years of being on the Federal dole there is some concern that the ty in the face of Proposition 13 mentality will be unwilling to 1 any new program. When I come forth with a new budget each I am given a limit as to how much additional I am permitted to in the budget. It now looks as if Montgomery County is going to ice rather than add by saying that they want 4 percent less or ething of that nature.

o, I would be hopeful that in the legislation which comes out of Senate a consideration would be made for the need for some other nula than we have had in the past for continuation funding. It ld seem to me that totally continuous funding is perhaps ideal and aps not even desirable. But it seems that some other means for iced amount of payment by the Federal Government would be ssary.

here would be an increased amount of funding by the local jurisdicover a longer time span. This would be most desirable and would ze it possible to continue the kinds of good programs such as you e heard described here earlier today.

enator BIDEN. I am sorry to interrupt, but I will have to go quickly rder to vote. I will be right back.

Recess taken.]

enator BIDEN. The hearing will come to order.

entleman, I thank you for waiting. We just voted on the natural compromise which just passed.

believe we were about to hear testimony from Mr. Kelley. Without ction, his entire prepared statement will be inserted into the record his point.

Material follows:]

TEMENT OF HON. JAMES F. KELLEY, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, INDIANAPOLIS, IND.

r. Chairman, as Prosecuting Attorney for Marion County. Indianapolis, ana, I administer an office which provides prosecution services to a jurison of 850,000 people, we have a total staff of approximately 150 persons prosecute about 2,000 felony charges per year, 34,000 misdemeanors, not ting traffic violations, and about 7.000 juvenile complaints.

y office installed a Career Criminal Prosecution Unit in August of 1975, of the first funded by LEAA discretionary grants. Based upon experience ore than three years in this program I would like to report to you what ave learned about Career Criminal Prosecution, make some suggestions of it should be structured, suggest some ways of extending the benefits of the ram into police departments and indicate the funding problems which have atened the continued existence of these programs in practically every sdiction.

ir program in Indianapolis has been a success based upon our PROMIS Data e which was installed at about the same time as the Career Criminal Pro1. The criminal defendants identified and convicted as career criminals have ved longer sentences by 50 percent, with less plea bargaining and more s. About 3 percent of our felony defendants with four or more convictions ending cases represent 10 percent of our total case load. The majority of e defendants have been identified and are being prosecuted as career inals.

e have also discovered that the vast majority of defendants who we have tified as career criminals have long juvenile records. We are thus prompted tend the program of priority prosecution to juvenile offenders. By identifyhese youthful career criminals and waving them over to felony court to be as adult career criminals.

e four basic requirements for a successful career criminal program are: 1. tification of the career criminal at the earliest possible point after the arrest; iving priority to those career criminals who commit certain fear inducing

crimes such as rape, robbery, aggravated assault and battery and home burglary; 3. Providing the best possible prosecution of those cases accepted by reducing the case loads of the career criminal prosecutors, providing them with back up services such as witness assistance, investigation, demonstrative evidence and law clerks: 4. Careful record keeping not only of the career criminal cases but of the entire caseload so that the effect and performance of the program can be measured and this information used to make intelligence management decisions. The most difficult to achieve of these prerequisites is the identification of the career criminal. Relying solely on the criminal history record is clearly not sufficient. I would recommend that LEAA fund new research pointed at identifying these career criminals by means other than criminal history record.

There have been several suggestions made as to how to extend the career criminal program concept into police agencies. I believe this is a very dangerous procedure for the most natural inclination is to attempt to identify and target individuals as career criminals before they are arrested. This procedure would raise so many constitutional problems that it could threaten the very existence of the program. Thus, I recommend that career criminal designation be exclusively used as a prosecutorial tool. But there are programs which if employed by police agencies could assist the career criminal prosecution and improve the quality of all police investigations.

We have learned from cross jurisdictional studies made by the Institute for Law and Social Research, based upon the PROMIS System installed in a numher of large prosecutor offices across the country that at least 50 percent of the felony arrests made by the police are either rejected for prosecution or dismissed without trial or plea. A third of these rejections are because of witness problems and 30 percent due to lack of evidence. We also know from these Studies that where there has been physical evidence collected in the investigation of robberies there is a 60 percent greater likelihood of conviction than if there were no physical evidence collected.

These two findings should suggest that LEAA funding to police agencies should be reoriented from hardware to training programs aimed at improving the quality of investigation and witness handling. We also know that in each police department there are "super cops” who account for a disproportionately large percent of the cases which result in enviction. in my jurisdiction 26 percent of the detectives assigned to homicide and robbery cases account for 48 percent of the felony convictions and here in Washington 15 percent of the police produce 50 percent of arrests which lead to a conviction.

Studies should immediately be commozeed to determine what it is that makes these officers "siger eors” and can that ablity be imparted to the officers.

Let me again reiterate that career criminal programs are proseentorial and Last not be arbitrarily extended to police agencies. However, new programs of elnation lased on the increasing body of information now available largely through PROMIS should be directed to imy roving investigative services and witness han Ming in police agencies.

For the career criminal or peent to her ze institutionalized across the country it is necessary that either continued federal support le made available or a definite schedule of declining support over a 4 or 5-year period should be made part of the original grant. It is not logical or possible that arr seenters office can absorb ajaran & extinsive as this into its leal 'n 'ght withent some warning and preparation. The funding arrangements in this legislation must be designed to five the administrator the ability to establish a firm duration and level of federal snyrt over a fixed period of years.

I would like to orratulate Senators Bentsen and Mathias for their farsightedness in the inte dretion of this legislation. I believe thst the installation of the career criminal concept in prosecution will certainly improve prosecutive services across our nation. Sucking venets Lare le ling overdue. A serendigitons result from the installation of these procrans in prosecnter's offices is that it forces the management to take along hard look at their present procedures. ples barelining and management teeliniques and requires that decisions he basd on factual data and not staid political notions and rieb rie. Prosecutor's offices like many other z rezinental agen des have Siped into a rut and have not kept Ith techal Seal and s elegie 1 advances. The selfermination, record keeping and recanization required to install a career criminal program des much t› reverse this tenden y.

I strongly urge this sale LLittee to get fav rally in the rending legislation and I *ck the evan Leliers for this opportunity to spper and testify.

'EMENT OF JAMES F. KELLEY, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR MARION COUNTY, IND.

KELLEY. Senator, my name is James Kelley. I am the proseg attorney in Indianapolis, Marion County, Ind. My jurisdiction Sut 850,000 people.

have a staff of about 150 in the prosecutor's office, roughly half of are attorneys.

hen I took over the office, it was sort of similar to Mr. Haas' . That was 4 years ago and it had suffered from 12 years of gn neglect. They were pleading away the courthouse and huge were going to trial and there was no witness coordination and sistance to the police departments. We installed, through the icence of LEAA, a career criminal prosecution unit in August 75. What I would like to say to you today is based upon 3 years peration of that program. We believe it has been very successful. e of the things that we did earlier on when we installed the career nal program was that we also installed the PROMIS system. So, o have a rather extensive amount of statistical data from which lge as to the success of this program.

will not bore the committee with all that material, but I will indito you that we have established 50-percent-longer sentences on individuals who are convicted as career criminals with a conably lesser degree of plea bargaining and many more trials. u have heard testimony before, I believe, about one of the diffies being the identification of the career criminal. That is one e toughest parts of the program. To decide who is a career crimind setting him into the program is difficult. Some of the jurisdicare now studying the success and failure which they have had tting their career criminals in. I am happy to report that I do some figures for you. Unfortunately, when my written statement prepared I did not have this information available to me. Late rday afternoon, my computer people were finally able to produce gures I wanted to bring to you.

hat we did was to run through our computer some information ring the names of those individuals who had four or more conons or pending cases in the system. We found that those individuho represented 3 percent of the individuals in the system acted for 10 percent of our caseload.

e also found that of those individuals 89 percent of them are presently being pro-ecuted as career criminals or have been cuted as career criminals. So, I think this indicates that at least dentification program we have established is functioning and is ng up the appropriate people.

other interesting thing is that those individuals account for twice any arrests as the noncareer criminal individual. That is both in inducing types of crime and non-fear-inducing types of crime. I lking about that 3 percent of the defendants.

m talking also about misdemeanors and felonies.

e also have discovered in studying this that there are other situato observe. For example, we have tried to use means to identify r criminals other than the criminal history record because, as you

heard testimony before, the criminal history records are very inaccurate, particularly in the States. Here, in Washington, I suppose you have one of the best systems because of the FBI. In the States, that is not at all true. In fact, when we go about screening and identifying career criminals, we may search as many as three to four different police authorities for a criminal rap sheet to try to make a determination.

If it is in another jurisdiction, of course, it is practically impossible to find out if they have sufficient records to qualify as a career criminal.

What we did find of those we identified is that the vast majority of people we picked up as career criminals and prosecuted them as such had long juvenile records. So, in our second year grant application, we asked LEAA to fund an experimental project to provide for screening at the juvenile level. We have juvenile authority in my office.

What we do is to look at these cases as they come in. Of course, I am speaking only of cases which would be crimes if they were adults. In Indiana, we are allowed to waive on certain conditions those individuals over a certain age into the adult felony system. That is, if they have bad records and if the crime is serious enough.

What we have found is that we have waived a good number of the juvenile offenders into the career criminal program and treated them as adults. It is very simple. With the increase in juvenile crime and the seriousness of the types of crime that are being committed, by the time we were picking them up as career criminals in the adult system, they had a long, long record. They may have even been past their most active period of commiting crimes.

So, I would urge LEAA and the Administrator regarding these bills which are under consideration to seriously look at the extension, where possible, of the identification process into the juvenile area.

I know it is very hardnosed and pretty awful for the bleeding hearts to accept, but there are an awful lot of juvenile offenders who are doing an awful lot of crime out there on the streets. Often they are committing unsensible and completely meaningless crimes.

The second thing I would recommend very highly is the witness cooperation program, which has been mentioned before.

Our program consists of this. I noticed, Senator, that you mentioned using a map of the county building or the courthouse where the witness is to go. We do just that. When we accept a case and a person becomes a witness, they receive a pamphlet called "So You Are Going To Be a Witness?" We tell them what being a witness entails and we send them a map of the courthouse, telling them how to find the specific courtroom. There is a telephone number listed to call for questions, and so forth. We find that in the average felony case we have 10 contacts with witnesses by telephone or by mail during the processing of that case.

I would like to recommend to the committee that the structure of a career criminal program have four basic items. The first is identification, which is the major problem. The second is that I believe you need to give priority to fear-inducing crimes, such as rape, robbery, home burglary, assault and battery, particularly between people who are strangers. The third is to provide, of course, the best possible prosecution with the lowest caseload. We have found that the most effective means of doing this is vertical prosecution. In other words, assigning a deputy to a case at the earliest possible moment it comes in to the office and having him follow that case all the way through to the sentencing.

that event, you do not get one person handling the bond hearing not knowing anything about the case, which often hapepns. You do get still another and another person trying the case and showing up entencing, and so on. I would like to stress this. I think the career inal program must be kept a prosecutorial program.

know within LEAA, and possibly within Congress, there have been mber of attempts or at least suggestions that the career criminal ram or concept be extended into police agencies. I believe this d be very serious and a very dangerous event for the program as a e. I do not believe that the courts can constitutionally find any lem in the prosecutor allocating his resources as to how he is going rosecute a given individual. But if you attempt to identify career inals before they are arrested and target individuals on the streets are not under arrest as career criminals, then I think you raise serious constitutional challenges which in my humble judgment at threaten the entire program of career criminal prosecution. So, uld stress, again, that it needs to remain a prosecutorial program. u heard the figures before. Fifty percent of the cases being declined not prosecuted, one-third of those are because of witness problems another 30 percent are because of lack of evidence. We need to t the LEAA funding in the police departments away from hardto programs of education so that we can improve the handling of esses at the street level. For instance, we know that in a robbery there is a 60-percent better chance of a conviction if any kind of ical evidence is obtained at the time of the commission of the crime e investigation of the crime.

nother aspect is that of the "super cop." In Indianapolis, we conducted a study Promis data base, similar to that done in hington, not quite as revealing. Of the detectives in homicide and ery, 26 percent of them account for 40 percent of the convictions. talking about those two crimes. This tells me that those 26 perare doing something better and they must be doing something rent from the others.

would suggest that these are areas that the police investigative ces could improve enormously and study should be begun to deterwhat it is they are doing and how they are doing it.

owever, do not call it career criminal and do not try to extend kind of program into the police departments. I think that is a very erous thing to do.

lo not want to harp on that, but I have been very upset by some mpts to do that. I think it is a terrible mistake.

would like to mention just a few more things. As for funding, I ot believe it should be permanent funding. But I do believe that the nistrator of a career criminal program must have a definite numf years that he knows he will receive funding from LEAA on a ite schedule. That schedule could very well be on a declining like dropping 20 percent a year over a period of 5 years or

ever.

t, they need to be told that at the inception of the grant. What ened in our case was that we got our first 2 years' funding and at the end of the second year we were suddenly told that there d be no third-year funding.

-rtunately, we have been able to work it out, but that kind of ey cannot be picked up out of the clear blue sky from your local