t h i s o u t f i t was going t o go o f f i n t o the s c i e n t i f i c develop- ment area and i n t o some of these other t h i n g s we have heard of? Rogovin: I t h i n k there are other kinds of things t h a t the I n s t i t u t e program could explore. Rooney: I thought a l l you needed was somebody t o see t o i t t h a t the checks are sent t o the r i g h t addresses and t h a t one of the people knows how t o run a checkwriter. Rogovin: I t h i n k i t goes beyond t h a t , s i r .
40 Rooney: I don't t h i n k so. I don't t h i n k i t was ever intended t h a t we would create another hierarchy. I thought t h i s would be a f u n c t i o n of the De- partment of J u s t i c e t o get t h i s money out. Other instances i l l u s t r a t e greater i n t e r e s t i n hardware development than basic research questions, the f r u s t r a t i o n of the committee at being unable t o see any demonstrable successes i n e i t h e r research or development and the b e l i e f t h a t much of what the I n s t i t u t e d i d do might more a p p r o p r i a t e l y be done by other f e d e r a l agencies (e.g., development of an improved p a t r o l car by the Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ) . I n J u l y and October 1971, Representative Monagan held hearings of the Legal and Monetary A f f a i r s Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Opera- t i o n s , which d e t a i l e d h o r r o r s t o r i e s on LEAA funding programs, ranging from hardware excesses t o o u t r i g h t c o r r u p t i o n . Much of what the Monagan hearings stressed had e i t h e r d i r e c t or implie d impact on the I n s t i t u t e . Of the committee's f i n d i n g s (U.S. Congress, House 1972; h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as Monagan Report 1972), the f i r s t charged t h a t the block grant programs had had "no v i s i b l e impact on the incidence of crime I n the United States" (p. 104). The second charged t h a t "the impact on the r e - form of the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system has been minimal but cannot d e f i n i t i v e l y be ascertained because LEAA has f a i l e d t o develop standards f o r measuring and evalu- a t i n g the eff e c t i v e n e s s of i t s block grant programs" (p. 104). Moreover, i t s f a i l u r e t o evaluate, the committee s a i d , "stems d i r e c t l y from i t s f a i l u r e t o e s t a b l i s h standard goals or o b j e c t i v e s . . . i t has developed no c r i t e r i a against which t o evaluate" (p. 70). Another f i n d i n g charged t h a t "LEAA has f a i l e d t o disseminate adequately the r e s u l t s of research and experimental p r o j e c t s conducted by p a r t i c i p a n t s i n
41 the programs. This gives r i s e t o the strong p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t there has been d u p l i c a t i o n of such p r o j e c t s " (p. 106). The I n s t i t u t e was said a t t h a t time to be two years away from s t a r t u p of i t s reference service (p. 76). The com- mittee's objections t o hardware expenditures were r e l a t e d i n p a r t t o i t s f i n d - ings t h a t LEAA had f a i l e d t o provide standards, e v a l u a t i o n r e s u l t s , and tech- n i c a l assistance (p. 9 ) . Such standards could have made hardware purchase de- cis i o n s more i n t e l l i g e n t , and i t speaks d i r e c t l y t o the h a l t i n g s t a r t u p of the I n s t i t u t e ' s Law Enforcement Standard Laboratory, then s t i l l two years away (p. 47). These hearings thus became the p o i n t of departure f o r the I n s t i t u t e ' s new emphasis on evalua t i o n of program impact. The I n s t i t u t e e ventually was made responsible f o r major e v a l u a t i o n e f f o r t s throughout LEAA. More i m p o r t a n t l y , the eiiq)hasis on c r i m e - s p e c i f i c planning t h a t characterized J e r r i s Leonard's term as LEAA Administrator and s t r o n g l y influenced M a r t i n Danziger's term as Di r e c t o r of the I n s t i t u t e grew out of the Monagan hearings. The instances of Congressional pressure are less important than t h e i r e f f e c t s . One can argue t h a t any f e d e r a l funding should be subject to t h i s k i n d of a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . This i s t r u e , but a research program i s i n a s p e c i a l cate- gory. The pressures were f o r immediate s o l u t i o n s , and they o f t e n came from those who had l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n or sympathy f o r research o b j e c t i v e s . The e f - f e c t s , then, have t o do w i t h the a t t i t u d e s of those t r y i n g t o do the research. The c o n t i n u a l mention i n in t e r v i e w s of instances of responding t o Congressional questioning underscores the f a c t t h a t the pressures were keenly f e l t . The r e - searchers were being conditioned t o the h o s t i l i t y of the p o l i t i c a l w o r l d , and t h e i r own planning and funding decisions have r e f l e c t e d t h a t c o n d i t i o n i n g .
