Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for calling today's hearing. Crime prevention is a crucial investment that can and does reduce juvenile crime. Common sense tells us it's best to stop crime before it becomes a problem.

But prevention is a good investment only if we invest wisely. Evaluation is a critical step. That's why in 1995 Senator Cohen and I commissioned the Department of Justice to fund the University of Maryland study we are hearing about today. We need to evaluate prevention programs because some programs work but some don't, some should be held up as national models, and some should be terminated as unnecessary handouts.

So let me make a few brief points. First, we can debate forever how many federal funds go to prevention, although, in my view, we invest a lot less than $4 billion in actual prevention efforts. For example, most job training programs aren't targeted at reducing crime. But keep this in mind: even $4 billion for children -- out of a total budget exceeding $1.5 trillion -- doesn't sound unreasonable.

Second, we already know a lot about which programs work and which don't. Last year, I issued this report describing 25 different programs that have reduced crime. Granted, we always need more evaluation; we still have a lot to learn. But the bottom line is prevention programs can be effective.

 Finally, there is no excuse for shortchanging good prevention programs. Critics often complain they aren't sure what works, but they still refuse to support approaches with proven track records and programs with built-in evaluation requirements. For example, take the Title V matching grant program. According to the GAO, it's built a successful record. But House Appropriators still seem unwilling to expand it into the $75 million program the Senate agreed to, even though 10 percent of the program's funding would be set aside for continuing evaluations.

And take a look at S.10. It's supposed to be a comprehensive effort to combat juvenile crime. Yet while it creates over $700 million in new spending, it dedicates just 6 percent of new funding to prevention. In particular, there is no guarantee that even one dollar of the new $500 million block grant would be used for prevention -- even though the bill requires a rigorous evaluation of any prevention program that a state decides to fund. In my view, S.10 will be more balanced and more effective if we earmark 20 percent of the block grant to prevention. And built-in evaluations will make this a sound investment.

Mr. Chairman, nobody wants prevention done badly. But prevention done right is good policy. I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, and working together with you on this issue. Thank you.