Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VEYSEY. She never gets back into school?

Mr. HARRIS. She comes back into school. It depends on her, of course. If you are asking me what the school authorities will do, of course they will let her back into school if she will come back into school. They use the same mechanism as you would for any other dropout to get her back into the program.

I think the last figures I saw indicated that we were having real success with getting the unwed mothers back into the school system, probably because many of them do not marry and thereby get committed to family life and lose interest in coming back to school.

Again, the unwed mother situation is not as intense as is true in other States, so perhaps this is why we haven't been confronted with the problem to the degree that maybe other States have.

Mr. PUCINSKI. May I add this footnote to that question? What about getting the unwed father back into school? He is the guy that has created all the problem and he takes off.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HARRIS. We don't have any homes for unwed fathers yet. Maybe we need some.

Mr. VEYSEY. What about the student that gets involved, for example, with marihuana and gets put out of school because of that, because the schoolteachers and others won't put up with him around the school? Where does he go?

Mr. HARRIS. I will answer your question by saying that we have had very few instances in Virginia of person being put out of school because of the use of drugs. Now they leave school to be treated, but they are not thrown out of school, if that is what you are asking me. I don't know whether you are implying that or not.

If they leave school to be treated in the same way that an unwed mother or an unwed father leaves school for one reason or another, then they are brought back into the system by the same mechanism that I have already directed my attention to.

Mr. VEYSEY. They leave school to be treated where and how? Mr. HARRIS. Well, you are asking about drug abuse and we are getting into an entirely different field. I am thinking about if they go off to a-we have three halfway house, drug-abuse-type facilities in Virginia now. We offer methadone clinical treatment, for example. The doctor advises them not to return to class. This is the kind of drug-abuse program I am speaking of now.

Mr. VEYSEY. The reason I am curious is that my son is a student at one of the high schools in Virginia. I am contrasting his experience with California schools. He says that there is a lot of hard narcotics here. A lot of people just disappear from school. They get involved in that some way and just disappear.

Now, I don't know where they go-whether they are being rehabilitated in some other way.

Mr. HARRIS. No.

Mr. VEYSEY. They just disappear?

Mr. HARRIS. They just disappear. But I thought you asked the question in the context of their being expelled from school. No; we have had very few instances of that. What you are saying is that they get

hooked on drugs and lose interest in school, as well as many other things, and do not continue to come.

So this is a combination problem: overcoming the drug addiction or the drug abuse, if it is not addiction, and in turn getting them back into the public school system. It is a combination effort.

Mr. VEYSEY. Does any part of the $1.2 million to $1.3 million, that you indicated is being expended on prevention activities, filter into these phases that I have been asking about-with the schools, with the drugs, with that problem?

Mr. HARRIS. We have a separate program for drug-abuse control, to which we have allocated $702,000, in addition to the $1.763 million I have already talked about. Almost all of that $702,000 will go, obviously, to that element of the population most hooked at the moment on drugs. That is our youth, unfortunately.

+

You can add, if you will, the $702,000 to the $1.763 million in the answer to that question. You see, this is what I was talking about earlier. We break our funding down into all kinds of categories. That is what I was saying when I was talking about the spin-off from other kinds of programs, sir.

You will have a spin-off, quite obviously, for juvenile delinquency prevention and control from the $702,000 going into nothing but drugabuse control programs. Anything that has to do with drug-abuse control, that money goes to, whether it be the kind of thing you are talking about or other facilities.

Mr. VEYSEY. I think the main theme of your plea, though, is not to fragment these things excessively.

Mr. HARRIS. True.

Mr. VEYSEY. To give opportunities for local decisions and local pulling together to meet the problems where you encounter them in Virginia, which may be quite different than they are in California.

Mr. HARRIS. That is exactly what I am saying. I guess it is a way of saying, ladies and gentlemen, that I know you have heard this plea before; in some cases you have accepted it; in some cases you have rejected it. Looking at it from a State point of view, I feel that the States best see the kind of problem which confronts them individually.

I know—and I am not trying to be flippant-that Congress likes to get a lot of mileage out of doing things by way of saying that we need funds to be appropriated to this activity and that activity, and, therefore, would like to have this much money for it.

I do think you ought to bear in mind that problems, in intensity at least, vary tremendously in various States. It is all very well to say that there is a crying need for juvenile delinquency prevention, Mrs. Mink, but the need for it, at least from your point of view in the preentry context, may vary tremendously from one State to another.

You know, if you allocate money and divide it up by population, you will say "just for JD prevention in preentry context." You might be giving half a million to some State that would much rather use it for the rehabilitation side, because they feel honestly that they have got a much more serious problem on that side than they do in the preentry side.

Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, in response to that, the formula could be devised which would build into it a recognition of the juvenile crime

rate and make that one of the factors for distribution of funds, so that they would take it into account.

Mr. VEYSEY. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Harris has made a rather eloquent plea for something on the order of revenue sharing, rather than additional categorical type funds.

Mr. HARRIS. I have mixed feelings about revenue sharing. Every statement that someone makes about revenue sharing has a different idea.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I think that Mr. Harris has made a very eloquent plea to let Safe Streets continue all of the activities that they are now continuing, including rehabilitation, and turn the whole problem of prevention to someone other than this agency.

Mr. Harris. I haven't said that at all Mr. Chairman. You are doing a beautiful job of putting words in my mouth. The last time that hanpened to me was the last time I was in court.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Even if we were to take your figure-and let us assume that the $500,000 that you claim you are spending for prevention is all spent on prevention. Let us assume that when you supply the committee with the facts, that will be the fact-you are still only allocating 6 percent of your $7.6 million for prevention.

That is all we can see from your testimony. We can see from your structure of priorities where prevention is on your ladder of priorities, way down at the bottom.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Bell wants to defend me. Please.

Mr. BELL. I am not trying to defend you, but I happen to agree with you. If it is prevention, what is the difference what name it comes under, whether it is rehabilitation, or prevention.

The main thing that you are trying to do is to prevent crime. One of the major ways in which you prevent crime is through rehabilitation, because, as almost every other State will say, 60 percent of your serious crimes are committed by people who have been involved before.

Now, when you speak about prevention you have to speak about rehabilitation. We do a certain amount of things that prevent crime. Today we spend millions and billions of dollars in the Poverty Act to try to help youth and we do a lot of other things.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The government continues to raise the question : What is the difference? He tries to create the impression there is no difference. There is a vast difference. Miss Howard gave you a pretty good insight into what the difference is.

If you can't understand it any other way, the difference between prevention and rehabilitation is like being half pregnant. There is no such thing. In other words, once you have come into contact with juvenile justice, the whole system of rehabilitating that person is seriously questionable, based on his own recidivist rate figures and based on the national recidivist rate figures.

What the young lady from Hawaii said is that our main thrust ought to be to set up a system, as Miss Howard has suggested earlier today, where this youngster would never have to walk into the system of juvenile justice, because, once he is exposed to juvenile justice, it is a tremendously expensive process of trying to rehabilitate him.

The prospects of rehabilitating him, the chances that you are going to rehabilitate this individual once he has been caught in a swirl of juvenile justice and then adult justice are 6 to 1 against you.

So, we say that the main thrust in juvenile crime ought to be prevention. We look at the figures of the Commonwealth of Virginia and by the figures presented to us by the witness himself only 6 percent of their dollar is spent on prevention.

Mr. HARRIS. I know, but, sir, you have just made a beautiful argument for why you should do what I suggest. Give us the money so that we can use it for the things that you are saying we should use it for. We are competing now for a limited dollar.

The reason that you don't find more than $560,000 devoted to prevention is because we are limited in the amount of money available to us and do not have sufficient funds to meet all of the demands. It can be accomplished in exactly that method, much more effectively than it is going to be accomplished by the bill that you have proposed.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, that is why I said to you, Mr. Harris, that perhaps you have made a very good case here today—and we will have other testimony-that it becomes more and more apparent, if your attitude is typical throughout the country, that there is a strong case being made to take prevention out of your hands and put it in the hands of the educators, in the hands of the chief State educational officer.

Let him be concerned about counselors. Why should you be hiring counselors? What does the Justice Department know? Why should you be hiring counselors?

Mr. HARRIS. We don't hire counselors. We fund the Department of Education to do so. We don't hire anybody. We are not an operational criminal justice agency.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Why should the Justice Department be in the school system at all?

Mr. HARRIS. We are not. Are you sure you understand what a criminal justice planning agency is?

Mr. PUCINSKI. You told me that your safe streets money, part of the $500,000 of safe streets money that you have allocated, is going to prevention work. Part of that $500,000 of prevention money is going to hiring school counselors in the school system.

Mr. HARRIS. That is correct, but it will be done by our division making a grant to the school division that is going to do this. We don't engage in the operational programs. We are a planning agency.

Mr. PUCINSKI. All I am saying is that I find it very difficult to understand why you and the Justice Department and safe streets should be in the schools at all.

Mr. HARRIS. Because the school program is a very real element of the crime prevention program, of any crime prevention program, whether it is juvenile or adult, sir. That is where it all begins, as I tried to demonstrate when I first sat here. The first element in the criminal justice system is prevention. The last element is the guy on probation and parole who, hopefully, won't come back up through the other side.

If you separate prevention and pull it away from the whole context of the system-this is the point I want to make, this is what you want to do you pull away or you are going to be tearing out a very real element of the whole comprehensive system.

You can't sit back and look at this thing in segments. You have got to see it as a system.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Harris, if your statement is correct, why are you only spending 6 percent?

Mr. HARRIS. You asked me how much we are spending on juvenile delinquency prevention. I told you $560,000. We are spending additional funds on other kinds of prevention programs, sir.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Not juvenile?

Mr. HARRIS. Not juvenile.

Mr. PUCINSKI. You have got here

Mr. HARRIS. In answer to that question, I just answered it by saying that there is a limit to the amount of money. You are dealing with the whole system. I have been here too long already. I know I am taking your time.

Our planning process in Virginia feeds from the bottom up. We have 22 planning districts in our State. Each of these submits to my division a comprehensive local component criminal justice plan covering again the whole gamut of the criminal justice system.

From that input of needs and priorities, expressed by the localities through these regional plans, we draft our State plan. Because of the need for juvenile delinquency prevention and control programs, including the prevention and the rehab, we found that this was the greatest need expressed at the local level.

Everybody recognizes exactly what you are saying. We are only talking about how to effectively implement it and yet have remaining dollars to care for and improve the remainder of the entire system.

Bear in mind, sir, that to uplift one element of the system, without at the same time uplifting all of its components, is self-destructive. This is what we have been doing for years. We have seen strange balances of resources being allocated to one segment and none to the other.

You arrest 300 people and you don't have the court and prosecutorial facilities to take care of them, then you have wasted an awful lot of time.

Mr. PUCINSKI. That is precise.

Mr. HARRIS. The point is that it is a matter of having more resources available to uplift the whole system equally. You are arguing that you want more resources to go into prevention. You are fussing at me because we haven't put any there. I am saying to you, sir, that we have to sit back and look at this whole picture.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Harris, I appreciate your candor. I appreciate your frankness. You have made the case beautifully, Of course, you have to look at the whole system. You are going to continue for the next 10 years to look at the whole system. You are going to, for the next 10 years, continue not funding very much more than 5 or 6 percent. Mr. HARRIS. I don't agree with that. No, sir..

Mr. PUCINSKI. Because I know something about the needs of that system. You are talking with a man who has been very deeply associated with the problem for years, and so you are not going to tell me that there is a possibility, no matter how

Mr. BELL. Is it all right if I tell you?

Mr. PUCINSKI. No matter how much money we pour into Safe Streets, no matter how much money we pour in for the next 10 years, you are going to have to continue more or less the ratio that you have got now.