exhibit 1 - new york state attorney general | new york ... 1 case: 1:17-cv-05720 document #: ... the...

Exhibit 1

Case: 1:17-cv-05720 Document #: 149-1 Filed: 01/31/18 of 142 PageID #:2177

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff,

v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.

No. 17-cv-5720 Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR AMICI CURIAE STATES OF NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, HAWAII,

ILLINOIS, IOWA, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, VERMONT, AND WASHINGTON, AND THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General CAROLINE A. OLSEN Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. HAREN Special Counsel & Senior Advisor of Counsel (Counsel list continues on signature pages.)

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General State of New York 120 Broadway, 25th Floor New York, NY 10271 (212) 416-8921 Dated: January 31, 2018


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii

INTERESTS OF AMICI..................................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................................2

ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................5

The New Conditions are Unlawful ..................................................................................................5

A. DOJ Has No Authority to Impose New Generally-Applicable Substantive Conditions. ...............................................................................................................5

1. The text, structure, and history of Byrne-JAG confirm that Congress did not authorize DOJ to add new generally-applicable substantive conditions. ......................................................................................................5

2. The compliance condition is not authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(D). ...........................................................................................9

B. The New Conditions Are Inconsistent with 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a)........................13

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................15


ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,

552 U.S. 214 (2008) .................................................................................................................13

City of Chicago v. Sessions, 264 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2017) .....................................................................................5, 8

City of Los Angeles v. McLaughlin, 865 F.2d 1084 (9th Cir. 1989) ...................................................................................................6

City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-3894, 2017 WL 5489476 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2017) .............................................8, 9

Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913 (2015) .................................................................................................................6

Ely v. Velde, 451 F.2d 1130 (4th Cir. 1971) .............................................................................................2, 14

Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) .............................................................................................................7, 13

Kennedy v. Allera, 612 F.3d 261 (4th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................15

Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986) ...................................................................................................................5

McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) .............................................................................................................9, 11

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) .................................................................................................................14

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) ...........................................................................................................14, 15

Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001) .................................................................................................................10

Laws

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181 .............................................2

Justice Assistance Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837 ................................................2


iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) Laws Page(s) Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96-157, 93 Stat. 1167 .........................2, 10

Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) ...........12

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 ...............................................................................................................................2, 13

Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, S. 2146, 114th Cong. (2015) ........................7

Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-162, 119 Stat. 2960 (2006) ................................................................2, 7

26 U.S.C. § 432 ..............................................................................................................................10

29 U.S.C. § 1085 ............................................................................................................................10

34 U.S.C. § 10102.......................................................................................................................................8 §§ 10151-58 ...........................................................................................................................3, 6 § 10152.......................................................................................................................................3 § 10153...................................................................................................................................5, 9 § 10156.......................................................................................................................................5 §§ 10171-91 ...............................................................................................................................6 § 10228.................................................................................................................................3, 13 § 20927.......................................................................................................................................8 § 30307.......................................................................................................................................8

42 U.S.C. § 2000d.......................................................................................................................................9 § 3753 (2000) .............................................................................................................................7 § 3756 (2000) .............................................................................................................................8

2 C.F.R. § 200.207 ...........................................................................................................................9

28 C.F.R. § 66.12 (2006) .................................................................................................................8

42 Fed. Reg. 45,828 (Sept. 12, 1977) ............................................................................................11

79 Fed. Reg. 75,870 (Dec. 19, 2014) ...............................................................................................9


iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) Legislative History Page(s) Reports & Hearings

H.R. 3355, 103d Cong. (version dated Nov. 19, 1993) ...................................................................7

H.R. Rep. No. 103-694 (1994) (Conf. Report) ................................................................................7

H.R. Rep. No. 109-233 (2005) .....................................................................................................3, 7

S. Rep. No. 90-1097 (1968) .......................................................................................................2, 14

Amendments to Title I (LEAA) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the S. Judiciary Comm., 94th Cong. (1976)...................................................................................10

Controlling Crime Through More Effective Law Enforcement: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedure of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong. (1967) ...................................................................................................14

Federal Assistance to State and Local Criminal Justice Agencies: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. (1978) ...................................................................................................12

Restructuring the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. (1977) .....................11

Bills

Criminal Alien Control Act of 1995, S. 179, 104th Cong. ............................................................13

Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3009, 114th Cong. (2015) ...................................7

Illegal Immigration Control Act of 1995, H.R. 1018, 104th Cong. ...............................................13

Illegal Immigration Control Act of 1995, S. 999, 104th Cong. .....................................................13

Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3002, 114th Cong. (2015) ....................................7

Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 5654, 114th Cong. (2016) ..........................................7

Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 3100, 114th Cong. (2016) ..............................................7

Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 1814, 114th Cong. (2015) ................................................................7


v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d) Miscellaneous Authorities Page(s) Commonwealth of Mass. Exec. Office of Pub. Safety & Sec., Office of Grants

and Research, Edward J. Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Federal Fiscal Year 2017 (2017), at http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/ogr/justiceprev/ massachusetts-ffy17-byrne-jag-application.pdf .........................................................................4

Department of Justice, Restructuring the Justice Department’s Program of Assistance to State and Local Governments for Crime Control and Criminal Justice System Improvement (June 23, 1977), at https://www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffiles1/Digitization/64996NCJRS.pdf ............................................................................11, 12

Hawaii Dep’t of the Attorney Gen., Creating Safer Communities—Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Strategic Plan 2015-2018 (2017), at https://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/files/ 2017/11/Final-2015-2018-JAG-Strategic-Plan.pdf ................4

John K. Hudzik et al., Federal Aid to Criminal Justice: Rhetoric, Results, Lessons (1984) ...11, 14

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, General Briefing (1977) .......................................11

New York State’s Application for Byrne-JAG Program Funds—FFY 2016 (June 30, 2016), at http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/ofpa/pdfdocs/nys_2016_ byrne_jag_program_byrne_ page.pdf ........................................................................................3

Office of Representative Peter W. Rodino, Press Release, Committee Approves LEAA Reorganization (May 10, 1979) ....................................................................................12

Paul G. Dembling & Malcolm S. Mason, Essentials of Grant Law Practice (1991) ..................6, 8

Request for Public Comment, FY 2017 Justice Assistance Grant Program (2017), at http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjabout/request_comment_fy2017_jag_plan.pdf .........4


http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/ogr/justiceprev/

https://www.ncjrs.gov/

http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/ofpa/pdfdocs/nys_2016_

INTERESTS OF AMICI

The amici States—New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa,

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and

Washington—and the District of Columbia have received law-enforcement funding under the

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne-JAG) and its predecessor grants for

nearly fifty years. Congress designed Byrne-JAG as a mandatory formula grant to ensure that

States and localities have a reliable stream of funding to support law-enforcement programs

tailored to local needs. The amici States use Byrne-JAG funds to support a diverse array of critical

law-enforcement programs, ranging from efforts to decrease gun violence to projects combating

opioid addiction.

The United States Attorney General now claims authority to withhold Byrne-JAG funding

from States and localities that have made law-enforcement policy judgments that federal law

permits, but with which he disagrees. Specifically, he contends that he may deny grants to States

and localities that limit their voluntary involvement with enforcing federal immigration policy

because those jurisdictions have concluded that fostering a relationship of trust between their law-

enforcement officials and their immigrant communities will promote public safety. The Byrne-

JAG statute does not authorize the U.S. Attorney General’s position, which is also contrary to the

federalism principles that Congress enshrined in the Byrne-JAG program.

The amici States have adopted different approaches to cooperating with the federal

government in immigration matters. Whether or not they believe that Chicago’s approach would

be optimal for them, the amici States join this brief because they believe that the Byrne-JAG statute

permits the City of Chicago to adopt a law-enforcement policy suited to local needs without

financial penalty.


2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Byrne-JAG program has its origins in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets

Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-351, Title I, 82 Stat. 197, which created the first block grants for States

and localities to use for law-enforcement and criminal justice programs.1 Recognizing that “crime

is essentially a local problem that must be dealt with by State and local governments,” 82 Stat. at

197, Congress designed the grant to provide a reliable funding stream that States and localities

could use in accordance with state and local law-enforcement policies.2

To ensure federal deference to local priorities, Congress prohibited federal agencies and

executive-branch officials from using law-enforcement grants such as Byrne-JAG to “exercise any

direction, supervision, or control over any police force or any other law enforcement agency of

any State or any political subdivision thereof.” Id. § 518(a), 82 Stat. at 208. Although Congress

has repeatedly modified the structure and terms of the law-enforcement grants authorized under

Title I of the 1968 Act, the prohibition originally set forth in § 518 of the 1968 Act remains in

1 See Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96-157, 93 Stat. 1167, 1179 (amending

Title I of the 1968 Act and reauthorizing law-enforcement block grants to States and local governments); Justice Assistance Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837, 2077-85 (same); Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, pt. E, 102 Stat. 4181, 4329 (amending Title I of the 1968 Act and creating a formula law-enforcement grant); Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-162, § 1111, 119 Stat. 2960, 3094 (2006) (amending Title I of the 1968 Act and creating the modern Byrne-JAG program).

2 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 90-1097, at 2 (1968) (stating that Congress sought to encourage States and localities to adopt programs “based upon their evaluation of State and local problems of law enforcement”) (excerpt available in Addendum (Add.) to this brief at 2); see also Ely v. Velde, 451 F.2d 1130, 1136 (4th Cir. 1971) (reviewing the legislative history of the 1968 Act and concluding that “[t]he dominant concern of Congress apparently was to guard against any tendency towards federalization of local police and law enforcement agencies”).


3

effect with virtually no modification, and is now codified in the same chapter of the United States

Code as Byrne-JAG. See 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a).3

The modern Byrne-JAG program was codified in 2006. See supra n.1. See 34 U.S.C.

§§ 10151–58. Like its predecessors, Byrne-JAG aims to “give state and local governments more

flexibility to spend money for programs that work for them rather than to impose a ‘one size fits

all’ solution.” H.R. Rep. No. 109-233, at 89 (2005). To that end, the Byrne-JAG statute creates a

mandatory formula grant and gives recipients substantial discretion to use funds for eight “broad

purposes,” id., including law enforcement, crime prevention and education, and drug treatment,

see 34 U.S.C. § 10152(a)(1).

The amici States have received Byrne-JAG funding from the U.S. Department of Justice

(DOJ) since 2006, as well as funding from Byrne-JAG’s predecessor grant programs. Amici have

used the funds to support a diverse array of law-enforcement programs tailored to local needs. For

example, New York has used Byrne-JAG funding to support a multicounty program to combat gun

violence, improve criminal records systems, enhance forensic laboratories, and support prosecution

and defense services.4 California has used Byrne-JAG funds for education, employment, and

substance abuse services; prevention and intervention initiatives for high-risk students; and

3 The full text of § 10228(a) provides as follows:

Nothing in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over any police force or any other criminal justice agency of any State or any political subdivision thereof. 4 See New York State’s Application for Byrne-JAG Program Funds—FFY 2016, at 4-9 (June 30,

2016) (internet). For sources available on the internet, complete URLs are available in the table of authorities. All websites last visited on January 30, 2018.


4

diversion and re-entry programs.5 Hawaii has used Byrne-JAG funds to combat sexual assault,

eliminate elder abuse, and to reduce recidivism.6 Massachusetts plans to use its 2017 Byrne-JAG

funds to reduce gun violence, combat the opioid crisis, and promote community-based policing

programs.7 And Connecticut plans to use 2017 Byrne-JAG funds to reduce recidivism, prevent

gun violence, provide training to mentally ill offenders, and provide treatment for offenders

addicted to opioids and heroin.8 Without Byrne-JAG funds, the amici States may be forced to cut

these critical programs.

DOJ has announced that the new immigration-related conditions imposed on the States will

be substantively identical to the conditions it will impose on localities like Chicago.9 Like Chicago,

the amici States have not received Byrne-JAG awards for fiscal year 2017.

5 See Br. for States of California and Illinois as Amici Curiae at 11-12, City of Chicago v. Sessions,

No. 17-2991 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2017), ECF No. 25. 6 See Hawaii Dep’t of the Attorney Gen., Creating Safer Communities—Edward Byrne Memorial

Justice Assistance Grant Strategic Plan 2015-2018, at 36-59 (2017) (internet). 7 See Commonwealth of Mass. Exec. Office of Pub. Safety & Sec., Office of Grants and Research,

Edward J. Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Federal Fiscal Year 2017, at 4-43 (2017) (internet). 8 Request for Public Comment, FY 2017 Justice Assistance Grant Program, at 5-6 (2017) (internet). 9 See Decl. of Alan R. Hanson, Opp’n to Pl.’s Amended Mot. for Prelim. Inj. ¶ 8, California ex rel.

Becerra v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-4701 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2017), ECF No. 42-1 (statement of Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs that, absent an injunction, state awards will contain “substantively identical language” to the conditions in the local award documents).


5

ARGUMENT

THE NEW CONDITIONS ARE UNLAWFUL

A. DOJ Has No Authority to Impose New Generally-Applicable Substantive Conditions.

The text of the Byrne-JAG statute creates a mandatory formula grant, leaving no room for

DOJ to deviate from the legislative formula by imposing new generally-applicable substantive

conditions. The structure and legislative history of the statute and predecessor law-enforcement

grants confirm DOJ’s lack of authority to prescribe new general conditions like the notice, access,

and compliance conditions.10 The structure and legislative history of 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(D)

likewise make clear that DOJ cannot require States and localities to comply with collateral statutes

like 8 U.S.C. § 1373, because such statutes are not “applicable Federal laws,” see 34 U.S.C.

§ 10153(a)(5)(D).

1. The text, structure, and history of Byrne-JAG confirm that Congress did not authorize DOJ to add new generally-applicable substantive conditions.

Under basic separation-of-powers principles, an executive “agency literally has no power

to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power upon it.” Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC,

476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986). The Byrne-JAG statute contains no express provision authorizing DOJ

to impose new generally-applicable substantive conditions like the ones at issue in this case. The

statute instead provides that “the Attorney General shall . . . allocate” grant money based on the

statutory formula. 34 U.S.C. § 10156(a)(1). Formula grants leave no discretion to the administering

10 The amici States incorporate the definitions of the “notice,” “access,” and “compliance”

conditions used by the Court. See City of Chicago v. Sessions, 264 F. Supp. 3d 933, 937-38 (N.D. Ill. 2017).


6

agency: if a grantee satisfies the statutory requirements, the grantee is entitled to what the formula

dictates. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. McLaughlin, 865 F.2d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989).11

Other provisions of Byrne-JAG confirm Congress’s intent to prevent DOJ from deviating

from Congress’s statutory formula. For example, § 10157(b) permits DOJ to reserve up to five

percent of appropriated funds and reallocate them to a State or locality if DOJ determines that

reallocation is necessary to combat “extraordinary increases in crime” or to “mitigate significant

programmatic harm resulting from” the formula. By expressly restricting DOJ’s authority to

redirect Byrne-JAG funds, Congress clearly signaled that DOJ must otherwise abide by the

statutory formula. See, e.g., Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913, 919 (2015)

(provision of express authority in one section of statute implies intent to exclude such authority

elsewhere).12

The Byrne-JAG statute’s legislative history leads to the same conclusion. From the time it

first created a law-enforcement block grant program in 1968, Congress has sought to ensure that

such grants do not become a means for federal agencies to control, direct, or supervise state and

local law enforcement. See supra at 2-3; infra at 13-14. In enacting Byrne-JAG—the latest version

of the 1968 program (supra at 2)—Congress reaffirmed this priority, stating that the grant was

designed to “give State and local governments more flexibility to spend money for programs that

11 See also Paul G. Dembling & Malcolm S. Mason, Essentials of Grant Law Practice § 5.03, at

33-35 (1991). (Add. 7-8.) 12 The structure of title 34, chapter 101 of the United States Code also confirms DOJ’s limited

authority. Byrne-JAG is located in part A of subchapter V of Chapter 101, which is entitled “Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.” See 34 U.S.C. §§ 10151-58. Part B, entitled “Discretionary Grants,” authorizes DOJ to issue grants to support projects similar to those supported by Byrne-JAG but at DOJ’s discretion. See id. §§ 10171-91.


7

work for them rather than to impose a ‘one size fits all’ solution.” H.R. Rep. No. 109-233, at 89

(2005).

What is more, since the 1990s, Congress has repeatedly considered and rejected legislation

that would withhold grant funding as a penalty for noncooperation with federal immigration law.13

When Congress enacted the modern Byrne-JAG program in 2006, it repealed the only

immigration-related condition imposed on grants under Byrne-JAG’s predecessor program. See

42 U.S.C. § 3753(a)(11) (2000) (requiring grantees to inform federal immigration authorities of

an alien’s criminal conviction); Pub. L. No. 109-162, § 1111(a)(1), 119 Stat. at 3094 (repeal). And

more recently, Congress has considered and rejected legislative proposals to impose funding

conditions on so-called “sanctuary cities,” including under Byrne-JAG.14 DOJ’s attempt to adopt

the same policy through administrative processes is thus suspect. See Food & Drug Admin. v.

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159-60 (2000).

When Congress has wanted to authorize deviations from the statutory formula, it has done

so explicitly and authorized only modest withholdings. For example, a State that fails to

“substantially implement” relevant provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification

Act (SORNA) “shall not receive 10 percent of the funds” it would otherwise receive under Byrne-

13 The Senate version of the 1994 Crime Bill, for example, included such a provision, but it was

eliminated in conference. See H.R. 3355, 103d Cong. § 5119 (version dated Nov. 19, 1993); H.R. Rep. No. 103-694, at 424 (1994) (Conf. Report).

14 See, e.g., Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 5654, 114th Cong. § 4 (2016); Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 3100, 114th Cong. § 4 (2016); Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3009, 114th Cong. § 3 (2015); Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3002, 114th Cong. § 2 (2015); Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, S. 2146, 114th Cong. § 3(a) (2015); Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 1814, 114th Cong. § 2 (2015). The full text of the bills and their legislative histories are available at https://www.congress.gov.


8

JAG. See 34 U.S.C. § 20927(a).15 The amici States are unaware of Congress ever imposing a

condition on Byrne-JAG that would withhold all funding, as DOJ now seeks to do.

For the structural reasons this Court has already articulated, the U.S. Attorney General is

wrong to contend that 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a)(6) authorizes DOJ to impose any of the new

conditions.16 See City of Chicago v. Sessions, 264 F. Supp. 3d 933, 941-43 (N.D. Ill. 2017); see

also City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-3894, 2017 WL 5489476, at *26 (E.D. Pa. Nov.

15, 2017) (holding that § 10102(a)(6) does not authorize DOJ to impose the notice or access

conditions).

The U.S. Attorney General’s reliance on § 10102(a)(6) is also misplaced for a separate

reason: the phrase “special conditions” in § 10102(a)(6) is a term of art that refers only to those

grant conditions that are “tailored to problems perceived in a particular grant project”; the term is

not “generally applicable to all grants under a particular grant program,” Dembling & Mason,

supra, § 11.01, at 107. (Add. at 9.)

When Congress amended § 10102(a)(6) in 2006 to add a reference to “special conditions,”

a DOJ regulation defined that term to mean a condition that is imposed for a limited time to address

financial or performance concerns specific to a particular applicant, 28 C.F.R. § 66.12(a) (2006)—

for example, a requirement that a financially unstable grantee provide a more detailed financial

report, id. § 66.12(b). Under established approaches to statutory construction, this history and

15 See also 34 U.S.C. § 30307(e)(2) (providing a five percent penalty for non-compliance with the

Prison Rape Elimination Act); 42 U.S.C. § 3756(f) (2000) (providing a ten percent penalty for not testing sex offenders for HIV at victim’s request).

16 The full text of § 10102(a)(6) provides that the Assistant Attorney General, who is the head of the Office of Justice Programs, “shall . . . exercise such other powers and functions as may be vested in the Assistant Attorney General pursuant to this chapter or by delegation of the Attorney General, including placing special conditions on all grants, and determining priority purposes for formula grants.”


9

context strongly support reading § 10102(a)(6) to incorporate DOJ’s earlier regulatory definition.17

When a statute uses a term of art, courts “assume” that “Congress intended it to have its established

meaning.” McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 342 (1991). See also City of

Philadelphia, 2017 WL 5489476, at *27 (finding that the phrase “special condition” is a term of

art that does not authorize the new conditions). Had Congress intended to grant DOJ broader

authority, it would have done so explicitly.

2. The compliance condition is not authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(D).

Section 10153(a)(5)(D) of Title 34 requires grant applicants to provide “[a] certification,

made in a form acceptable to the Attorney General,” that assures “the applicant will comply with

all provisions of this part and all other applicable Federal laws.” The U.S. Attorney General

incorrectly contends that § 10153(a)(5)(D) is a grant of authority to determine what constitutes an

“applicable federal law,” and that 8 U.S.C. § 1373 is one such law. (See Mem. of Law in Supp. of

Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 7-9, ECF No. 139.) Although this Court did not preliminarily enjoin the

requirement to comply with § 1373 based on the parties’ textual arguments, the location of § 10153

and its legislative history make clear that Chicago’s interpretation is the only one that can be

correct: § 10153(a)(5)(D) refers only to statutes that govern federal grant-making by their express

terms.18

17 In 2014, DOJ repealed § 66.12 but adopted a virtually identical substitute promulgated by the

federal Office of Management and Budget. See Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation, 79 Fed. Reg. 75,870, 76,081 (Dec. 19, 2014). That regulation uses the phrase “specific condition” instead of “special condition,” but the regulations are otherwise parallel. See 2 C.F.R. § 200.207.

18 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded in participation in . . . any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”).


10

a. Section 10153 appears in a section of Title 34 entitled “Applications,” which lays out

technical and ministerial application requirements for grant applicants, such as the certifications

and assurances that applicants must provide. Had Congress intended § 10153(a)(5)(D) to be a

broad grant of authority to DOJ, it would have said so explicitly, as it has done in other statutes.19

See Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001).

b. The relevant language was first enacted in the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979,

which reauthorized a predecessor to Byrne-JAG. See Pub. L. No. 96-157, § 2, secs. 401-05, 93

Stat. 1167, 1179-92 (1979) (amending the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act).20

When the 1979 Act was drafted, DOJ understood the term “applicable Federal laws” to mean those

statutes that govern the provision of federal financial assistance. For example, DOJ’s Law

Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)—the agency responsible for administering law-

enforcement grants—issued manuals providing “guidance to grantees on their responsibilities of

[sic] applicable federal laws and regulations” (emphasis added).21 A 1978 manual lists the laws

DOJ understood to be applicable to federal law-enforcement grants, and the list contains only

statutes governing federal grant-making. (Add. 36-39.) Other contemporaneous DOJ documents

19 See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 432 (e)(9)(E)(iv)(II) (special rule for benefit increases does not apply if

taxpayer is “required . . . to comply with other applicable law, as determined by the Secretary of Treasury” (emphasis added)); 29 U.S.C. § 1085(e)(9)(E)(iv)(II) (same).

20 The relevant language in the 1979 Act was codified in 42 U.S.C. § 3743, which, like 34 U.S.C. § 10153, codified grant application requirements, including that an applicant certify it “will comply with all provisions of this title and all other applicable Federal laws.” Pub. L. No. 96-157, § 2, sec. 403(a)(8), 93 Stat. 1188 (emphasis added). (Add. 12.)

21 Amendments to Title I (LEAA) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the S. Judiciary Comm., 94th Cong. 404 (1976) (statement of Richard Velde, LEAA Administrator). (Add. 15.)


11

take the same approach,22 as did a contemporaneous circular from the Office of Management and

Budget circular, which advised federal grant-in-aid programs of the laws applicable to federal

grant funding. See 42 Fed. Reg. 45,828, 45,864 (Sept. 12, 1977). (Add. 97-98.)

The phrase “applicable Federal law” must be construed to have this meaning. Absent some

contrary indication, when Congress incorporates a term of art into a statute, courts “assume” that

“Congress intended” the language “to have its established meaning.” McDermott, 498 U.S. at 342.

The inference is particularly strong here because Congress knew of DOJ’s understanding. In 1977,

DOJ prepared a report identifying the laws that DOJ deemed applicable to LEAA grants:

approximately twenty federal laws that, by their terms, governed federal grant-making.23 The

report was distributed to every Member of Congress and every Governor—among others—and

was subject to public comment and hearings.24

The U.S. Attorney General’s construction of § 10153(a)(5)(D) thus unjustifiably expands

DOJ’s authority under Byrne-JAG. Where Congress has made clear that a jurisdiction is entitled

to funding on certain terms—as Congress does when creating a non-discretionary formula grant

program—DOJ cannot substitute its own terms.

DOJ’s interpretation of § 10153(a)(5)(D) is also contrary to one of the main goals of the

1979 Act that enacted the relevant language: to reduce administrative burdens associated with DOJ

22 See, e.g., LEAA, General Briefing 6 (1977) (identifying twenty-three laws “applicable” to DOJ

grants, and providing the National Environmental Protection Act and civil rights statutes as examples) (Add. 47); see also John K. Hudzik et al., Federal Aid to Criminal Justice: Rhetoric, Results, Lessons 45, 66-68 (1984) (listing the “19 different ‘cross-cutting’ laws which governed the expenditure of federal grants”). (Add. 93, 94-95.)

23 See DOJ, Restructuring the Justice Department’s Program of Assistance to State and Local Governments for Crime Control and Criminal Justice System Improvement 8-9 (June 23, 1977) (internet).

24 See Restructuring the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. 3, 9 (1977). (Add. 100, 102.)


12

grants.25 One of the main concerns highlighted in DOJ’s 1977 report was that the then-body of

federal laws applicable to LEAA grants—the twenty cross-cutting statutes that applied to federal

grant-making—imposed excessive burdens on grantees.26 It is thus unlikely that the relevant

language would have been supported by DOJ and enacted by Congress if either entity believed it

could be used to drastically increase the compliance burdens on States and localities.

Finally, even if § 10153(a)(5)(D) were to give DOJ some authority to determine whether a

law is “applicable” for purposes of Title 34’s certification requirement, the legislative history of

the Byrne-JAG statute makes clear that 8 U.S.C. § 1373 is not such a law. The same legislation

that enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1373 in September 1996 also funded a predecessor to Byrne-JAG.27 And

while that legislation imposed a number of conditions on the use of Byrne grants, it imposed no

immigration-related conditions. Moreover, Congress has repeatedly considered and rejected

imposing information-sharing requirements on grantees as a condition of federal funding, which

25 See, e.g., Federal Assistance to State and Local Criminal Justice Agencies: Hearing Before the

Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. 383 (1978) (transmittal letter from U.S. Attorney General Griffin Bell) (stating that the bill was “designed” to “simplify[] the grant process”) (Add. 106); id. at 7 (statement of Senator Edward Kennedy) (explaining that one purpose of the bill was to eliminate “red tape”) (Add. 105); Office of Representative Peter W. Rodino, Press Release, Committee Approves LEAA Reorganization (May 10, 1979) (noting the 1979 Act was “designed to drastically reduce the red tape which has plagued the process of getting federal assistance to states and local governments” (quotation marks omitted)) (Add. 109).

26 See Restructuring, supra n.23, at 9 (“Although each of these acts addresses an important national priority, the cumulative effect of their reporting and administrative requirements is staggering by the time they are passed on to a state agency administering the LEAA block grant.”).

27 See Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208, Title I, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-13 to -15 (1996) (appropriations for the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs); id. Title VI (amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act).


13

makes DOJ’s authority to impose the conditions inherently suspect.28 See Brown & Williamson,

529 U.S. at 159-60.

B. The New Conditions Are Inconsistent with 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a).

All three of the conditions are also invalid under a separate statutory provision, which was

adopted in 1968 at the same time as the first law-enforcement block grant program, and which has

consistently prohibited executive-branch officials from using law-enforcement grants to exert “any

direction, supervision, or control” over any state or local police force or criminal justice agency.

Pub. L. No. 90-351, § 518(a), 82 Stat. at 208. The current version of that prohibition, which is

codified in the same chapter of the United States Code as the Byrne-JAG statute, provides that

“[n]othing in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency,

officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over

any police force or any other criminal justice agency of any State or any political subdivision

thereof.” 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a) (emphasis added). The repeated use of “any” signals Congress’s

intent to speak broadly, see Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 218-19 (2008)—and

in the present context, to prohibit all agency action that could interfere with state and local

authority over law enforcement. The new conditions violate this statutory prohibition by seeking

to control, direct, and supervise state and local law enforcement.

28 See, e.g., Criminal Alien Control Act of 1995, S. 179, 104th Cong. § 201 (proposing no crime-

bill grant funding if participant refuses to cooperate with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the “identification, location, arrest, prosecution, detention, or deportation of aliens”); Illegal Immigration Control Act of 1995, S. 999, 104th Cong. § 405 (proposing twenty percent funding cut for refusing to cooperate with INS officers or employees with respect to arrest and removal of aliens); Illegal Immigration Control Act of 1995, H.R. 1018, 104th Cong. § 405 (same).


14

The legislative history of § 10228(a) confirms this meaning. Opponents of the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 expressed concerns that the U.S. Attorney General

would use law-enforcement grants to coerce States and localities into adopting federal law-

enforcement priorities.29 Supporters responded that § 10228, which was pending before Congress

as part of the 1968 Act, would prohibit such control. U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark testified

it would violate both “the mandate and spirit” of § 10228(a) to withhold funds because police

departments were not run “the way the Attorney General says they must,” and that § 10228(a)

prevented DOJ from imposing extra-statutory conditions on law-enforcement grants.30 Reviewing

this history, the only appellate decision to construe § 10228 has observed that § 10228(a)’s purpose

was “to shield the routine operations of local police forces from ongoing control by [DOJ]—a

control which conceivably could turn the local police into an arm of the federal government.” Ely,

451 F.2d at 1136.

Although arising in a different context, the Supreme Court’s anti-commandeering

jurisprudence sheds further light on what it means to prohibit federal “direction” and “control” of

state and local law-enforcement entities. The Court’s cases make clear that anti-commandeering

prohibitions prevent the federal government from compelling States to enact federal programs, see

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 188 (1992), or compelling state officers to enforce such

programs, see Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 930, 935 (1997). Printz suggests at least two

29 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 90-1097, at 230 (1968) (views of Senators Dirksen, Hruska, Scott, and

Thurmond) (expressing concern that the Act would enable the U.S. Attorney General to “become the director of state and local law enforcement”). (Add. 4.) See generally Hudzik et al., supra n.22, at 15, 23-26 (1984) (discussing opposition to the grant). (Add. 89, 90-92.)

30 Controlling Crime Through More Effective Law Enforcement: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedure of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong. 100, 384, 497 (1967) (discussing § 408 of the bill). (Add. 112, 114, 116.)


15

actions constitute impermissible “direction” or “control”: requiring state law-enforcement officers

to assist in “the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme,” and requiring those

officers to receive information as part of their administrative responsibilities. Id. at 904.31

Here, the U.S. Attorney General’s proposed immigration-related conditions conscript

States into administering federal immigration policy in violation of § 10228(a). New conditions

requiring grantees to report violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1373 to DOJ effectively turn States and

localities into an enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Other new

conditions (i) require state officials to administer federal immigration policy by mandating that

they respond to DHS requests for information, and (ii) violate anti-commandeering principles by

requiring state officials to devote staff, resources, and real property to facilitate federal agents’

access to aliens in correctional facilities. (See Decl. of Alan R. Hanson, Ex. B, at 41-42 (ECF No.

32-1).) If requiring state officials to “accept” a form is impermissible direction, see Printz, 521

U.S. at 904, then surely requiring them to accept and assist federal officials at state facilities is too.

See also Kennedy v. Allera, 612 F.3d 261, 269 (4th Cir. 2010) (SORNA does not violate Tenth

Amendment because it does not require States to accept sex offender registrations).

CONCLUSION

This Court should deny the U.S. Attorney General’s motion to dismiss.

31 The legislation at issue in Printz, the Brady Act, violated these prohibitions by requiring local

officers to run background checks on handgun purchasers, and requiring state officers “to accept” forms from gun dealers. 521 U.S. at 904, 905, 934.


16

Dated: New York, NY January 31, 2018

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General CAROLINE A. OLSEN Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. HAREN Special Counsel & Senior Advisor of Counsel

Respectfully submitted, ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General State of New York

By: /s Caroline A. Olsen Caroline A. Olsen* Assistant Solicitor General

120 Broadway, 25th Floor New York, NY 10271 (212) 416-6184 *Admitted pro hac vice

(Counsel list continues on next page.)


17

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General State of California 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814

THOMAS J. MILLER Attorney General State of Iowa 1305 E. Walnut Street Des Moines, IA 50319

HECTOR BALDERAS Attorney General State of New Mexico 408 Galisteo Street Santa Fe, NM 87501

GEORGE JEPSEN Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106

JANET T. MILLS Attorney General State of Maine 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General State of Oregon 1162 Court Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97301

MATTHEW P. DENN Attorney General State of Delaware Carvel State Bldg., 6th Fl. 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801

BRIAN E. FROSH Attorney General State of Maryland 200 Saint Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202

THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR. Attorney General State of Vermont 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609

DOUGLAS S. CHIN Attorney General State of Hawaii 425 Queen St. Honolulu, HI 96813

MAURA HEALEY Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108

BOB FERGUSON Attorney General State of Washington 800 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98104

LISA MADIGAN Attorney General State of Illinois 100 W. Randolph Street 12th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601

GURBIR S. GREWAL Attorney General State of New Jersey R. J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market St. Trenton, NJ 08625

KARL A. RACINE Attorney General District of Columbia One Judiciary Square 441 4th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001


Addendum


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

i

Senate Report No. 90-1097 (1968) ...................................................................................... 1 Paul G. Dembling & Malcolm S. Mason, Essentials of Grant Law Practice (1991) ......... 6 Justice System Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 96-157, 93 Stat. 1167 (1979) .................. 10 Amendments to Title I (LEAA) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the S. Judiciary Comm., 94th Cong. (1976) ................................................................................ 13 Department of Justice, Guide for Discretionary Grant Programs (1978) ........................ 17 Department of Justice, General Briefing (1977) ............................................................... 42 John K. Hudzik et al., Federal Aid to Criminal Justice: Rhetoric, Results, Lessons (1984) ................................................................................................................................. 88 Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments, 42 Fed. Reg. 45,828 (Sept. 12, 1977) ........................................................ 96 Restructuring the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. (1977) ............... 99 Federal Assistance to State and Local Criminal Justice Agencies: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. (1978) ........................................................................................... 103 Office of Representative Peter W. Rodino, Press Release, Committee Approves LEAA Reorganization (May 10, 1979) ............................................................................ 109 Controlling Crime Through More Effective Law Enforcement: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedure of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Cong. (1967) ..................................................................................... 111


U0'1'H CoNORESS 2d Session } SENATE

Calendar No. I 080 { REPORT

No. 1097

OMNIBUS CRIME CONT.ROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1967

APRIL 20, 1968.-0rdered to be printed

Mr.1ticCrJELLAN, from t.he Committee on tha Judiciary,

REPORT Submitted the following

together with

MINORITY, INDIVIDUAL, AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS

(To accompany S. 917)

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (8. 917) to assist State and local governments in reducing the incidence of crime, to increase the eff ecti venesB, fairness, and coordination of law enforcement and criminal justice systems at all levels of government, and for other purposos, having considered f;he same, reports favorably thereon, with an amendment in the nat.ure of a substitute" nnd recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

AMENDMENT

Strike out all alter the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following: That this Act may be cited as the "Omnibus_ Crime Control and Safe Streets Aot of 1967".

TITLE I-LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

DECLARATIONS A?~D PURPOSE

Congress flnqs that the hfgh inoi~ence ·of cri~e ,in tho V~it~~ States threatens tho peace security, and general wolfare of the Nation and its 01t1zona. To prevent crime and to f.nsure the greater safety of the people, law enforcement efforts must be better coordinated, intensified, and made more effective at all levels of government.

Congress finds further that crime is essentially a local problem that must be dealt with by State and local governments if it is to be controlled effectively.

93-198-68-1

1


2

H iH j Jwrefor<! tho dt'elnrcd poltt!)' of t.h.e .G9.ngr_oss. to nssii;t St ntc nnd locill govol"n~ienfo Jn Htrcngt hcnh1g nnd iml>roying lil\v eHforcement at cvory loyclJ>Y nntlonnl RHSiHtnncc. H Js the p11rpmm o Uns title to (1) enco\1ragc StntcE\ nn<l'Hhits of ge1wrnl locnl govcrnrn<int to prepnrc n11d adopt comprchensi\'c plans hnsPd upon thcilr ovnhtntlon of Stntf\ nnd locnl problems of lnw onforccmcnt; (2) nuthorlw grunts to 8fotcH and ttnit8 of locnl government h1 ordnr to irnpro\'c nnd Htrnngt lwn law enforccmcht.; nnd (:n cncottrngc rcHenrch und dcvclopmcllt directed townrrl the irnpro\'mllct1t of lnw enforcmncmt nn<l tho development of new methods for t.hc prevontion nnd rc<l11ction of crime nnd the detection nnd npprehension of crhnlnnls.

P.un A-LAW BNt'oncBMJoJN'r ARsisTANcE AnmN1sTn.\'l'ION

81-;e. 101. (n) 'l'hrre is lwrnby estnbltshed '~:ithln the Dcpnrtmcnt of Justice, u11d<!r thn gcucrnl nutho1·1ty oft.he Attome~' General, n Lnw Enforcc•nHiilt A~sislm1<.·1~ Admlnii-ltrntlon· (hcjm1fter rcfcfrr<'<l t.o l~1. t.l1ls title ns "Adinh1istrntioh'').

(b) The Adrnlt1i8trntio11 shnll be co11ljH>sed of nn Adrninistrnt.or of Lnw Enforcnmcmt AHsh~tnnce mad two Assocl1lte Ad1iH1)istrntors of Lnw Enforccm(•nt. As~i:~tniiel', who ~Judi he nppolnt<!<l by the Pr<'Hident., by it11d wHh the advice and co11snnt. of the 8Pnnte. No more thnn two nwmlH•rs of Uw Admlnistrnlion slinll be oft.he snnw politfrnl party, nnd members shnll he nppolntcd wit.h d11c rcgnrd to their fih1cs~, k llO\\'lcdgn, nnd nxperlenco to perform the functionR, pow en;, and d11 t i<•s vrsted in the Admlnif)trnt\ou by this title. ·

(c) It 8h11ll he the duty of t.ho Administt·lltion t.o ex<'l'clsc nll of the .f1mctio11s, poWPl'H, nnd dutil's rn•ntcd nnd <'Stnblished by this Utfo, except ns otlH'rwise provided. ·

P.\HT B--P(,,\N~IN(I GH.\NTS

H1-~c. ~01. It. b tl_1c purpose of Lhit; part. to crwo1\q\gc HtulPs nnd 11nits of g<'111~rn1 local gov<'riH11e11t to prnpnrn nnd nclopt eompt·c wnsi\'c law e11forccnwnt pi:rns lms<'d 011 their evnlt1nt ion of 8ln tt~ nnd loct\I pnlhlems of In w enforc·enHmt..

81-;c. 202. The Administrntion is n11lhoriiwd to make grnnts to Stnte~, units of ..,;<·1101·:ll loenl go\·r.ri111w11t 1 :01• eoJ\1hh\nt.ipt1s of olteh 8tntr8 01· units of lornl goV<'rnnwnt for prcpn1'111g, dm·<·!opi11g, ·or rm•li-;ing lnw enforccmm1l ·ptans to carry 011t. l h<' J>Ul')J081l i-;oL forl h in i'\(~Ct ion ao~: l'rovidcd, hoi~'~llcr, That 110 \lllil· of g1'1ll'l':ll local go\'ern1111•11t. or co111bi1111tion of such units slinll lw eligible for n grnnt. 11n<ll'I' tlds p:ll'l. ulllPss such unit or comhi11atio11 hns n pop11lntion of not le.-:s than fifty l hommnd perwnK. .

81-;c. 20a. A grnnt aqthori1.ed tp_1drr 8C<~tion 202 8hnll not. exceed 80 J><'r Ct!ilt 11111 of l he tothl (·o~t of urn prnpnmtion, devdop1}1µnt., or'revisiort of n ptnil.

r;nc. 204. Tho Administrnt.lon may advzwce such grnnts nttthorizcd under :·wot.ion :J02 u pou application for the pu1•po::;<!s d<~'il'rihcd. Such application shall:

0) :-)ct fOl'th prognnn~ trn<l nctivili<•n dc~igncd to carry out the purposes of ~wet.ion :302.

(2) Contain such informnt.ion ns t.lw AdminiRt.mtion may JH"<'serltw in nceordn11<·e with sect.ion 501. -

PAHT C-GH:\NT8 FOR IJ.\W ENYOHCEMJo;N'r PunPosBs

f\1-;c. ~O L H is the purpo~c of t hii; pnrt. to ~·ncourngc Stn tes nud u~1its of gcnrrnl locnl go\'crtiriient to enrry out progrnmH nnd projcctH to improve and strengthen law cnforcemnnt..

f?r:c. aof~ (il). '~'he A.cJ111j11istl·fiti.on is iuitlwrizcd to mn~e grnntB to States, units of genernl Jocnl go\'erm'nc1it; nnd com binn tionA of such Stni<!R or u11itR of gcncrul locnl governmnnt tq improve "nq s(l·epgUwn liiw cnfprccment: Provided hbwever, 'l'hnt 110 unit of gonehll lornl govcrnmcht or· combination of such· units shnll be cllgihln for n grnnt, un<lcr th.is Pt>lt· uulc~R suoh uni\ or combinntion hns a population of not l<~s thntdift.y thousnnd JWrHollM.

(b) Under this pf,\ft grants may be made purntiant to un application which is npprovcd under scot1on.308 for-

(1) Public proteoUon,' including tho de\'cfopmont, demonst.rution, evuhmtion, iuipleni'cnti1tioh1 · iti1d ·p11rcluuw of met.hods, devices, facilit.ics, ond equipnient deslglH?d to imjJrove nnd strengthen lnw enforcement. und reduce crimo iu'public iln<l prlvnto pJaces.

(~) Tho rccruitliig · of liLw enforcmncnt personucl o,nd the training of pe1"80Jl1iel 111 lnw enfotccu1<'11L

(a) Public etlucntfon rel1ltfil~ to crhno }>revcnt.lou Rt1d encouraging rPspcct for 111 w Hild ord1~r, incl11di11K eclt1cn tlon progrnrnH in Hchools nnd progrums to

2


INDIVIDUAL VIEWS MESSRS. DIRKSEN, HRUSKA, SCOTT; AND 'i'HUR~10ND ON TITLES I, II, AND III

Since 1960, serious crime in the United States has increased an alarminp 88 percent. This fact is cause for the gravest national concern. \ This lS not a partisan issue. It is an American tragedy.

In considerat10n of the omnibus crime bill, we have sou~ht to strengthen and improve the proposal sent to Congress. To a limited extent, these efforts hav:e been successful. The committee bill, however, still needs further upgrading and refinement.

MINORITY CONTRIBUTIONS

The Omnibus Crime Control Act reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee bears an unmistakable imprint of constructive Republican contributions. These contributions range from new substantive provisions to perfecting technical changes. ·

ORGANIZED CRIME

The most significant Republican contributions to the hill are those which increase significantly the tools and financial resources to combat the scourge of organized crime. In this regard, two major provisions were added at our insistence.

First, the substance of Amendment 223, introduced on June 29, 1967, by Senators Dirksen, Hruska, Scott, .Thurmond and several others1 has been approved. The amendment creates a category of special financial ass1Stance to state and local govemmen ts. Such assistance has two purposes:

(1) To assist in tlie establishment or expansion of special prosecuting groups on a local level ·to ferret out and prosecute the multifarious illegal activities of or(tanized crime.

(2) To provide special federal assistance in establishing a coordinated intelligence network among states including COIJ!puterized data banks of spclicate operations and activities. ·These efforts would he under the direction and control of State Organized Crime Councils. A seecial authorization up to $15 million for fiScal year 1969 would be available for this purpose.

ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

Another major contnbution to_ efforts to COfl?.bat. organized crime is found in Title III of the committee hUl. ·.To a~great degree, this ti tie reflects the provis_i~ns of S .. 2050, the proposed .EJJ_ectto,nic Survcilltmce Act of 1967, wh~~h -~va.s mtroauced by_. Senat9rs Dirksen, Hruska Scott, Thurmond,:·Percy, Hansen and others in June .of 1967. Included in the committee hill liJ the formula for strict impartial court authorization and superrision of surveillance and a broad prohibition on private srioopirig. S. 2050 was introduced in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision of Berger v. New York. It was tailored to meet the constitutional requirements imposed by that decision.

(~)

3


230

INDEPENDEN'r LAW ENi''OUCEMflNT ASSISTANCE ADStlNIS'l'RATION

In. pursuit or ()JlC of the SJUllC objectives of die block grant pro vi .. sions,. namely ~he preveil'li<>-tl of fedeml dominnt.iol1 nnd control of s(at.e nnd local law enforceh1eut, the Orlminnl Lnws St'1bppmmittee, u1>on t.110 initinth·e <?f Chnirmnn Mc(/le11an, added n JH'O';~si.on to its b1H for thf> estnbhshment . of an mdependent. Lnw Enforcemetlt. Assi~tnpcoAd1)1inhHrntion t<) ndminister the federal nid proghun. The ttdmii1istcring u<1e11cy wus to be bended by n t.ht·ee-mnn board nppoin ted by t.he Presldent with t,lie nddce n~i1d consent of-~.he Sennte. Minol'ity party repre.i.jenUttiotr wns ns~ttrecl hr t.he re·quirerYi'ertt t.hnt one of t.he three men would he n repre~en tn twe nf the party out. of power.

'J'he subcommittee hiJI prodded:

In the exei·cise of. its fttnctions, powers, und dutim;, the Admiuist.rntion shull l>e independent. of the Attorney Genernl nnd ot.J1er offices and officers of the Depnrtment. of. JusLiee.

'fhis Wtl8 deemed essential to in:-;ure t.hat., tlS lllllCh f\S possible, the Jaw enforcement assistance progrnm would be udministered impartially nnd free Crom politic.ii p!·esstu•c:;. Also, it wns considered to be imp;>rtant to refrttin from plu.cing in t.lw hands of one man the potential power of granting or denying fe<lerail finnucinl nssist.tmce in very lnr$e _ttmounts to state and city law enC6fcernent agencies.

l t is regrettable that the provision for the independent status of the Administration was dro1>ped from the bill.. We attempted unsuccessfully to reinstate the provision in the full rommit.tee, and will urge its adoption on the floor of the Senate.

,, In shQrt,. we don't wu.nt, the ALLo·ruey General, the so-called ".i\fr. BJg" of federal law 011Corceme1it to become the director of state and Jocal law enforcement as well. It is true that the Attorn~ General is chief law enf orcemeut officer of the federal ~overnment. ~ut-he is not chief ]aw enforcement officer of states or cities. We believe America does not want him to serve in this latter capacity.

Organization and manage1i1ent experts may object to a dilution of executive authority, but we want no part ol a national police force. Such dilutiont if a price at all, is a small priee to pay to presen'e n fundamental oalance of I?Olice \>ower.

We don't want this bill to becom~ the vehicle for the imposition of I edernl guidelines, controls, and domination.

POLICE SALARY 8UPPORT

'fhe.Admiflis{rat.ion's original proposal to 'Congress in enrly 1967 containe<l a Ceature ,allowing U

1p. to one-third of ,~ach federal grant. ~o be utilized. for. conipcnsatioi'l :or law eriforcemeht. p~rsonriel. In the hearillg re~ord' of both the Hottse and Senate Judiciary Committees, U1is. provision proved to -be' 'quite controversial When t.he House Committee reported the bill, the provision for salary stlpport was deleted. Commenting on t.his action, the committee report on page 6 st.at.eel:

The comrnilt.ee del~t.ed ~JI· aµthority tp use grant 'ruhds authorized by the bill for the purpose oCdi_rect compeilsation to ~lice and other law enforcement personnel other than for t.raming programs or for the perfonnance of innovative

4


231

functions. Deletion of authority -to· use Federal funds for . local law enforpement personnel compensation. underscores the committee's~ concern that responsibility for law enforcement not be shifted from State and local ·government level. It is anticipated that local govefrunents, as the cost for research, ~~nov.ative ser'"viees1,,traitting, and new eqttipment developlilents are shared by the Federal Go-\'ernment in the programs authorized in the bill will 'be able to devote more of their local 'resources to the sohttion of personnel compensation problems. The comrnittee recognizes that adequate compensation for law enforcement personnel is. one of the most vexing· problems in .the fight against crime.

We wholeheartedly'subsc~ibe to the·House cotnmittee's·view. There is indeed a grn,/e c6n~ern tb'.at~ responsibility for law enforcement not be shifted from the' state and focal 'levels~' I

The ·:semHe Crimiria.l La,vs 'Subcbmhiittee nlso deleted a ·similar prov}Sfon by Rll ovei:\~h~Jmirig .v9te~ ,but· SU bseqfte~i1tly', ti .~omewliat mod1fi~d salary prov1s1on was ;remst~~ed .. }n mo~1fi~·~ fo~~' .. UJ) to one-third of each grant could be made· ·ava,ilablo' to pk_y one-half' the cost ·of salary itwrea'ses for law ehforcemeht persotlnet. Even with this modification, we riHtst strbrigly · oppose the :provisioh.· This is not because we are indifferen't to the low pay. of the nation's law ·enforce~ ment officers. It is because we fear that·"he who ·pay~ the piper call~ the tune'' and that dependence ttpon the federal government for salaries could ·be an easy street to federal domination and control. .

In addition, this provision would not have equal application oi' provide equal benefits 'to all law enforcement officials. In fact; most;'of the nation's 400,000 police officers woWd not be· eligible because under

.. t~e co~tnittee:.Nlli·o11ly· local jurisdictions or groups of, l?cal juris4i.ct10ns \\.':lth popjtlat10ns of more than 50,000 ·would be ehg1ble to apply for grant aid. rhus, those smaller jurisdictions, some :go percertt of the nation's totahvith 58~J~0'.rcent of the population, would not be eligib_le for grant· assistance. Who is' to say· that tlie officers of City A which meets the population standard could receive federal salary stipple~ ments whereas the officers of-Crty B, perhaps·an adjoining community whose po1)\il~tion requirements go. not 1!1eet t~e test, coulp not qualifr,.

'fhe unfairness of .the Adm1111strat1on proposnl becomes crystal clear when it is considereil'that 1iot all large cities and. policemen will be beneficiarias of federal law enforcement 'grants, This Hf S'c) because there is simply. not"enough.federal 1money·to goa·ro\md. 'fhtis, City C which perhaps gQt1its apipl\cation in early ~or whose political leader89ip was inf av or with ;the Department of Justice received a 1grant and salary support, while Cit.y D with the same needs, the same criine problems ana sall?-e low pay scales .was left ~u~;because its.applic!ttfon was tardy or not m compliance with contempgrary federal notions on what a good . application should contain. What could be more manifestly unfair? ' .

Finally, it should be noted t.hat once salary supp'ort!is grantea; it would be difficult if not impo's8ible for t.he f edernl government to abandon its assistance, thus leaving n permunent dependence on the federal treasury.

'l'ITLE II

'rhe spectr~ of American society-.th~.·greatest.in ,the histo.ry ofthe world-plungmg mto chaos as the nntlbnnl Cnbrtc unravels mto law-

5


6


7


8


9


PUBLIC LAW 96-157-DEC. 27, 1979 93 STAT. 1167

Public Law 96-157 96th Congress

An Act To restructure the Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, to assist

State and local governments in improving the quality of their justice systems, and for other purpoees.

Be it enacted by the Senate and Howe of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Justice System Improvement Act of 1979".

SEC. 2. Title I of the Omnibus Crime C:Ontrol and Safe StreetB Act of 1968 is amended to read as follows;

"TITLE I-JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

"TABLE OF OONTENTS

''Declaration and purpose.

"PART A-LAW ENFORCDUNT AllstsTANCE ADMJHJBTRATION

"Sec. 101. Establishment or Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. "Sec. 102. Duties and functions of Administrator. "Sec. 103. Office or C.Ommunity Anti.Crime Programs.

"PART 8-NAnoNAL lNlrrm.rr£ OF JUSTICll

"Sec. 201. National Institute of Justice. "Sec. 202. Establishment, duties, and functions. "Sec. 203. Authority for 100 per centum grants. "Sec. 204. National Institute of Justice Advisory Board.

"PART C-BUUAU OF JUBTICB STATISTICS

"Sec. 301. Bureau of Justice Statistiai. "Sec. 302. Establishment, duties, and functions. "Sec. 303. Authority for 100 per centum grant.a. "Sec. 304. Bureau of Justice Statistica Advisory Board. "Sec. 305. Uae of data.

"PART 0-FOUIUTA GKANTll

"Sec. 401. Description of program. "Sec. 402. Eligibility. "Sec. 403. Applications. "Sec. 404. Review or applications. "Sec. 405. Allocation and distribution or runds.

"P.urr E-NATIONAL PBroRJTY GRAN"!'S

"Sec. 501. Purpose. "Sec. 502. Percentage of appropriation for national priority grant program. "Sec. 503. Procedure for designating national priority programa. "Sec. 504. Application requiremeDta. "Sec. 505. Criteria for award.

"PAKT F-DlllcarnoNARY GKANT9

"Sec. 601. Purpoee. "Sec. 602. Percentage of appropriation for discretionary grant program.

Dec. 27' 1979 [S. 241)

Justice System Improvement Act of 1979. 42 USC 3701 note.

10


PUBLIC LAW 96-157-DEC. 27, 1979 93 STAT. 1187

"(f) To be eligible for funds under this part all eligible jurisdictions shall assure the participation of citizens, and neighborhood and community organizations, in the application process. No grant may be made pursuant to this part unless the eligible jurisdiction has provided satisfactory assurances to the Administration that the applicant has-

"(l) provided citizens and neighborhood and community organizations with adequate information concerning the amounts of funds available for proposed programs or projects under this title, the range of activities that may be undertaken, and other im~rtant program requirements;

' (2) provided citizens and neighborhood and communitf organizations an opportunity to consider and comment on pnorities set forth in the application or amendments;

"(3) provided for full and adequate participation of units of local government in the performance of the analysis and the establishment of priorities required bj subsection (bXl)(A); and

"(4) provided an opportunity for al affected criminal justice agencies to consider and comment on the proposed programs to be set forth in the application or amendments.

The Administrator, in cooperation with the Office of Community Anti-Crime Programs, may establish such rules, regulations, and procedures as are necessary to 888Ure that citizens ana neighborhood and community organizations will be assured an opportunity to participate in the application process.

"APPLICATIONS

"SEC. 403. (a) No grant may be made by the Administration to a State, or by a State to an eligible recipient pursuant to part D, unless the application sets forth criminal justice programs covering a threeyear period which meet the objectives of section 401 of this title. This application must be amended annually if new programs are to be added to the application or if the programs contained in the original application are not implemented. The application must include-

"(!) an analysis of the crime problems and criminal justice needs within the relevant jurisdiction and a description of the services to be provided and performance goals and priorities, including a specific statement of how the programs are expected to advance the objectives of section 401 of this title and meet the identified crime problems and criminal justice needs of the jurisdiction;

"(2) an indication of how the programs relate to other similar State or local programs directed at the same or similar problems;

"(3) an assurance that following the first fiscal year covered by an application and each fiscal year thereafter, the applicant shall submit to the Administration, where the applicant is a State, and to the council where the applicant is a State agency, the judicial coordinati~ committees, a nongovernmental grantee, or a unit or combmation of units of local government-

"(A) a performance re~rt concerning the activities carried out pursuant to this title; and

"(B) an assessment by the applicant of the impact of those activities on the objectives of this title and the needs and objectives identified in the applicant's statement;

"(4) a certification that Federal funds made available under this title will not be used to supplant State or local funds1 but will be used to increase the amounts of such funds that wowd, in the

Funds, eligibility.

Application process, rules.

42 USC 3743.

Contents.

11


93 STAT. 1188 PUBLIC LAW 96-157-DEC. 27, 1979

Financial assistance. 42 USC 3744.

absence of Federal funds, be made available for criminal justice activities;

"(5) an assurance where the applicant is a State or unit or combination of units of local government that there is an adequate share of funds for courts and for corrections, police, prosecution, and defense programs;

"(6) a provision for fund accounting, auditing, monitoring, and such evaluation procedures as may be necessary to keep such records as the Administration shall prescribe to assure fiscal control, proper management, and efficient disbursement of funds received under this title;

"(7) a provision for the maintenance of such data and informa· tion and for the submission of such reports in such form, at such times, and containing such data and information as the Administration may reasonably require to administer other provisions of this title;

"(8) a certification that its programB meet all the requirements of this section, that all the information contained in the application is correct, that there has been appropriate coordination with affected agencies, and that the applicant will comply with all provisions of this title and all other applicable Federal laws. Such certification shall be made in a form acceptable to the Administration and shall be executed by the chief executive officer or other officer of the applicant qualified under regulations promulgated by the Administration; and

"(9) satisfactory assurances that equipment, whose purchase was previously made in connection with a program or project in such State assisted under this title and whose cost in the aggregate was $100,000 or more, has been put into use not later than one year after the date set at the time of purchase for the commencement of such use and has continued m use during its useful life.

"(b) Applications from judicial coordinating committees, State agencies, and other no~overnmental grantees do not have to include the crime analysis reqwred by subsection (aXl) but may rely on the crime analysis prepared by the council.

"REVIBW 01' APPIJCATIONS

"SEC. 404. (a) The Administration shall provide financial assistance to each State applicant under this part to carry out the programs or projects submitted by such applicant upon determining that-

"(1) the application or amendment thereof is consistent with the requirements of this title;

"(2) the application or amendment thereof was made public prior to submission to the Administration and an opportunity to comment thereon was provided to citizens and neighborhood and community groups; and

"(8) frior to the approval of the application or amendment thereo the Administration has made an affirmative finding in writing that the program or project is likely to contribute effectively to the achievement of the objectives of section 401 of this title.

Each application or amendment made and submitted for approval to the Administration pursuant to section 403 of this title shall be deemed approved, in whole or in part, by the Administration within ninety days after first received unless the Administration informs the applicant of specific reasons for disapproval.

12


AMENDMENTS TO TITLE I· (LEAA) OF THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT

HEARING BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL LAWS AND PROCEDURES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES· SENATE

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

s. 460, s. 1297, s. 1598, s. 1601, s. 1875, S. 2212, S. 2245 and S. 3043

OCTOBER 2, 8, 9, 22, 23, NOVEMBER 4, DECEMBER 4, 1975 AND MARCH 17, 1976

69-103 0

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1976

13


398

But Congress also hears another voice from the public, and most of them say cut our taxes, cut our expenditures, let us get sensible about this thing so that we will have a little to live on and save a. little for our children to go to school and retirement and so on. So Congress is listening, but they are listening to different parts~ perhaps, of the people's cry.

Mr. REED. vVe are well familiar with this, Mr. Chairman. I think you will agree with me that the criminal justice system

and especially the prisons and jails, constitute a stronghold for om· society. Now, there are those who would breach that stronghold. There are those who for their own reasons would eliminate prisons, would denigrate the activities that go on in jails and prisons. I propose to you, Mr. Chairman, that if this stronghold is breached,. we will no longer have a society. And whatever the cost is, within reason, we must some way or other provide the reasonable resources. for sustaining that stronghold in conformity with our constitutional and our good American expectations.

Senator HRUSKA. Well, it is associations like your which could do much to stir public thought and also, hopefully, some action along· these lines that you have described so well.

Mr. REED. '\Ve are trying, sir. Senator HRus1u. So give the greetings of the subcommittf~e to·

your associates in that association. Tell them to be of good cheer .. vVe are going to do the best we can.

Mr. REED. Thank you, sir. Senator HRUSKA. And thanks for your help. Our final witness for the day is Richard W. Velde who is Admin~

istrator of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Mr. Velde, some time ago you appeared here and gave us the·

opening scenario of these hearings. Since then we have had many witnesses and many points of view expressed in this forum. I know· you have followed those hearings and the testimony very carefully and methodically, and the size and the scope of your 26-page state-ment indicates as much.

I know it would be helpful-the statement is long, and yet, in having read it last night and early this morning I suggest it would' be a good reference work to those who have any specific ideas or· criticisms to voice; because for every action there is a reaction,. and we know that. '\Ve had some in the last 2 minutes.

'\Ve have had a subject that is dear to your heart-namely, 1tJhe; idea that there are so many guidelines that they are oppressive· and frustrating and burdensome, and they never cease to come. I know you will in due time address yourself to that.

'\Ve welcome you here once again, and we will print in the record' this statement that you have submitted in its entirety.

You may now proceed in your own fashion, to highlight .it or· skip-read it, as you choose.

[The material referred to follows:]

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. VELDE, ADMINISTRATOR, LAW ENFORCE-

MENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTHATION, CONCERNING LEGISLATION 'YIIICII \\70!JLD

AMEND THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your invitation to again appear before the· Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures in my capacity as Adminis-

14


404

Section 301 ( d) provides that not more than one-third of any Part C grant a warded to a state may be expended for compensation of police and other regular law enforcement and criminal justice personnel. The one-third salary :provision was included in the Safe Streets Act because the Congress was concerned that responsibility for law enforcement not be shifted from state and local governments to the Federal Government. In addition, federal funds might supplant state and local efforts, instead of supplementing them.

In a few instances, remarks have been directed to the Subcommittee to the .effect that there is excessive "red tape" involved in the administration of the LEAA grant program. While in some cases, regrettable and unforeseen difficulties have arisen and caused delay to certain applicants, I believe the Subcommittee will find that overall th~ program has been administered efrl:ectively and efficiently.

Prior testimony before the Subcommittee made reference to 1,200 pages of guidelines issued by LEAA to implement a 23 page Act. Such statements can be very misleading. LEAA has implemented the statute in a manner con.sistent with the intent of Congress in establishing the block grant program. l\1uch of the material contained in guideline manuals is informational. Included are such items as reprints of the statute, Ol\1B circulars, standard .application forms, reporting forms, fund allocation tables, and address lists. All this material is provided for the convenience of the user, not to impose .additional burdens on applicants, as one might be led to believe.

An example of the manuals issued by LEAA is the most recent edition of the "Guide for Discretionary Grant Programs." This manual, which is LEAA's largest program guideline document, has 224 pages of requirements and specifications. However, the specifications are for numerous different cate:gories of programs. Any particular applicant would need only refer to the two or three pages under which funds were being sought, and a few pages of general requirements. In addition to the guideline requirements, the manual ·contains 15 informational appendices.

It should be noted that some of the information provided in LEAA guideline manuals relate not to requirements arising out of LEAA's legislation, but to other federal statutes which have been passed to deal with crucial issues of national concern. Examples of such statutes which may be considered by some critics to be LEAA "red tape," but over which we have no control, are the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Uniform "Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Thus, it is unfair to single out LEAA as the cause for many requirements being imposed on those seeking assistance.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, provisions have been added to LEAA's enabling 1egislation which help assure swift action. By law, LEAA must approve or disapprove state comprehensive plans within ninety days of submission. State planning agencies must act on subgrant applications within ninety days of their receipt. LEAA has adopted a similar ninety day rule for consideration ·of any discretionary grant applications. I might add, l\1r. Chairman, that there 11ave been well over 100,000 grants made during the course of the LEAA -program, with the number of applicants far exceeding that figure.

With regard to the application forms themselves, LEAA uses the standard forms for federal grant programs, prescribed by the Office of Management ·and Budget, in its discretionary grant program. This assures uniformity for -all such applicants.

To clarify provisions of LEAA's enabling legislation and provide guidance on application, award, and grant administration procedures, a number of -guideline manuals have been issued. Program manuals give information on programs and projects for which funds are available and guidance to -prospective grantees about the steps to be taken in making application for funds. The manuals also give guidance to grantees on their responsibilities of -applicable federal laws and regulations. Additionally specified are monitoring and evaluation policies and procedures.

Guideline manuals have also been issued to provide direction regarding -specific issues concerning which grantees often require assistance. Examples are our audit guide, financial guide, and equal opportunity guidelines. Without the detailed information provided in these manuals by LEAA, many problems could ariRe for grantees which could only otherwise be resolved on a case-by-case basis, a very time consuming proposition.

15


405

Finally in this regard, l\Ir. 9hairman, it should be pointed out that the J,EAA program is essentially one administered by the states and by local ;governments. These jurisidictions all may have requirements which affect the management of the program, perhaps causing delay to applicants for funds. If inefficient management techniques are the cause of problems, LEAA .may be able to provide the technical assistance necessary to upgrade capabilities and initiate effective techniques. In fact, we have taken such action in several instances. However, it would be inappropriate for LEAA to otherwise dictate to these jurisdictions the nature of their administrative pro-cedures.

Representatives of state court systems appearing before the Subcommittee have taken issue with LEAA's estimate of the percentage of funds which goes for court programs. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that we have indicated that courts projects receive in the neighborhood of 16 percent of LEAA program funds. Others, however, have voiced the opinion that the actual courts funding level is 6 or 7 percent, and have been critical of the fact that LEAA includes in the total such items as defense and prosecution projects.

It is extremely difficult to credit LEAA funds to exclusive program cate:gories such as police, courts, or corrections. This is particularly true since as much as 40 percent of LEAA grants benefit multiple components of the criminal justice system. Criminal justice training academies receiving LEAA ·support are one example of this multi-component thrust. One week, courses may be given to prosecutors, one week to police officers, one week to pro·bationary officers, and another week to judicial representatives.

Another example is the funding provided to support criminal history information systems. Such systems are used by nearly all elements of the criminal justice system, including police, the courts, and correctional agencies. There is no accurate way to assign a specific amount of these dollars to particular ])rogram categories.

Another difficulty in this regard is one of definition. There is a bona fide difference of opinion as to what actually is a court program. Certain projects to assist prosecution, defense, and probation functions have been characterized liy LEAA as courts projects. Advocates of increased funding for the courts feel, however, that only those projects which directly benefit court operations he included in the definition, with other efforts being listed separately, perhaps as a new category.

LEAA is now attempting to resolve these differences and provide a discrete -apportionment of all funding for courts projects under definitions acceptable to all interested parties. A special task force of judicial leaders and technicians has been commissioned to develop acceptable working definitions for {'ategorizing projects, apply these definitions to LEAA project expenditure -data, and determine the percentage of LEAA funds devoted to courts projects.

The last issues I would like to address are criticisms of the LEAA program 'yhich trouble me deeply. I am troubled not only because the criticisms are felt to be inappropriate and unwarranted, but because of the manner in which they were prei::ented to the Subcommittee. Certain of the comments supporting the criticisms were misleading and incomplete. while other stntements would clearly be shown not supported by the facts if careful investigation were undertaken. It is my hope that the Subcommittee, for the reasons I will discuss, will 11ot be misled in its deliberations with respect to the LEAA program as a result of this testimony.

One issue which was raif'ed in the testimony concerned certain aspects of LEAA'>< civil rights compliance effort. Because the organization which the wit-1wss rf'presents is. and was at the time of the prior testimony, en;.rnged in litigation with LEAA on these very matters. it would be highly inappropriate for me to discui::s the substance of those particular remarks in this forum. J,EAA is now preparing its rPsponse to the allegations involved in the litigation nnd will he most happy to provide the Subcommittee with a copy when formally submitted to the court. Needless to say, LEAA believes it is very effectively enforcing its civil rights responsibility, and it is felt that the results -of litigation will clearly establish this fact.

J,EAA's role in the development of information systems and the impact of -such systems upon individual privacy was also called into question by this same witneRi::. For the full information of the Suhcommittf'f'. I would like to hriefly describe LEAA's involvement in the area of criminal justice information systems.

16


Guideline Manual

I M 4500.16 I

Di stri but ion :

GUIDE FOR DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS

September 30, 1978

\

UNITED STATES DF.PARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

In iti a ted B y:

17


M 4500.lG

September 30. 1978

INTRODUCTION

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of tbia 1Danual ia to provide information about major categorical programa of the Law Enforcement Assistance Admi.n~atration, authorized by the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, •• amended, and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. as amended. The manual includes information about discretionary grant programs, selected program field tests, technical asaiatance, and training. Information about how to apply · for •••i•tance and who to contact for additional information is also provided .

Thia manual ia complemented by additional guidelines and program announcement• and plane, such as the Program Plan of the National Inatitute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, the Program Plan for Statistic• of the National Criminal Justice Information and Statistic• Service, program guidelines of the Off ice of Criminal Justice Education and Training, and program announcements and other document• reaarding Incentive Programs. In addition, supplements to this manual will be published as new programs, such as those of the Off ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, are developed.

2. SCOPE. This manual is of interest to State and local criminal justice agencies, institutions and organizations who work with criminal justice agencies, State Planning Agencies, regional and local planning units, and LEAA personnel .

3. CANCELLATION. LEAA Guideline Manual M 4500.lF, December 21, 1977, same subject, is herewith cancelled.

4. INTRODUCTION. Many of the programs in this manual reflect the implementation of the Action Program Development Process in LEAA during the past year. The Action Program Development Process is an effort to improve the value and effectiveness of LEAA action programs by systematically building on knowledge about concepts, approaches, and techniques which are successful in controlling crime and improving criminal justice, carefully testing program concepts, demonstrating programs which are successful, and marketing concepts through training and technical assistance.

Programs which are currently in the stages of program design and testing as well as demonstration, are included in this manual. Major technical assistance and training programs which serve to market program concepts and techniques are also included.

LEAA programs will increasingly be developed through the Action Program Development Process.

i

18


M 4500.lG September 30. 1978

5. llELATED GUIDEL I.NBS AND DOCUMENTS •

a. The Progrw described in this manual are supported and suppletne by a number of other LE.AA programs. The major documents descrtbnt~ other prograas and the general procedures governing them ~nclude~g

(1) Guide for State Planning Agency Grants (effective edition of H 4100.l) vhich describes the procedures and requirements for planning grants t o State Criminal Justice Planning Agencie.a (SPA' s) supported under Part B of the Crime Con trot and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and for the development of State comprehensive criminal j ustice plans required under Part C and E of the Crime Control Act, and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, H amended.

(2) Program Plan for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ) which describes the research, development and technology transfer activities planned for NILECJ.

. (3) Program Plan for Statistics 'FY 1977- 81 which describes LEAA' s

planned statistical activities.

(4) Law Enforcement Education Program Guideline Manual (effective edition of M 5200.1) which describes the education assistance program of the Off ice of Criminal Justice Education and Training (OCJET).

(5) Graduate Research Fellowship Program Guideline (effective edition of G 5400. 2) which describes the procedures and requirements for participation in the LEAA Graduate Research Fellows Program.

(6) Guideline Manual for the Comprehensive Data Systems Program (effective edition of M6640.l) which describes the Comprehensive Data Systems Program (CDS), sets forth guidelines for CDS action plans, and indicates the purpose, available funding, and criteria for evaluation of CDS applications.

(7) Guideline Manual for Financial Management for Planning and Action Grants (effective edition of M 7100.1), which describes the requirements and procedures for financial management of LEAA grants, including those set forth in this manual.

(B) Program Announcement for Incentive Fund Programs , which describes the concept, background, and procedures governing LEAA's newly developed Incentive Fund grant programs. The program announcement will be available early in FY 1979.

Page ii

19


. \

September 30, 1978

b. These documents are available from LEAA, 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20531.

c. In addition, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) can provide a wide range of information about specific areas of interest to the criminal justice community. Information about these services is available from LEAA or directly from NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, Maryland 20850.

d. For further information or ass i stance in the use of this manual~ contact LEAA offices referred to herein or the appropriate State Planning Agency .

a~IAi! S M. H. GREGG

istant Administrator f ice of Planning and Management

·,

. .

20


r M 4500.lG

September 30, 1978

TABLE OF CONTENTS

pll£VENTION PROGRAMS

1. Scope of Chapter 2 • ~tty Anti-Crime Prograa p

0 3. Comprehensive Cri8e Prevention rogr 4. Faaily Violence Prograa s. eo..ercial Security Prograa Teet 6. lle.erved 1. Technical Aedetance in Crt.e Prevention 8 . Training 1n Crt.e Prevention 9. ll•••rved

10. Scope of Chapter 11. Anti-Fencing Prograa 12. Organ bed Cri.lle Program 13. Collprebensive Career Criminal: ICAP Component 14 . Arson Control Test 15-16. Reserved 17. Technical Assistance in Enforcement 18. Training in Enforcement 19. Reserved

CHAPTER 3 ADJUDICATION PROGRAMS

20. Scope of Chapter 21. Court Delay Reduction Program 22 . Comprehensive Career Criminal Program 23. Ftmdamental Court Improvement Program 24. Integrated Police and Prosecution

Witness Assistance Program 25 . State Judicial Information System Program 26. Jail Overcrowding and Pretrial Detainee

Program (Adjudication) 27. Technical Assistance in Adjudication 28. Training in Adjudication 29. Reserved

iv

(SJIS)

~. 1 1

12 19 27 27 28 30 30

31 31 33 34 35 35 36 39 41

43 43 51 60 69

74 77

78 81 83

CW

)()

3J 3: 3 3

21


M 4500.lc Septeiaber 30 , 1978

CHAPTER 4 co~

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35 . 36.

lotts PROCIWts Scope of Ch Corr apter

ectiona Fac111t Corrections P 1 Standarda 1 1 Correctional ~~gr411 Standards 1::19lletltation Prograa Restitution Proandarda Accreditat10:-;ntat1on Progr .. Treatment Al gra• rograa T temative

reatment and R • to Street Criae ( Prisoners P1"'0 ehabiUtation for Addict !UC) Proaua

37. Jail Accountin gram (TIAP) e (JAMS) Progr!.Hicroco•puter Syatea

38. Offender Baaed Sta Information S te Correcttona

39. Inmate Legal S~~~ea (OBSCIS) Program 40. Jail Overcrowd! cea Prograa 41-46. Reserved ng and Pretrial Detainee Program 47. Technical Assistance in 48. Training in Cor 1 Correction.a 4

rect ona 9. Reserved

CHAPTER 5 SYSTEM SUPPORT PROGRAMS

50. Scope of Chapter 51. Comprehensive Data Systems (CDS) 52. Small State Supplement Program 53. Indian Criminal Justice Program 54 . Manpower Planning and Development 55-56. Reserved

Program

57. 58. 59.

Technical Assistance in System Support Training in System Support Reserved

Pa&e No .

85 85 9t 97 98

104 107

112

115

119 120 127 128 136 136

137 137 141 141 142 144 145 146 148

CHAPTER 6 JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION PROGRAMS

60. 61. 62. 63.

64. 65.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Youth Advocacy - Reserved Alternative Education - Reserved Children in Custody - Alternative Programs Part II

Reserved Project New Pride - Replication Program - Reserved Juvenile Justice System Reform - Reserved

v

149 149 149

149 149 149

22


CHAPTER 6 (Cont.)


66. Announc..._nt of OJJDP Un•oli.c:ited Propo•al Cycle Reserved

67-70. Reserved 71. Technical Aesistance in Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention 72. Training in Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention - Reaerved

APPENDIX l. GENERAL SPICIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCll!TIONARY GRANTS

1. Scope

SECTION 1. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS AND APPLICANTS

2. Eligible Projects J. Eligible Applicants

SECTION 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

4. Grantee Matching Contribution 5. Assumption of Costs 6. Period of Support 7. Grant Assurances

SECTION 3. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

8. Special Requirements for Part E (Corrections) Grants

9. Special Requirements for Construction Projects

10. Special Requirements for Grants Involving Automated Data Processing (ADP)

11. Special Requirements for Multi-State or Multi-Units Projects

12. Special Requirements of Other Federal Legislation and Regulations

SECTION 4. PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

149

150

151

1

1 1

3 3 4 4

6

7

8

9

10

13. Lethal Weapons, Ammunition and Related Items 15 14. Medical Research and Psychotherapy 15 15. Expenditures for Personnel 15

vi

23


APPENDIX 2.

1.

SECTION 1.

2. 3.

SECTION 2.

4.

5. 6. 7.

APPENDIX 3.

1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

APPENDIX 4.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

M 4500.lG September 30, 1978

PREPARATION AND SUBKlSStON OP APPLICATIONS Scope

PREPARATION OF APPLICATIO~S

Standard Application Foraa Preapplications

SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS

Consultation and Participatiou with State Planning Agencies

Submission and Processing Procedures Panel Review Process Notification

AWARD AND ADMINISTRATION OF GRANTS

Scope Applicability of Financial Management

Guide Award and Payment of Funds Allowability of Costs State Planning Agency Supervision and

Monitoring Responsibility Audit Responsibilities Suspension and Termination of Grants Reports Required of Grant Recipients

MEASUREMENT OF PERFORMANCE: EVALUATION AND MONITORING OF DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

Background The Four Types of Performance Measurement Self-Assessment LEAA Project Monitoring Evaluation Requirements Program Evaluation Intensive Project Evaluation

vii

Paa• No.

1

1 1

2 3 4 4

1

1 1 2

3 4 5 6

1 1 2 2 3 3 6

24


1


Page Ro.

APPENDIX 5. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR NO~-CONSTRUCTION GRANT APPLICATIONS

I .

1. Scope 2. Part I (Standard Form 424) 3. Part III, Budget Information and Budget

Narrative 4. Part IV, Program Narrative Instructions

, • I &

" -I •

,,

;

1 1

2 4

25


M 4500.lG

September 30, 1978

APPENDIX 1. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

1 . SCOPE. This appendix contains general Tequirements fol" and limits on use of di.screti.onary funds grants, including eligibility rules, general requi.rements, proh:ibiti.ons and restrictions, and other techni1:a1 requireaents.

SECTI<lf 1. ELICIBLE PROJBCTS AND APPLICANTS

2. ELIGIBl~E PROJECTS.

a . ~>licationa will noTI1ally be considered only if they fall within the scope and coverage of progTams described in Chapter1:t 1 through 6 of this Manual.

b. !.2J:•licanta aeekLng categorical funds for projects which do not fal.l vittdn tbe scope and cover age of programs described in this Mallaual should submit a brief pre-application or concept paper desicribing the objectives. strategies, and resources required for the proposed project, before submitting a formal. applicati.on.

c . !.2,E•licants are advised that categorical funds for projects not cov•ered by this Manual or by the Program Plan of the National Ins:titute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice are extremely lillldted.

3. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS.

a. Dis.cretionary grants authorized under Part C (Grants for Law Enforcement Purposes) and Part E (Grants for Correctional Purposes) of the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act can be made only to:

(1) State Planning Agencies;

(2) Local units of government;

(3) Combinations of local units of government; or

(4) Non-profit organizations.

b. Grants may be made to State agencies as co-applicants with i0r subgrantees of State Planning Agencies.

App 1 Par 1 Page 1

26


00 lG M 45 • 1978 --her 30,

5epte»""

d under section 224 of the authorize t (Grants for Juvenile

rants cY Ac ) b ~U oelioquen t programs can e made to c. S . ~ J ustice &Pd and rreatme~ ations and institutions

JUV :OCJ pre-ve.ntiOO nci.es, orgaoiz ations or institutions ~Us l)eliPQU 1~ate age 0 rgan z t pub UC and pr fit agencies, "'ith you th. P~i••t• oo0-P~ence in dealin8 h.,,• had esper rgaoization or institution

o- rofit agencY• o foundation, trust, (1) A pd•ate 0

:8

!ny corporati~~;edited institution of highet ia defined cooperati"e, 8 y organization or institut t

(2)

... octatiaD~d any other age~c 'scientific, educational on e;!~~:t!:o~perated prilll8ti~il:~ public purposes, but whlch v i e charitable, or s i ion or control, and no part ierv ct ~nder public superv hs inures or may lawfully inure 1• no f whic 1 di id of th• net earnin8• o ri"ate shareholder or n v ual, to the benefit of any P b IRS to be tax-exempt under the and vhich has been held01~c) ( 3) of the 1954 Internal proviaion• of Section 5 Reveau• Code.

11 with youth means that the

Experience ln dea n~ganization or institution has been non-prof it agfency' to least two years and has established

(&)

(b)

in existence or 8 h ices for youth related to t e program or

program serv h project for which funding is soug t;

Under special circumstances the two year requirement may be waived by the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

d. Programs contemplating action by a particular type of law enforcement agency, or efforts conducted for State and local government by a university or other private agency, must have the application submitted by either:

(1) The department of state government under whose jurisdiction the project will be conducted; or

(2) A ~nit of general local government, or combination of such units' whose law enforcement agencies, sys terns or activities will execute or be benefited by th ' e grant.

App 1 Par 3 Page 2

27


M 4500. lG September 30, 1978

SECTION 2. GENERAL REQUI REME.NTS

4. GRANTEE MATCHING CONTRIBUTION. Applicants for grants authorized under Parts C and E of the Crime Control Act (except Indian Tribes, che Truac Territoriea, Gu.am• American Samoa and the Marianas) must provide at least 10 percent of the total project costs. ?or some programs a larger matching cmtribution is required for second and subsequent years of •ard.

a. Matching contribution• muat be in caah rather than in-kind goods and services.

b. Mat china contributions uy be funds ft'cm State, local or prlvate sources but may not include other Federal funds except where the Federal statute governing the other funds authorizes those funds to be used to match other Federal grants, e . g.:,

(1) Funds provided by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974;

(2) Funds provided by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965; and

(3) Funds provided by the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, as amended (General Revenue Sharing Funds).

c. Projects funded under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevent{• Act of 1974, as amended, do not require matching funds, unless otherwise designated in the program description

d. Community Anti-Crime Program projects (Chapter 1, Paragraph 2) do , require matching funds.

e. For more detailed information regarding grantee matching contribut see the effective edition of LEAA M 7100.1.

S. ASSUMPTION OF COSTS. It is LEAA policy that funds are awarded for initial development and demonstration and not for long term support.

a. Projects will not be funded for a total of more than three years specific justification and approval at the initial award by the Administrator of LEAA.

b. Applicants must indicate as part of the initial applicatiun how project activities will be paid for when Federal funding ceases what plans will be made during the period of Federal funding tc: arrange for that funding. This information will be used as one criterion for evaluating applications for funding.

App 1 Par I~ Page 3

28


7.

'· PDtOO or IUPl'Olt • nd for a twelve month period ~- fu • · DOTMllr b• .var11 -

1. ProJecb vUl eed eighteen months, may be oda not to exc

b. Avard• for lOtt1•' pert ~ LIM need• · ;;ta euhject to 1ranu• •

1 separate applications aJaht .. n aonth• requ re

c. ProJecte ace.Sly _ 1 hu•n months or less· lor 1peclftc perioda of • I

Prevention Act funded programs 111ay b d. Ju•.aile Juatic• and Delinguen~Y 1 e consistent with LEAA Financial e

eupported for lonaer periods3

o C~ampt;r 7, Paragraph 12. Guideline H 7100. lA, Change '

•• f di eriod limitations, where applicable, are Exceptiona to un og p 1 throu h 6) noted in program descriptions (Chapters g •

GRANT ASSURANCES . The grant assurances contained in Part V of SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance (Appendix 6) are incorporated in and made a part of all discretionary grant awards.

a. All grant assurances should be reviewed carefully because they define the obligations of grantees and their subgrantees and express commitments that have binding contractual effect when the award is accepted by the grantee.

b. Special Conditions. Frequently, LEAA will approve or require, as a condition of grant award and receipt of funds, "special conditions" applicable only to the particular project or type of program receiving grant support. These special condi tions a re to be negotiated and included in the terms of an award. Notice and opportunity for discussion will be provided to grant applicants. Special conditions may:

App 1 Par 5 Page 4

29


M 4500.lG

September 30, 1978

(1) Set forth specific grant administrat~on policies;

(2) Set forth LB.AA regulations {e.g., vritten approval of changes);

(3) Seek additional project infonnation or detail;

(4) Batablieh special reporting requirements; and/or

(5) Provide for LBAA approval of critical project elements aucb &a key staff, evaluation dee!gna, diaaemiaation of manuacripte, contract~. etc.

c. All grants are aubiect to applicable other LEAA guidelines and regulations. Copies of these and other grant condition references aay be obtained from LBAA . Major other guidelines and regulations are:

( 1) M 7100. l, Financial Management for Planning and Action Grants, which is the basic fiscal administration manual for LEAA grants;

(2) LEAA regulations implementing the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with respect t o LEAA grants (28 CFR 42.101, et . seg., Subpart C);

(3) LEAA Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Crime Control and Juvenile Delinquency Program (28 C.F.R. 42. 201, et. seq., subpart D) and equal employment opportunity program guidelines (28 C.F.R. 42.301 et. seq., subpart E) with respect to LEAA grants;

(4) Department of Justice-LEA.A regulations on privacy and security of criminal history information systems (28 C.F.R. Part 20);

•

(5) Department of Justice-LEAA regulations on the Confidentiality of Identifiable Research and Statistical Information (28 C.F.R. Part 22).

d. The following condition applies to all grants awarded by LEAA:

"THIS GRANT, OR PORTION THEREOF, IS CONDITIONAL UPON SUBSEQUENT CONGRESSIONAL OR EXECUTIVE ACTION WHICH MAY RESULT FROM FEDERAL BUDGET DEFERRAL OR RECISION ACTIONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 1012(A) AND 1013(A) OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974, 31 U.S.C. 1301, PUBLIC LAW 93-344, 88 STAT. 297 (JULY 12, 1974). II

App 1 Par 7 Page 5

30


IU)QtJ1RF){ENTS sPtcIAL

sscTIOl'I 3. . .. nl<'CTtONS GRANTS. As a COl\di.tt JJtT s CO~ ing construction, acqu Oil

l_-1l'fS FOR P for the plsnn do~al institutions or

181t.t.._

T .. , U ~ g fund• 1 correc d -..._ 8. SPllC""'"' f part juveni e t demonstrate an provtde '

for receipt o of adult or for such nt\l~ th, or r.oovatio:i,t. applicants ucsb le: faciU:ie•;

0 the eJCtent •PP ative& to incarceration

foll"" os ble use of alternl and bail practices, , f reason• referrs 1 Evidence o U.11ti ted to t ncing pract ces,

•· tncludinl but notectures, court sen ed the minimization of i rJ proc urces an c11vere on• bation reso ole practices, work- study

cOllprehen•ive :;0state and loca~ pa~imely release of prisoners

tncarcerati~~her programs ass't n~ications should indicate r•!::":c1:;uate eupervisiOD· ar~~ive rates of disposition for

thun red to be served, comp bation institutional sentences

• • tences, pro ' 1 ) · fin••' 1u1pended sen and rs tes of pare e. , and other alternatiVeS,

i for the treatment of alcohol and b. Evidence of special rro~~~n~n and community-based programs;

drug abusers in inst tu

i i for the com lete separation of juvenile

Architectural rov 8 on • c. adult female, and adult male offenders;

Architectural design for new facilities providing for appropriat~ d. correctional treatment programs, particularly those involving

other community resources and agencies;

e.

f.

g.

h.

Willingness to accept in the facilities persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States> subject to negotiated contractual agreements with the Bureau of Prisons;

Certification that, where feasible and desirable, provisions will be made for the sharing of correctional institutions and facilities on a regional basis;

~ertification that Part E funds will utilize advanced techniques in the design of institutions and facilities· , Satisfactory assurances that h of the institutions d f . t e personnel standards and programs including designatio~nof ~~~l~~ies will reflect advanced practices programs which will be h nd~ of .personnel standards and receiving Part E suppor~~u!n~ in institutions and facilities

App 1 Par 8 Page 6

31


M 4500.1G September 30. 1978

1. Cert~ficatioo that special administrative requirements dealing with object~vee, architectural and coat data , contrac tual arrangements, etc., will be made applicable to contractors.

j. All Applicationa for Part E funda for purposes of construction or renovation of juvenile and adult correctional institutions or fac11itiea MUST BE submitted in accordance with Guideline G 4063.2 (effective edition) to the national contractor to be eeJ.ected by LEAA for clearance of the architectural plans, designs and construction dravlnga. Applications should be fontarded to the contractor at the same time they are submitted to the State Planning Agency and to LEM. In turn, th• contractor vill reepond to th~ applicant, the State Planning Agency and LEAA.

9. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS .

a. Conatruction grants under Part C are intended to be supportive of and aupplemental to programs aimed at crime reduction and criminal justice system improvement . Construction grants under Part E are intended to meet the need for improved correctional facilities, with prime emphasis on community-based correctional facilities, and must be an integral part of a comprehensive plan for correctional programs and facilities.

b. New construction projects will be considered for funding only when they represent the only method available to meet program goals of LEAA national programs or of State comprehensive plans.

c. Construction projects will be funded only when they meet critical needs, are innovative, and when they involve approaches which are replicable to other jurisdictions:

(1) An innovative approach to construction involves special attention to the needs of citizens who come in contact with the criminal justice system , special attention to possible multi-jurisdictional, regional , or multi-purpose use of the facility, among other elements.

(2) To be replicable, projects must show how requirements for tr facility were developed, how the facility supported the goals, objectives, and priorities of LEN\ national programs or State ccmprehensive plans, and how considerations of program objectives were built into the ciesign of the facili...

App 1 Par 8 Page 7

32


-~ r 3u, .,,. -sept.c-•

~ ouide1tnea G 7400.lB, Equa • 1 t1ith for submitting lnfonnatt l

•· ucantl :'PPo•t r~ntt'Y Proc~~~~racts and with Executive ~~don 19PloJ11•' od llenovatlon eta eoutructlon • 11246 _,.. lll75 •

181008 of cha Rehabilitation Act

wlth th• rav C 1792, et seq., any build •· In accordan:• L 9)-ll2, 29 u.!·t· for which there is an inting

of 19U, Pu • f~ed under the t Cb ilding or facility be ac ended coutructtoo hat •uc 1 u ceaatb

that rill requir• t in th~ employment o1· residence th le ....... _ bUc or .. ,. re•ult ... must be so constructed 88 ere1n ~o "'"' pu .-.a1 pad per•o·- ill h to f ph,.icallJ haou cap di apped persons w ave ready ac :..Ura that phytic~l'u~~:i~•. Cesa to ..,c1 ••of, .u

' ects funded under the Juvenile f Oo.wtruction ro r ... and ro tion Act are limited to conetru

· i • cy Preven 1 h ct1 Ju•tic• ud Del aqu n d facilities for ess t an 20 Peo 1 on ot t.nnovattv• cormunitY b~~~dings, and parts or sections of / e Faciliti .. lnclude both b rticular program or project. buildina to be used for a pa

b ildings is not permitted with Juvenile (1) lr•ction of new u Prevention funds.

Jueti~e and Delinquency

(2) Federal funds may not be used for more the cost of construction of a facility to Section 227 of the Juvenile Justice Act. ·

than 50 percent of developed pursuant and Delinquency Prev

· enu

g. Application for construction projects must be made on Standard Form 424 with LEAA Form 4000/4 (Application for Federal Assistance Construction Program) attached.

b. Preapplications must be submitted for construction grants exceeding $100,000 in Federal funds.

i. For more information on definitions and requirements with respect to construction programs, see the effective edition of M 7100.l.

10. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS INVOLVING AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING (ADP: In addition to the conditions set forth in this oanual which apply to all grants, grantees receiving funds for automated data processing (ADP) must agree:

a. To use, to the maximum extent practicable, computer software already produced and available without obligation.

App 1 Para 9 Page 8

.. 33



b. That all application programs will be written in Federal Standard COBOL or ANS FORTRAN (where the nature of the task requires a scientific progra.mn.ing language) vhenevet possible. Programs may be written in ANS BASIC for microco~puters and minicomputers subject to the follovlng conditions: grantees will r equire hardware vendor assurance that the BASIC language facility (including any extensions or additions t o the instruction set of ANS BASIC) will be validated by the National Bureau of Standards validation routine; extensions to the ANS BASIC instruction will be limited to those instructions agreed upon by mutual agreement after consultation with at least three hardward manufacturers; program applications. whether new or transferred. will run on the hardware of at least three manufacturers.

c. That grant funds will not be used for lease, maintenance, or engineering costs of proprietary applicat ions software packages without specific, pr ior approval of LEAA.

d . That all computer software written under the grant will be made available to LEAA for transfer to authorized users in the criminal justice community without cost other than that directly associated with the transfer and that the system will be documented in sufficient detail to enable a competent da ta processing staff to adapt the system, or port!ons thereof , to usage on a computer of similar size and configuration, of any manufacturer .

e. To provide a complete copy of documentation, upon request, to the Systems Development Division , National Criminal Just ice Information and Statistics Service, LEAA. Documentation will include, but not be limited to, Systems description, Operating Instructions, User Instructions, Program Maintenance Instructions, input forms, file descriptions, report formats , program listings , and flow charts for t he system and programs . Grantee agrees to produce system documentation for this grant in accordance with Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS PUB 38).

f. To incorporate the provisions of a ll applicable condi tions of the grant into all requests for proposal (RFP), requests for quotation (RFQ), information for bid (IFB), and contracts utilizing funds from the grant in order that contractors concerned will be guided by the LEAA requirements.

g. That conversion cost in itself will not be used t o justify sole source procurement of ADP equipment .

11. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-STATE OR MULTI-UNITS PROJECTS. Several discretionary programs encourage multi- State, regional, or cooperative projects involving multiple units of State or local government.

a . Unless otherwise indicated in the specifications for a particular program, applications may be made by:

App 1 Para 10 Pa~e 9

34


12.

•

o lG M 450 • 1978 ~ ... ber 30,

sept-=-

on behalf of the othe in the group t's; rtJllleot unit

(1) One gO'ITe jointly; or i the group

( 2) All units n iation or joint venture C?'e ~ .. 1 combination' as~o~ni ts for general or grant ated

(3) A apec.uo f ctoverOJllenta grouP o e by a 1• n purposes.

appUcat o d f 1 be require o approval by all

tear eviden£! wil with respect to: b. In all caee1, cnitS of governJDent

pa.rticipatin& u i the project; and

Cl) Their participation n

(2) The teraa and application.

f the grant proposal or coaai cmen ts o

THER FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND REGULATION_§.. SPECIAL REQutR!HENTS OF O h t all discretionary grants meet certain LEAA is required to insure t ~ ents imposed by other laws and administrative and legal reTq~ rei;ore the applicant must insure administrative issuances. ere ' . that the following requirements are met.

a. Clean Air Act Violations. In accordance with the pro~isions of the Clean Air Act (42 u.s.c. 1857) as amended by Public Law 91-604, the Federal Water Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) as amended by Public Law 92-500 and Executive Order 11738, grants, subgrants or contracts cannot be entered into, reviewed or extended with parties convicted of offenses under these laws.

b. Relocation Provisions. In accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, P.L. 91-646, 84 Stat . 1894 , and the regulations of the Department of Justice (effective edition of LEM Guideline G 4061.1, Relocation Assistance and Payments):

(1) The applicant and State Planning Agency shall assure that any program under which LEAA financial assistance is to be used to pay all or part of the cost of any program or project which results in displacement of any individual family, business and/or farm shall provide that:

(a) Within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement comparable decent f dwell· ' sa e, and sanitary replacement

ings will be avail bl . i accordance . h a e to displaced persons n Attorney Ge:~~al~uch regulations as issued by the

'

App 1 Par 11 Page 10

35


M 4500.lG

September JO. 1978

(b) Fair and reasonable relocation payments and assistance shall be provided to or for displaced persons as are requ~red in such regulations as are issued by the Attorney General;

( c) Re.location or assistance programs shall be provided for such persons in accordance with such regulations issued by the Attorney General;

(d) The affected persons will be adequately informed of the available benefits and policies and procedures relating to the paY111ent of monetary benefits; and

(2) Such assurances shall be accompanied by an analysis of the relocation problems involved and a specific plan to resolve eu ch p~ob lems.

c. Environmental Impact .

(1) The National Environmental Policy Ac t of 1969 established environmental review procedures to determine if a proposed LEAA funded program or project is a "major Federal action significantly affecting the human environment." Each proposed action listed below must include an environmental evaluation .

(a) New construction.

(b) The renovation or modification of a facility which leads to an increased occupancy of more than 25 persons .

(c) The implementation of programs involving the use of pesticides and other harmful chemicals.

(d) The implementation of programs involving harmful radiation (x-rays, etc.).

(e) Research and technology whose anticipated or intended future application could be expected to have a potential effect on the environment.

(f) Other actions determined by LEAA to possibly have a significant effect on the quality of the envil'Onment.

App l Par 12 Page 11

36


M 4500.lG September 30s 1978

(2) A detennlnatioo shall thereafter be made by the responsible Federal official as to whether the action will have a eignif icant effect on the environment requiring the preparation of an environmental analysis (a draft environmental impact statement) or whether a negative declaration can be filed .

(3) An environmental evaluation is a report of the environmental effects of the proposal and should consist of questions and narrative answers as well as supporting documentation that substantiates conclusions.

(4) An enviromental analysis must be submitted with the original application in cases where the proposed action would 11gn1fic8t\tly affect the environment. It will be utilized in the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement.

(S) A ne.gative declaration will be filed by LE.AA if the envirorunental evaluation does not indicate a lignif icant environmental impact.

(6) Bnvirorune.ntal Analysis Impact and Negat ivc Declaration forms are available from Grants and Contracts Management Division, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 633 Indiana Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20531.

d . Historic Sites. Before approving grants involving construction, renovation, purchasing or leasing of facilities LEAA shall consult with the State Liaison Officer for Historic Preservation to determine if the undertaking may have an effect on properities listed in the National Register of Historic Places. If the undertakings may have an effect on the listed properties, LEAA shall notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

e. A-95 Notification Procedures. Applicants must notify appropriate areawide and State Clearinghouses of their intent to apply for Discretionary Grants, in accordance with LEAA's A-95 requirements (28CFR Part 30).

f. Flood Disaster Protecti,m Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-234, 42 U.S.C. §4001, et seq. LEAA will not approve any financial assistance for construction purposes in any area that has been identified by the Secretary of HUD as an area having special flood hazards un the community in the hazard0us area is then participating in the National Flood Insurance Program.

g. Rehabilitation. In accordance with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112), no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States, as defined in Section 7(6) of that Act, shall, .solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

App l Para 12 Page 17 37


September 30. 1978

b. Safe Drinking Water Act. Pub. L. 93-523. 42 U.S.C. l300f, et seq. If the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency determines that an area ha• an aquifier (a water-bearing stratum of permeable rock, sand or gravel) which is the sole or principal source of drinking water for an area, and which if contaminated wou1d create a significant haaard to public heal th, he shall publish notice of that determination in the Federal Register. After publication of such notice. no commitment of 1ederal financial assistance (through a grant, contract, loan or othet"Wise) may be entered into for any project which the EPA Adminiatntor determines may contaminate such an aquifier. Any prospective eubgrantee of Parts C and E funds shall assure that the project will have no effect on an aquifier so designated by the EPA Administrator .

i. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. 81531, et seq. The Secretary of Interior shall publish in the Federal Regiscer, and from time to time he may by regulations revise a list of species determined by him or the Secretary of Commerce to be endangered species and a list of all species determined by him or the Secretary of Commerce to be threatened species. Each list shall refer to the species contained therein by scientific and conmon name and shall specify with respect to each such specie over what portion of its range it is endangered or threatened. Any prospective recipient of LEAA funds shall certify in writing prior to a grant award that the proposed action will not jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered specie or a threatened specie or result in the destruction or modification of the habitat of such a specie.

j. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Pub. L. 90-542, 16 U.S.C. §1271, et seq. LEAA must notify the Secretary of the Interior and, where National Forest lands are involved, the Secretary of Agriculture of any activities in progress, commenced or resumed which affect any of the rivers specified in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act . Any prospective grantee or subgrantee of LEAA grant funds will certify in writing that LEAA will be notified if any of the designated rivers are or will be affected by any program or project .

k. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Pub. L. 85-624, 16 U.S.C. §661, et . seq. LEAA must notify the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior and the head of the State administrative agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the State wherever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed to be diverted or controlled by LEAA, a grantee, or subgrantee. Any prospective recipient of LEAA grant funds will certify that LEAA will be notified if any of the actiorspecified in 16 U.S.C. §662(a) are anticipated.


38


M 4500.lG --,..er 30, 1978

septeuiv

b L 93-291, Pu • tion Act• · f LEA.A funds shall p eserva i ient o

d Archeolo ical ~ospective rec ~rreparable loss 1. Bistori~l :~9 et seq. dAn~t~vitY maY cause archeological da~a.

16 u.s. . if, the fuode a t historical or terior who shal oot!!~t~ion to sifgn!!!c~cretary offt.ht:ea;:a which may

••

n.

o.

or b 0 nod Y tiOD o LEAA will t e d investisa ch data•

survey an d preserve su conduct a d and recover an 2 583 16 U.S. C. be affecte f 1972, pub. L. 9h-ich directly affects

t Act 0 - ivitY w coastal zone Hanaae:~-supported act manner, which to the 11451, et seq . Ea~ 11 be conducted in a ith the approved State the Coastal Zone s ~bl is consistent w h Coastal Zone. Every maximum extent feasf e~he protection oft et funds supporting management program o:O application for gr:n Coastal Zone shall applicant subclitti~and or water uses in t e local agencies programs affectingf the appropriate Stateior to the approved attach the viC!'IS o f the proposed activ ty lications on the nlationship o This applies to subgrantlla:: to discretionary manageiaent progrem. i gency as we d i

ed to the St.ate plann ng a hall be submitte n submitt lications Such applications sIV f the Intergovernmental grant •PP . • isions of Title 0

accordance with the prov L 90-577. Cooperation Act of 1968, Pub. •

L 91-579 7 u.s.c . ~2131~ et seq. Animal welfare Act of 1970, Pub. • d i~l treatment standards This act establis~es :ecordkeepi~~a~~on:n and persons that use or for schools, institution~, ~rgansearch tests or experiments,

in~e~~a~or~~:i;!v;e::;:~ ~un~sr~or the, purpose of carryingf ~:t research, tests or experiments. No grant or contract or

~:!~res compliance with the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act of 1970.

Criminal Penalities.

(1) Whoever embezzles, willfully misapplies, steals, or obtains by fraud or endeavors to embezzle, willfully misapply steal or obtain by fraud any funds, assets, or property which are the subject of a grant or contract or other form of assistance pursuant to this title, whether received directly or indirectly f r om the Administration, or whoever receives, conceals, or re tains such funds, assets, or property with intent to convert such funds, assets, or property to his use or gain, knowing such funds, assets, or property have been embezzled, willfully misapplied , stolen, or obtained by fraud, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both .


39


M 4500.iG September 30, 1978

(2) Whoever knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by trick, scheme, or device, any material fact in any application for assistance submitted pursuant to the Act or in any records required to be maintained pursuant to the Act shall be subject to prosecution under the provisions of Section 1001 of Title 18, United States Code.

(3) Any law enforcement and criminal justice program or project underwritten, in whole or in part, by any grant or contract or other form of assistance pursuant to the Act, Whether received directly or indirectly from the Administration, shall be subject to the provisions of Section 371 of Title 18, United States Code.

SECTION 4. PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

13. LETHAL WEAPONS, AMMUNITION AND RELATED ITEMS. LEAA Discretionary Funds may not be used to purchase lethal weapons, ammunition, armored vehicles, explosive devices, and related items.

14. MEDICAL RESEARCH AND PSYCHOTHERAPY. LEAA discretionary funds may not be used for medical research or for the use of medical procedures which seek to modify behavior by means of any aspect of psychosurgery, aversion therapy, chemotherapy (except as part of routine clinical care), and physical therapy of mental disorders. Such proposals should be submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for funding consideration. This policy does not apply to programs involving procedures generally recognized and accepted as not subjecting the patient to physical or psychological risk (e.g., methadone maintenance and certain alcoholism treatment programs), specifically approved in advance by the Office of the Administration, LEAA, or to programs of behavior modification which involve environmental changes or social interaction where no medical procedures are utilized.

15. EXPENDITURES FOR PERSONNEL.

a. Not more than one-third of any discretionary grant may be expended for compensation of police or other regular law enforcement and criminal justice personnel, e.xclusive of time engaged in training programs or in research, development, demonstration, or other short term programs.

b . Indian manpower projects not exceeding 24 months duration are excepted from this restriction.

App l Par 12 Page 15

40


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAW ENFORCEMENT AS~>ISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20531

OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE,'$300

POSTAGEANDFEESPAID [ ~~) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

J US-436 U.S.MAIL

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK

41


L~AA-

GE

NE

RA

L

BR

IEFI

NG

FE

BR

UA

RY

197

7

LA

W E

NFO

RC

EM

EN

T A

SS

IST

AN

CE

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIO

N

U.S

. DE

PAR

TM

EN

T O

F JU

ST

ICE

42


BA

SIS

OF

LE

GIS

LA

TIO

N

• C

RIM

E A

LO

CA

L P

RO

BL

EM

/BE

ST

CO

NT

RO

LL

ED

AT

S

TA

TE

AN

D L

OC

AL

LE

VE

L

e L

AW

EN

FO

RC

EM

EN

T A

UT

HO

RIT

Y T

RA

DIT

ION

AL

LY

R

ES

ER

VE

D T

O S

TA

TE

S (C

ON

CE

PT

S O

F F

ED

ER

AL

ISM

)

• L

EA

A N

OT

ES

TA

BL

ISH

ED

AS

AN

OP

ER

AT

ION

AL

LA

WE

NF

OR

CE

ME

NT

AG

EN

CY

• N

O L

EA

A D

IRE

CT

ION

, SU

PE

RV

ISIO

N O

R C

ON

TR

OL

O

VE

R S

TA

TE

OR

LO

CA

L L

AW

EN

FO

RC

EM

EN

T

AG

EN

CIE

S -

[SE

CT

ION

518

(a

)]

43


LE

AA

PR

OG

RA

M P

UR

PO

SE

S

• E

NC

OU

RA

GE

ST

AT

E C

OM

PR

EH

EN

SIV

E P

LA

NN

ING

F

OR

CR

IMIN

AL

-JU

ST

ICE

IM

PR

OV

EM

EN

TS

• T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

ND

FIN

AN

CIA

L A

SS

IST

AN

CE

TO

IM

PR

OV

E &

S

TR

EN

GT

HE

N L

AW

EN

FO

RC

EM

EN

T &

CR

IMIN

AL

.IU

ST

ICE

• C

ON

DU

CT

RE

SE

AR

CH

& D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

TO

IM

PR

OV

E

CR

IMIN

AL

.JU

ST

ICE

• D

EV

EL

OP

& T

RA

NS

FE

R N

EW

TE

CH

NIQ

UE

S A

ND

M

ET

HO

DS

TO

:

-R

ED

UC

E C

RIM

E

-D

ET

EC

T,

AP

PR

EH

EN

D, A

ND

R

EH

AB

ILIT

AT

E C

RIM

INA

LS

44


PR

OG

RA

MS

BL

OC

K G

RA

NT

S F

OR

:

• C

RIM

INA

L -I

US

TIC

E P

LA

NN

ING

, E

VA

LU

AT

ION

, A

DM

INIS

TR

AT

ION

& T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

SS

IST

AN

CE

• C

RIM

INA

L J

US

TIC

E S

YS

TE

M I

MP

RO

VE

ME

NT

S

(PO

LIC

E, C

OU

RT

S, C

OR

RE

CT

ION

S)

e C

OR

RE

CT

ION

AL

PR

OG

RA

M I

MP

RO

VE

ME

NT

S

e JU

VE

NIL

E J

US

TIC

E A

ND

DE

LIN

QU

EN

CY

PR

EV

EN

TIO

N

45


PR

OG

RA

MS

D

IRE

CT

GR

AN

TS

AN

D C

ON

TR

AC

TS

FO

R:

• C

RIM

INA

L J

US

TIC

E S

YS

TE

M IM

PR

OV

EM

EN

TS

(P

OL

ICE

, CO

UR

TS

, CO

RR

EC

TIO

NS

)

• E

DU

CA

TIO

NA

L A

SS

IST

AN

CE

• T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

SS

IST

AN

CE

• IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

SY

ST

EM

S A

ND

ST

AT

IST

ICS

• JU

VE

NIL

E J

US

TIC

E &

DE

LIN

QU

EN

CY

PR

EV

EN

TIO

N

e R

ES

EA

RC

H &

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N

• C

OM

MU

NIT

Y A

NT

I-C

RIM

E P

RO

GR

AM

S

PU

BL

IC S

AF

E I

Y O

FF

ICE

RS

' BE

NE

FIT

AC

T (P

SO

B)

46


CO

LL

AT

ER

AL

RE

SP

ON

SIB

ILIT

IES

• C

IVIL

RIG

HT

S C

OM

PL

IAN

CE

e P

RIS

ON

/JA

IL C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

GU

IDE

LIN

ES

• P

RIV

AC

Y A

ND

SE

CU

RIT

Y O

F C

RIM

INA

L J

US

TIC

E

INF

OR

MA

TIO

N A

ND

ST

AT

IST

ICS

SY

ST

EM

S

• N

AT

ION

AL

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

PO

LIC

Y C

OM

PL

IAN

CE

• JO

INT

FU

ND

ING

SIM

PL

IFIC

AT

ION

AC

T

e iN

TE

RG

OV

ER

NM

EN

TA

L C

OO

PE

RA

TiO

N A

CT

(A

-95

i

• S

UR

PL

US

PR

OP

ER

TY

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

• F

RE

ED

OM

OF

INF

OR

MA

TIO

N C

OM

PL

IAN

CE

I PL

US

23

OT

HE

R A

PP

LIC

AB

LE

AC

TS

I

47


INTE

RG

OV

ER

NM

EN

TAL

DE

LIV

ER

Y S

YS

TEM

PR

ESI

DE

NT

A

TIO

RN

EY

GE

NE

RA

L

--~J

' H

EA

DQ

UA

RT

ER

S

' 1

0 R

EG

ION

AL

OF

FIC

ES

' '

LE

G•L

A T

UR

ES

- -G

OV

ER

NO

RS

STA

TE

CO

UR

TS

• I '

1 Ir

,_ ... --

--.. -

... ._

.._

-

STA

TE P

UN

NIN

G

~

JUD

ICIA

L P

LA

NN

ING

A

GEN

CIE

S C

OM

MIT

IEE

S

1 •

'

REG

ION

AL

& L

OC

AL

STA

TE

PL

AN

NIN

G U

NIT

S A

GE

NC

IES

I I

I I

POL

ICE

A

DJU

DIC

AT

ION

C

OR

RE

CT

ION

S PO

LIC

E

AD

JUD

ICA

TIO

N

CO

RR

EC

TIO

NS

I LO

CA

L A

GE

NC

IES

I I

ST A

TE A

GE

NC

IES

I

48


!1!11 11 "! l'P 111 11r • 9 -9 " -9

11 ~ lfl

•· 111 11 : I

~ 11 --HI

u ~ 1•11

''

I •

1--t...._ ____...., __ ....., 11•11

........................ 1111 ~1111; I

15 f4 . E ..__ UH ' 111•1 11111 ~ ~

11~ ~ •n ~~ u 11'1 --f4' • . -HI '

I! f4 •• • ~ --,,~, -1'111 HI -• _t_ • ~ ---

IU ~ 1iHU [ ii IH i --~ -

0 I:.,, ~:a -tA 0 z 0 ..,, • • r-

t .... i )>

~ )> z c· .... i )> n -I

~ J> ~ m z c m c

49


50


PR

IOR

ITIE

S

• IN

CA

RC

ER

AT

E S

ER

IOU

S H

AB

ITU

AL

OF

FE

ND

ER

S

e IM

PR

OV

E C

OU

RT

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

AN

D R

ED

UC

E C

OU

RT

DE

LA

Y

• P

RE

VE

NT

.JU

VE

NIL

E D

EL

INQ

UE

NC

Y

• O

BT

AIN

BE

I I E

R C

RIM

INA

L .J

US

TIC

E S

TA

TIS

TIC

S

• U

PG

RA

DE

.JA

ILS

AN

D P

RIS

ON

S

• D

ISR

UP

T C

RIM

INA

L O

PE

RA

TIO

NS

(e.g

. ST

ING

) e

INT

ER

VE

NE

IN

CR

IMIN

AL

CA

RE

ER

S

e E

VA

LU

AT

E I

MP

AC

T O

F F

UN

DE

D P

RO

.JE

CT

S

e T

RA

IN &

ED

UC

AT

E C

RIM

INA

L .J

US

TIC

E P

ER

SO

NN

EL

• R

EP

LIC

AT

E S

UC

CE

SS

FU

L P

RO

.JE

CT

S

• E

VA

LU

AT

E T

RA

Dm

ON

AL

CR

IMIN

AL

JU

ST

ICE

PR

AC

TIC

ES

• IM

PR

OV

E S

T A

TE

/LO

CA

L A

NA

L V

SIS

& E

VA

LU

AT

ION

CA

PA

BIL

ITY

• P

RO

VID

E T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

SS

IST

AN

CE

•

EN

CO

UR

AG

E D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

OF

ST

AN

DA

RD

S &

GO

AL

S F

OR

C

RIM

INA

L J

US

TIC

E

51


OR

GA

NIZ

ED

CR

IME

PR

OG

RA

M

AN

NU

AL

BU

DG

ET

$7

.9 M

PU

RP

OS

E:

IMP

RO

VE

IN

VE

ST

IGA

TIV

E A

ND

PR

OS

EC

UT

OR

IAL

EF

FO

RT

S

TH

RO

UG

H O

PE

RA

TIO

NS

, T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

SS

IST

AN

CE

AN

D

TR

AIN

ING

.

TA

RG

ET

GR

OU

P:

OR

GA

NIZ

ED

CR

IMIN

AL

S A

ND

MA

.JO

H C

RIM

INA

L C

ON

SP

IRA

CIE

S

KE

Y F

EA

TU

RE

S:

e ID

EN

TIF

ICA

TIO

N O

F O

RG

AN

IZE

D C

RIM

INA

L A

CT

IVIT

Y T

O

INC

LU

DE

FE

NC

ING

, WH

ITE

CO

LL

AR

CR

IME

, C

OR

RU

PT

ION

.A

ND

CA

RG

O T

HE

FT

RE

SU

LT

S:

e IN

VE

ST

IGA

TIO

N,

PR

OS

EC

UT

ION

AN

D R

EM

OV

AL

OF

O

RG

AN

IZE

D C

RIM

INA

LS

e IN

TE

RG

OV

ER

NM

EN

TA

L C

OO

PE

RA

TIO

N A

MO

NG

LO

CA

L,

ST

AT

E A

ND

FE

DE

RA

L A

GE

NC

IES

e t2

4 M

RE

CO

VE

RE

D I

N S

TO

LE

N P

RO

PE

RT

Y -

($.5

M B

UY

MO

NE

Y)

e 70

% A

RR

ES

TE

D A

RE

CA

RE

ER

CR

IMIN

AL

S

e 3

59

CO

NV

ICT

ION

S F

RO

M 1

0 A

NT

I-F

EN

CIN

G P

RO

JEC

TS

-7

5%

GU

il T

Y P

LE

AS

52


OR

GA

NIZ

ED

CR

IME

PR

OG

RA

M R

ES

UL

TS

*

AJl

l11

.ffN

CS

tG -

CSl"J

CE

FY

74

) G

EN

ER

AL

-

(SIN

CE

FY

a)

MO

. OF

PR

OJE

CT

S

21

NO

. O

F P

RO

.JE

CTS

21

15

MO

. O

F A

NIE

SI S

I N

O. O

F I

NV

ES

TIG

AT

OR

S

1• C

HA

RG

ES

A

ND

PR

OS

EC

UT

OR

S T

RA

INE

D

• 24

Ml'

1 l(

)N

NO

. O

F S

TA

TE

OR

GA

NIZ

ED

12

R

EC

OV

ER

S•

CR

IME

PR

EV

EN

TIO

N C

OU

NC

ILS

~

11

% C

AR

EE

R C

lmll

NA

L

NO

. O

F M

AN

UA

LS

PR

OD

UC

ED

15

PR

OFI

LE

CO

NV

ICT

ION

S

-N

O.

OF

IN

VE

ST

IGA

TIO

NS

2

0,0

00

TY

PE

OF

CO

N-

11

% G

Uil

TY

PL

EA

S

NO

. O

F A

RR

ES

TS

8

,00

0

VIC

TIO

NS

SA

VIN

GS

S

IGN

IFIC

AN

T P

RO

SEC

UT

OR

IAL

N

O.

OF

CO

NV

ICT

ION

S

80

0

AN

D J

UD

ICIA

L R

ES

OU

RC

ES

* R

ESU

LT

S O

F P

HA

SE

ON

E O

F 1

0 P

RO

JEC

TS

53


OR

GA

NIZ

ED

CR

IME

PR

OG

RA

M R

ES

UL

TS

*

AN

T1-

FE

NC

ING

-C

•JC

E F

Y 7

41

GE

NE

RA

L

-(S

INC

E F

Y •I

NO

. O

F P

RO

JEC

TS

21

N

O.

OF

PR

O-J

EC

TS

-

1• N

O.O

F I

NV

ES

TIG

AT

OR

S

AN

D P

RO

SE

CU

TO

RS

TR

AIN

ED

ST

OL

EN

PR

OP

ER

TY

t2

4M

IWO

N

NO

. O

F S

TA

TE

OR

GA

NIZ

ED

12

R

EC

OV

ER

ED

C

RIM

E P

RE

VE

NT

ION

CO

UN

CIL

S

CR

IMIN

AL

11

% C

AR

EE

R C

RIM

INA

L

NO

. O

F M

AN

UA

LS

PR

OD

UC

ED

16

P

RO

RL

E

CO

NV

ICT

ION

S

-N

O.

OF

IN

VE

ST

IGA

TIO

NS

20

,000

TY

PE O

F C

ON

-71

% G

UIL

TY

PL

EA

S

NO

. O

F A

RR

ES

TS

1,

000

VIC

TIO

NS

SA

VIN

GS

ll

GN

IRC

AN

T P

RO

SE

CU

TO

RIA

L

NO

. O

F C

ON

VIC

TIO

NS

IO

O

AN

D J

UD

ICIA

L R

ES

OU

RC

ES

* RE

SUL

TS

OF

PH

AS

E O

NE

OF

10

PR

OJE

CT

S

54


OR

GA

NIZ

ED

CR

IME

PR

OG

RA

M R

ES

UL

TS

*

~ -

CSU

JCE

FY 7

4>

GE

NE

RA

L

-(S

INC

E F

Y a

)

llO

. O

F P

RO

JEC

TS

21

N

O.

OF

PR

O-J

EC

TS

21

15

NO

. O

F A

RR

ES

I SI

NO

. O

F I

NV

ES

TIG

AT

OR

S

1•

AN

D P

RO

SE

CU

TO

RS

TR

AIN

ED

t24

-.u

e>

N

NO

. O

F S

TA

TE

OR

GA

NIZ

ED

12

C

RIM

E P

RE

VE

NT

ION

CO

UN

CIL

S

~

~ C

AR

EE

R C

RIM

INA

L

NO

. O

F M

AN

UA

LS

PR

OD

UC

ED

15

PR

OFI

LE

CO

NV

ICT

ION

S

-N

O.

OF

IN

VE

ST

IGA

TIO

NS

20

,000

TY

P£

OF

CO

N-

~ G

Uil

TY

PL

EA

S

NO

. O

F A

RR

ES

TS

8

,00

0

VIC

TIO

NS

SA

VIN

GS

S

IGN

IFIC

AN

T P

RO

SE

CU

TO

RIA

L

NO

. O

F C

ON

VIC

TIO

NS

-

AM

> .J

UD

ICIA

L R

ES

OU

RC

ES

* R

ES

UL

TS

OF

PH

AS

E O

NE

OF

10

PR

O-I

EC

TS

55


PU

RP

OS

E:

TA

RG

ET

GR

OU

P:

KE

Y F

EA

TU

RE

S:

CA

RE

ER

CR

IMIN

AL

PR

OG

RA

M

TO

PR

OS

EC

UT

E R

EP

EA

T O

FF

EN

DE

RS

TH

E V

IOL

EN

T A

ND

RE

PE

AT

OF

FE

ND

ER

e ID

EN

TIR

CA

TIO

N:

AN

NU

AL

BU

DG

ET

$6

.8M

PR

OM

PT

SE

LE

CT

ION

OF

DE

FE

ND

AN

TS

DE

SE

RV

ING

O

F F

UL

L A

ND

BE

ST

AP

PL

ICA

TIO

N O

F P

RO

SE

CU

TO

RIA

L

RE

SO

UR

CE

S.

e P

RIO

RIT

Y:

PR

OS

EC

UT

ION

BY

EX

PE

RIE

NC

ED

PR

OS

EC

UT

OR

S W

ITH

A

PP

EA

RA

NC

ES

AT

EV

ER

Y S

TA

GE

OF

AD

JU

DIC

AT

OR

IAL

PR

OC

ES

S,

TH

RO

UG

H S

EN

TE

NC

ING

e R

ES

UL

TS

:

93.S

o/o

CO

NV

ICT

ION

RA

TE

, 19

.41

YE

AR

S A

VE

RA

GE

S

EN

TE

NC

E

56


CA

RE

ER

CR

IMIN

AL

PR

OG

RA

M

PR

OG

RA

M R

ES

UL

TS

-A

S O

F D

EC

. 13,

197

8

• 1

9 D

ISC

RE

TIO

NA

RY

FU

ND

ED

PR

OJE

CT

S

• 3,

445

DE

FE

ND

AN

T D

ISP

OS

ITIO

NS

• 3,

231

DE

FE

ND

AN

T C

ON

VIC

TIO

NS

e 93

.81 /

1 C

ON

VIC

TIO

N O

F D

ISP

OS

TIO

N

e 93

.21 /e

IN

CA

RC

ER

AT

ION

RA

TE

OF

DE

FE

ND

AN

TS

CO

NV

ICT

ED

e 19

.41

YE

AR

S A

VE

RA

GE

SE

NT

EN

CE

e 85

DA

YS

ME

DIA

N T

IME

FR

OM

AR

RE

ST

TO

SE

NT

EN

CE

e C

ON

VIC

TE

D D

EF

EN

DA

NT

S P

RIO

R C

RIM

INA

L R

EC

OR

D

-3

2,9

PR

IOR

AR

RE

ST

S

-A

VE

RA

GE

10

PER

DE

FEN

DA

NT

-

17, 1

10 P

RIO

R C

ON

VIC

TIO

NS

-

AV

ERA

GE&

.& P

ER

DE

FEN

DA

NT

• 44

.30/

o C

ON

VIC

TE

D D

EF

EN

DA

NT

'S S

TA

TU

S A

T T

IME

OF

A

RR

ES

T (R

EA

RR

ES

T)

i.e.

, ON

PR

OB

AT

ION

, PA

RO

LE

, P

RE

TR

IAL

RE

LEA

SE

OR

AN

ES

CA

PE

E.

57


ST

AN

DA

RD

S A

ND

GO

ALS

PU

RP

OS

E:

. T

O R

EC

OM

ME

ND

ST

AN

DA

RD

S F

OR

US

E B

Y S

TA

TE

S A

ND

LO

CA

Lm

ES

IN

CO

NT

RO

LL

ING

CR

IME

AN

D I

MP

RO

VIN

G T

HE

IR C

RIM

INA

L J

US

TIC

E

SY

ST

EM

S.

e R

EP

OR

TS

IS

SU

ED

:

PH

AS

E I

e N

AT

ION

AL

ST

RA

TE

GY

TO

RE

DU

CE

CR

IME

-PO

UC

E

-C

OU

R1

S

-C

OR

RE

CT

ION

S

-C

OM

MU

Nn

Y C

RIM

E P

RE

VE

NT

ION

-

CR

IMIN

AL

JU

ST

ICE

SY

ST

EM

PH

AS

E II

-O

RG

AN

IZE

D C

RIM

E

-D

ISO

RD

ER

S A

ND

T

ER

RO

RIS

M

-JU

VE

NIL

E J

US

TIC

E

-P

RIV

AC

Y &

SE

CU

RIT

Y

-R

ES

EA

RC

H A

ND

D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

e S

TA

TE

S E

NC

OU

RA

GE

D T

O· R

EV

IEW

AN

D A

DO

PT

OW

N S

TA

ND

AR

DS

58


PU

RP

OS

E:

ST

AN

DA

RD

S A

ND

GO

AL

S

(PH

AS

E I

)

TO

RE

CO

MM

EN

D S

TA

ND

AR

DS

FO

R U

SE

BY

ST

AT

ES

AN

D L

OC

AL

mE

S I

N

CO

NT

RO

LL

ING

CR

IME

AN

D I

MP

RO

VIN

G T

HE

IR C

RIM

INA

L .I

US

TIC

E S

YS

TE

MS

.

PH

AS

E I

e N

AT

ION

AL

AD

VIS

OR

Y C

OM

MIS

SIO

N E

ST

AB

LIS

HE

D I

N 1

971

e N

AT

ION

AL

AD

VIS

OR

Y C

OM

MIS

SIO

N A

DO

PT

S O

VE

R 5

00

SP

EC

IRC

R

EC

OM

ME

ND

AT

ION

S S

EI

llN

G P

ER

FO

RM

AN

CE

LE

VE

LS

FO

R O

PE

RA

TIO

N

OF

TH

E E

NT

IRE

CR

IMIN

AL

.JU

ST

ICE

SY

ST

EM

.

e S

IX-V

OL

UM

E R

EP

OR

T I

SS

UE

D I

N 1

973

-PO

UC

E

-C

OM

MU

NIT

Y C

RIM

E P

RE

VE

NT

ION

-C

OU

RT

S

-C

RIM

INA

L J

US

TIC

E S

YS

TE

M

-C

OR

RE

CT

ION

S

-N

AT

ION

AL

ST

RA

TE

GY

TO

RE

DU

CE

CR

IME

e 30

,000

CO

PIE

S D

IST

RIB

UT

ED

OR

SO

LD

(E

AC

H)

e S

TA

TE

S E

NC

OU

RA

GE

D T

O R

EV

IEW

AN

D A

DO

PT

OW

N S

TA

ND

AR

DS

e B

Y 1

978

AL

L S

TA

TE

S H

AD

ST

AN

DA

RD

S A

ND

GO~LS R

EV

IEW

EFF

OR

TS

AN

D 3

5 I

MP

LE

ME

NT

ING

ST

AN

DA

RD

S

e E

VA

LU

AT

ION

NO

W U

ND

ER

WA

Y

59


ST

AN

DA

RD

S A

ND

GO

AL

S (

PH

AS

E I

I)

e N

AT

ION

AL

AD

VIS

OR

Y C

OM

MIT

TE

E -

FO

RM

ED

IN

197

5

e C

HA

IRE

D B

Y G

OV

ER

NO

R B

RE

ND

AN

T.

BY

RN

E

e S

TA

ND

AR

DS

AD

OP

TE

D I

N:

-O

RG

AN

IZE

D C

RIM

E

-JU

VE

NIL

E J

US

TIC

E

-D

ISO

RD

ER

S A

ND

TE

RR

OR

ISM

-P

RIV

AC

Y S

EC

UR

ITY

-

RE

SE

AR

CH

AN

D D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

e O

RG

AN

IZE

D C

RIM

E A

ND

RE

SE

AR

CH

AN

D D

EV

EL

OPM

EN

T

VO

LU

ME

S N

OW

AV

AIL

AB

LE

e R

EM

AIN

ING

TH

RE

E A

VA

ILA

BL

E B

Y E

ND

Of

FEB

RU

AR

Y 1

977

60


AN

NU

AL

BU

DG

ET

$4

.&M

TR

EA

TM

EN

T A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

E T

O S

TR

EE

T C

RIM

E

(TA

SC

)

PU

RP

OS

E:

TO

RE

DU

CE

DR

UG

-RE

LA

TE

D C

RIM

E B

Y R

EF

ER

RIN

G

OF

FE

ND

ER

S I

NT

O T

RE

AT

ME

NT

TA

RG

ET

GR

OU

P:

DR

UG

AB

US

ING

CR

IMIN

AL

OF

FE

ND

ER

S

KE

Y F

EA

TU

RE

S:

• R

ED

UC

ES

PR

OC

ES

SIN

G B

UR

DE

NS

• IM

PR

OV

ES

CO

OP

ER

AT

ION

BE

TW

EE

N C

RIM

INA

L

JUS

TIC

E A

ND

TR

EA

TM

EN

T S

YS

TE

MS

• R

ED

UC

ES

SP

RE

AD

OF

DR

UG

AB

US

E

RE

SU

LTS

: e

72%

OF

28,

500

CL

IEN

TS

SU

CC

ES

SF

UL

LY

CO

MP

LE

TE

D

PR

OG

RA

M

e O

NL

Y 1

1o/o

RE

AR

RE

ST

ED

---

2%

CO

NV

ICT

ED

61


TR

EA

TM

EN

T A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

TO

ST

RE

ET

CR

IME

(T

AS

C)

PR

OG

RA

M R

ES

UL

TS

AS

OF

JA

NU

AR

Y 1

, 1

97

7

CL

IEN

TS

EN

TE

RIN

G T

AS

C:

e 3

9 P

RO

JE

CT

S

• 2

8,5

00

CL

IEN

TS

FO

RM

AL

LY

RE

FE

RR

ED

TO

AN

D/O

R

OF

RC

IAL

L Y

AD

MI I

I E

D T

O P

RO

.IE

CT

S

e 5

, 10

0 C

LIE

NT

S A

CT

IVE

TO

DA

Y

e 2

8%

OF

CL

IEN

TS

DR

OP

PE

D O

UT

OR

FA

ILE

D T

AS

C

RE

QU

IRE

ME

NT

S

e 1

1%

OF

CL

IEN

TS

RE

AR

RE

ST

ED

WH

ILE

IN

PR

OG

RA

M,

2%

CO

NV

ICT

ED

e 4,

900

CL

IEN

TS

SU

CC

ES

SF

UL

LY

CO

MP

LE

TE

D T

AS

C

PR

OG

RA

M R

EQ

UIR

EM

EN

TS

62


CO

UR

T I

MP

RO

VE

ME

NT

IN

ITIA

TIV

ES

PU

RP

OS

E:

TO

IM

PR

OV

E C

OU

RT

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

TA

RG

ET

GR

OU

PS

: S

TA

TE

CO

UR

TS

, T

RIA

L C

OU

RT

S

FY 7

7

BU

DG

ET

t12

M

KE

Y F

EA

TU

RE

S:

e T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

SS

IST

AN

CE

TO

JU

DG

ES

, PR

OS

EC

UT

OR

S,

CO

UR

T

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TO

RS

e IN

TR

OD

UC

TIO

N O

F A

DV

AN

CE

D P

LA

NN

ING

TE

CH

NIQ

UE

S

e R

ED

UC

E P

RE

-TR

IAL

DE

LA

Y

e A

CQ

UIR

E D

AT

A O

N C

AS

EL

OA

D,

PR

OC

ES

SIN

G T

IME

S

RE

SU

LTS

: e

44 S

T A

TE

S D

OIN

G L

ON

G-R

AN

GE

PL

AN

NIN

G

e U

NIR

ED

CO

UR

T S

YS

TE

MS

DO

UB

LE

D

e S

UP

PO

RT

FO

R:

-N

AT

ION

AL

CE

NT

ER

FO

R S

TA

TE

CO

UR

TS

-

NA

TIO

NA

L C

EN

TE

R F

OR

DE

FE

NS

E M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

-N

AT

ION

AL

AS

SO

CIA

TIO

N O

F A

TT

OR

NE

YS

GE

NE

RA

L -

INS

T"U

TE

FO

R C

OU

RT

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

63


AD

JUD

ICA

TIO

N T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

SS

IST

AN

CE

P

RO

GR

AM

RE

SU

LTS

S

UM

MA

RY

DA

TA

1.

TR

AIN

ING

• P

RO

SE

CU

TO

RS

-1,

500

e D

EF

EN

SE

CO

UN

SE

L -

1,00

0

e A

PP

EL

LA

TE

JU

DG

ES

-24

0

e O

TH

ER

JU

DG

ES

-8,

000

e T

RIA

L A

DV

OC

AT

ES

-30

0

e P

RE

TR

IAL

AG

EN

CY

P

ER

SO

NN

EL

-35

0

• C

OU

RT

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TO

RS

-22

0

2.

TE

CH

NIC

AL

AS

SIS

TA

NC

E S

TU

DIE

S C

OM

PL

E I

ED

e D

EF

EN

SE

-30

e

PR

OS

EC

UT

ION

-80

e

CO

UR

TS

-90

3.

OT

HE

R R

ES

UL

TS

• P

RE

-AP

PE

AL

SE

11 L

EM

EN

T C

ON

FE

RE

NC

ES

IN S

T A

TE

CO

UR

T

e IM

PR

OV

ED

CO

UR

T M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

e S

CR

EE

NIN

G S

TA

FF

FO

R S

TA

TE

AP

PE

LL

AT

E C

OU

RT

S

e 50

JU

RIS

DIC

TIO

NS

US

ING

TH

E P

RO

SE

CU

TO

RS

M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

SY

ST

EM

(P

RO

MIS

)

64


PR

ET

RIA

L D

EL

AY

RE

DU

CT

ION

(N

EW

PR

OG

RA

M)

PU

RP

OS

E:

RE

DU

CE

PR

ET

RIA

L D

ELA

Y

TA

RG

ET

GR

OU

P:

TR

IAL

CO

UR

TS

KE

Y F

EA

TU

RE

S:

1. A

CC

UR

AT

EL

YA

SS

ES

SS

TA

TE

OF

DE

LA

YT

HR

OU

GH

OU

T

CO

UN

TR

Y

2. A

CC

UM

UL

AT

E IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

ON

, AL

L P

RO

GR

AM

S A

ND

T

EC

HN

IQU

ES

US

ED

AR

OU

ND

TH

E C

OU

NT

RY

TO

RE

DU

CE

P

RE

I R

IAL

DE

LAY

3.

BE

GIN

INT

EN

SIV

E A

PP

LIC

AT

ION

OF

BE

ST

KN

OW

ME

TH

OD

S

IN S

IX T

ES

T J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S.

4. B

EG

IN J

UR

IST

ICT

ION

-WID

E T

ES

TS

OF

8-1

0 N

EW

.A

PP

RO

AC

HE

S T

O D

EL

AY

-RE

DU

CT

ION

&. C

ON

TIN

UO

US

PR

OG

RA

M O

VE

RS

IGH

T B

Y L

EA

A C

OU

RT

S

WO

RK

ING

GR

OU

PS

(RE

SE

AR

CH

, ST

AT

IST

ICS

, AC

TIO

N,

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

DIV

ISIO

N R

EP

RE

SE

NT

AT

IVE

S)

I. N

AT

ION

-WID

E J

UD

ICIA

L S

TA

TIS

TIC

S P

RO

GR

AM

INIT

IAT

ED

7. S

TA

TE

SP

EE

DY

TR

IAL

AN

AL

YS

IS A

ND

RE

CO

MM

EN

DA

TIO

NS

OB

JEC

TIV

E:

TO

RE

DU

CE

TIM

E F

RO

M A

RR

ES

T T

O T

RIA

L T

O 8

0 D

A V

S I

N

18 T

RIA

L C

OU

RT

S.

65


PR

OS

EC

UT

OR

'S M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

INF

OR

MA

TIO

N S

YS

TE

M (

PR

OM

IS)

AN

NU

AL

BU

DG

ET

$.S

M

PU

RP

OS

E:

TO

AP

PL

Y A

DV

AN

CE

D B

US

INE

SS

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

TO

P

RO

SE

CU

TO

R C

OU

RT

SC

HE

DU

LIN

G A

ND

CA

SE

HA

ND

LIN

G.

TA

RG

ET

GR

OU

P:

PR

OS

EC

UT

OR

S A

ND

CO

UR

TS

KE

Y F

EA

TU

RE

S:

e C

ON

TR

OL

OF

SC

HE

DU

LIN

G A

ND

AL

LO

TM

EN

T O

F

PR

OS

EC

UT

ION

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

e T

IME

LY

AC

CE

SS

TO

CA

SE

ST

A T

US

INF

OR

MA

TIO

N

e A

NA

LY

SIS

OF

PR

OB

LE

MS

AS

SO

CIA

TE

D W

ITH

P

RO

SE

CU

TIO

N/C

OU

RT

AC

TIV

ITIE

S A

ND

PR

OC

ED

UR

ES

e C

OLL

EC

TIO

N O

F D

AT

A C

ON

CE

RN

ING

AC

CU

SE

D P

ER

SO

NS

, C

RIM

E, A

RR

ES

TS

, WIT

NE

SS

ES

e 25

% I

NC

RE

AS

E I

N C

ON

VIC

TIO

N R

AT

ES

, TIM

E C

UT

50%

e O

PE

RA

TIO

NA

L O

R P

LA

NN

ED

IN

JU

RIS

DIC

TIO

NS

CO

VE

RIN

G

21%

OF

NA

TIO

N

66


PR

OM

IS

PR

OG

RA

M R

ES

ULT

S:

• P

RO

MIS

OP

ER

AT

ION

AL

OR

PL

AN

NE

D IN

JU

RIS

DIC

TIO

NS

C

OM

PR

ISIN

G 2

1°/o

OF

TH

E U

.S. P

OP

UL

AT

ION

• 25

°/o

INC

RE

AS

E IN

CO

NV

ICT

ION

RA

TE

IN

SE

RIO

US

CA

SE

S

• T

IME

LA

G B

EF

OR

E IN

DIC

TM

EN

T C

UT

50°

/o

• P

RO

MP

T ID

EN

TIF

ICA

TIO

N O

F O

FF

EN

DE

RS

WIT

H O

TH

ER

C

AS

ES

PE

ND

ING

e D

EF

ICIE

NC

IES

IN C

AS

E D

OC

UM

EN

TA

TIO

N A

ND

P

RO

SE

CU

TIO

N S

KIL

LS

IDE

NT

IFIE

D T

HR

OU

GH

PR

OM

IS

• U

NIF

OR

MIT

Y O

F S

TA

TIS

TIC

S E

ST

AB

LIS

HE

D A

MO

NG

P

RO

MIS

US

ER

S F

OR

CR

OS

S J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

AL

AN

AL

YS

IS

• P

RO

MIS

US

ER

GR

OU

P:

FO

RU

M F

OR

IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

E

XC

HA

NG

E.

67


CO

RR

EC

TIO

NS

FY 7

7 B

UD

GE

T

$1

0.S

M

PU

RP

OS

E:

TO

PR

OV

IDE

FO

R M

OR

E E

FF

EC

TIV

E C

OR

RE

CT

ION

AL

S

YS

TE

MS

TA

RG

ET

GR

OU

P:

ST

AT

E A

ND

LO

CA

L C

OR

RE

CT

ION

AL

AG

EN

CIE

S I

NC

LU

DIN

G

JAIL

S,

INS

TIT

UT

ION

S,

PR

OB

AT

ION

. AN

D P

AR

OL

E

KE

Y F

EA

TU

RE

S:

PR

OV

IDE

S S

UP

PO

RT

FO

R:

1.

STA

TE

-WID

E C

OR

RE

CT

ION

S M

AS

TE

RP

LA

NN

ING

2.

CO

RR

EC

TIO

NA

L O

fflC

ER

TR

AIN

ING

3. M

ED

ICA

L C

AR

E/H

EA

L T

H S

ER

VIC

ES

DE

LIV

ER

Y S

YS

TE

MS

4. E

XP

ER

IME

NT

S IN

RE

ST

ITU

TIO

N

&.

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

S IN

PR

OB

AT

ION

AN

D P

AR

OL

E S

ER

VIC

ES

I . .

JAIL

PR

OG

RA

MS

(AL

TE

RN

AT

IVE

S, D

IVE

RS

ION

, AN

D

ME

DIC

AL

SE

RV

ICE

S)

1.

CO

RR

EC

TIO

NA

LS

TA

ND

AR

DS

8.

TE

CH

NIC

AL

AS

SIS

TA

NC

E N

AT

ION

WID

E

68


CO

RR

EC

TIO

NS

P

RO

GR

AM

RE

SU

LT

S F

Y 1

977

21 P

RO

JEC

TS

OP

ER

AT

ION

AL

11 P

RO

JEC

TS

PIA

NN

ED

46 T

OT

AL

PR

OJE

CT

S F

OR

FY

197

7

•TE

CH

NIC

AL

AS

SIS

TA

NC

E:

•21

1 R

ES

PO

NS

ES

IN F

Y 7

1 T

O R

EQ

UE

ST

S F

OR

T .A

.

•AR

EA

S•

WH

ICH

T.A

. WA

S P

RO

VID

ED

:

1. E

VA

LU

AT

ION

AN

D R

ESE

AR

CH

2.

PR

OG

RA

M D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T

C,

CL

IEN

T S

ER

VIC

ES

•ME

DIC

AL

SE

RV

ICE

S

6. P

AR

T E

CO

MP

LIA

NC

E R

EV

IEW

S B

Y T

HE

N

AT

ION

AL

Cl E

AR

ING

HO

USE

FO

R

CR

IMIN

AL

JU

Bn

CE

Pl.

AN

NIN

G

AN

D A

RC

Hn

EC

TU

RE

•PR

OM

UL

GA

TIO

N O

F N

AT

ION

AL

TR

AIN

ING

DE

SIG

N

•SIT

E T

ES

TIN

G O

F M

ED

ICA

L S

ER

VIC

ES

DE

SIG

N I

N 5

ST

A T

ES

•PR

ISO

N IN

DU

ST

RIE

S

e N

AT

ION

AL

TE

CH

NIC

AL

AS

SIS

TA

NC

E P

RO

VID

ED

IN 3

ST

A T

ES

• sm

TES

TIN

G O

F M

OD

EL

IN

3 S

TA

TE

S

69


LA

W E

NF

OR

CE

ME

NT

ED

UC

AT

ION

PR

OG

RA

M

(LE

EP

) A

NN

UA

L B

UD

GE

T

PU

RP

OS

E:

UP

GR

AD

E E

DU

CA

TIO

NA

L A

CH

IEV

EM

EN

TS

OF

C

RIM

INA

L .J

US

TIC

E S

YS

TE

M P

ER

SO

NN

EL

MO

M

TA

RG

ET

GR

OU

P:

PE

RS

ON

NE

L E

MP

LO

YE

D B

Y O

R S

EE

KIN

G C

AR

EE

RS

IN

CR

IMIN

AL

.JU

ST

ICE

AG

EN

CIE

S

KE

Y F

EA

TU

RE

S:

e P

RO

VID

E G

RA

NT

S A

ND

LO

AN

S T

O I

ND

IVID

UA

LS

e E

XP

AN

D C

RIM

INA

L .J

US

TIC

E E

DU

CA

TIO

N

OP

PO

RT

UN

mE

S

e U

PG

RA

DE

QU

AL

ITY

OF

CU

RR

ICU

LU

M

70


CU

RR

EN

T Y

EA

R

PA

llll

CF

AT

ma I

Ull

lUll

ON

S

PO

LIC

E

CO

RR

EC

TIO

NS

OT

HE

R

PR

E..

sER

VIC

E

LE

EP

1.91

4

•.-O

CT

OT

AU

,._

..

(71

.4%

)

....

(1..1

%)

11,IO

O

(12

%)

4,20

0 (4

.2%

1

1,-

(7.1

%)

CU

MU

LA

TIV

E A

CT

IVIT

Y

RJN

DIN

G 1

-.1

17

7

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

t221

MIL

LIO

N

27

3 ...

DE

GR

EE

OB

JEC

TIV

ES

2-Y

EA

R C

AA

OR

CE

RT

IRC

AT

E)

4-Y

EA

R (

BA

CH

EL

OR

OF

AR

TS

)

GR

AD

UA

TE

LE

VE

L

(MA

, PhD

)

14

0,0

00

17,0

00

31,0

00

71


SY

ST

EM

S A

ND

ST

AT

IST

ICS

lsY

STEi

is]

• S

T A

TE

JU

DIC

IAL

IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

SY

ST

EM

(S

JIS

)

e P

RO

SE

CU

TO

R'S

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

SY

ST

EM

(P

RO

MIS

)

• O

FF

EN

DE

R B

AS

ED

ST

AT

E C

OR

RE

CT

ION

AL

IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

SY

ST

EM

(O

BS

CIS

)

e N

AT

ION

AL

LA

W E

NF

OR

CE

ME

NT

TE

LE

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

C

NA

LEC

OM

)

e A

PC

O P

RO

JEC

T 1

3 A

ND

13A

-C

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

S P

LA

NN

ING

AN

D T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

SS

IST

AN

CE

I ST

AT

IST

ICS

]

e N

AT

ION

AL

CR

IME

PA

NE

L V

ICT

IMIZ

AT

ION

SU

RV

EY

e C

OM

PR

EH

EN

SIV

E D

AT

A S

YS

TE

MS

e E

MP

LO

YM

EN

T A

ND

EX

PEN

DIT

UR

E S

UR

VE

Y

e S

OU

RC

EB

OO

K O

F C

RIM

INA

L J

US

TIC

E S

TA

TIS

TIC

S

-PA

RO

LE

-

FAC

ILIT

IES

-PR

ISO

NE

RS

-C

OU

RT

e N

AT

ION

AL

CR

IMIN

AL

JU

ST

ICE

DA

TA

AR

CH

IVE

NE

TW

OR

K

72


CO

MP

RE

HE

NS

IVE

DA

TA

SY

ST

EM

S

(CD

S)

FY n

BU

DG

ET

$1

3M

PU

RP

OS

E:

TO

ES

TA

BL

ISH

OR

EN

HA

NC

E S

TA

TE

LE

VE

L C

RIM

INA

L J

US

TIC

E

···----

-.. ---·

.. -·--

.. --·~--~ ....

..........

... .,..

1rt

1ru

n1

11

A I

IUN

AN

U ~I A··~··~ \

,ArA

DIL

I I

IC

.,.

TA

RG

ET

GR

OU

P:

SO S

T A

TE

S, T

HE

DIS

TR

ICT

OF

CO

LU

MB

IA A

ND

PU

ER

TO

RIC

O

KE

Y F

EA

TU

RE

S:

• R

EQ

UIR

E A

ST

AT

E D

AT

A S

YS

TE

M A

CT

ION

PL

AN

--

• E

ST

A B

LIS

H S

T A

TE

ST

AT

IST

ICA

L A

NA

LY

SIS

CE

NT

ER

S (

SA

Cs)

.,

e S

T A

TE

LE

VE

L R

ES

PO

NS

IBIL

ITY

FO

R U

NIF

OR

M C

RIM

E

RE

PO

RT

S (

UC

Rs)

• C

OM

PU

TE

RIZ

ED

CR

IMIN

AL

HIS

TO

RIE

S (C

CH

)

•OF

FE

ND

ER

BA

SE

D T

RA

NS

AC

TIO

N S

TA

TIS

TIC

S (O

BT

S)

e B

EIN

G I

MP

LE

ME

NT

ED

IN

49

ST

AT

ES

73


CO

MP

RE

HE

NS

IVE

DA

TA

SY

ST

EM

S

(CD

S)

PR

OG

RA

M R

ES

ULT

S:

• 4

9 S

TA

TE

S A

RE

IMP

LE

ME

NT

ING

OR

PR

EP

AR

ING

TO

IM

PL

EM

EN

T A

CD

S P

RO

GR

AM

• 38

ST

A TE

S H

AV

E E

ST

AB

LIS

HE

D S

TA

TIS

TIC

AL

AN

AL

YS

IS

CE

NT

ER

S

• IM

PR

OV

ED

AN

AL

YT

ICA

L IN

PU

T T

O S

T A

TE

CO

MP

RE

HE

NS

IVE

P

LA

NS

TH

RO

UG

H S

AC

's

• 35

ST

AT

ES

RE

PO

RT

ING

TO

FB

l's U

NIF

OR

M C

RIM

E R

EP

OR

TS

~ 3

0 O

FF

EN

DE

R B

AS

ED

TR

AN

SA

CT

ION

ST

AT

IST

ICS

/ C

OM

PU

TE

RIZ

ED

CR

IMIN

AL

HIS

TO

RY

SY

ST

EM

S U

ND

ER

D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

.

74


VIC

TIM

IZA

TIO

N S

UR

VE

YS

P

UR

PO

SE

:

FY

77

BU

DG

ET

$6

.7 M

TO

OB

TA

IN I

NF

OR

MA

TIO

N C

ON

CE

RN

ING

BO

TH

RE

PO

RT

ED

AN

D

UN

RE

PO

RT

ED

CR

IMIN

AL

VIC

TIM

IZA

TIO

N.

KE

Y F

EA

TU

RE

S:

• S

HO

WS

CH

AN

GE

S I

N R

AT

ES

OF

VIC

TIM

IZA

TIO

N O

VE

R T

IME

. e

CO

NT

INU

OU

S S

UR

VE

YS

IN

28

AM

ER

ICA

N C

ITIE

S I

NV

OL

VIN

G

INT

ER

VIE

WS

WIT

H 8

5,0

00

HO

US

EH

OL

DS

, 1

35

,00

0 P

ER

SO

NS

A

ND

15

,00

0 B

US

INE

SS

ES

EV

ER

Y S

IX M

ON

TH

S.

e C

RIM

ES

ME

AS

UR

ED

: R

AP

E, R

OB

BE

RY

, AS

SA

UL

T, B

UR

GL

AR

Y, P

ER

SO

NA

L

AN

D H

OU

SE

HO

LD

LA

RC

EN

Y, M

OT

OR

VE

HIC

LE

TH

EF

T, C

OM

ME

RC

IAL

B

UR

GL

AR

Y A

ND

RO

BB

ER

Y.

• S

UR

VE

Y O

F A

TT

ITU

TE

S:

FE

AR

OF

CR

IME

; CH

AN

GE

S IN

LIF

EST

YL

E A

S A

R

ES

UL

T O

F V

ICT

IMIZ

AT

ION

; OP

INIO

NS

AB

OU

T P

OL

ICE

EF

FE

CT

IVE

NE

SS

.

75


VIC

TIM

IZA

TIO

N

PR

OG

RA

M R

ES

ULT

S

• A

NN

UA

L S

UR

VE

YS

CO

ND

UC

TE

D S

INC

E J

UL

Y 1

972

e. N

INE

PU

BU

CA

TIO

NS

ON

FIN

DIN

GS

WIT

H T

HIR

TY

RE

PO

RT

S

SC

HE

DU

LE

D F

OR

PU

BL

ICA

TIO

N IN

FY

Tl

• S

EL

EC

TE

D R

ND

ING

S IN

CL

UD

E:

• N

O S

IGN

IFIC

AN

T C

HA

NG

E O

CC

UR

RE

D IN

RA

TE

S F

OR

CR

IME

S

ME

AS

UR

ED

BE

TW

EE

N 1

974

AN

D 1

97&

• A

S M

AN

Y A

S O

NE

-HA

LF

TO

TW

O-T

HIR

DS

OF

VIC

TIM

IZA

TIO

NS

A

RE

NO

T R

EP

OR

TE

D T

O P

OL

ICE

• C

OM

ME

RC

IAL

CR

IME

S A

RE

US

UA

LL

Y R

EP

OR

TE

D

• F

EA

R O

F C

RIM

E I

S G

RE

AT

ES

T A

MO

NG

PE

OP

LE

WH

O H

AV

E

TH

E L

EA

ST

CH

AN

CE

OF

BE

ING

VIC

TIM

IZE

D.

76


RE

SE

AR

CH

N

AT

ION

AL

INS

TIT

UT

E O

F L

AW

EN

FO

RC

EM

EN

T

AN

D C

RIM

INA

L J

US

TIC

E

FU

NC

11

0N

S:

• D

ES

IGN

AN

D S

PO

NS

OR

RE

SE

AR

CH

e E

VA

LU

AT

E C

RIM

INA

L J

US

TIC

E P

RO

GR

AM

S

e P

RO

MO

TE

AD

OP

TIO

N O

F P

RO

VE

N T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y A

ND

SU

CC

ES

SF

UL

P

RA

CT

ICE

S

e D

ISS

EM

INA

TE

INF

OR

MA

TIO

N T

O C

RIM

INA

L J

US

TIC

E C

OM

MU

NIT

Y

MA

JO

R R

ES

EA

RC

H A

RE

AS

: e

JUR

Y O

PE

RA

TIO

NS

e S

EN

TE

NC

ING

GU

IDE

LIN

ES

e P

OL

ICE

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E M

EA

SU

RE

S

e L

IGH

TW

EIG

HT

BO

DY

AR

MO

R

e C

RIM

E P

RE

VE

NT

ION

TH

RO

UG

H E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L D

ES

IGN

e C

RIM

INA

L I

NV

ES

TIG

AT

ION

S

e P

OL

ICE

RE

SP

ON

SE

TIM

E

77


KEY

RE

SE

AR

CH

RE

SU

LTS

.I

UR

Y O

PE

RA

TIO

NS

: •

.JU

RY

PO

OL

S C

AN

BE

CU

T 2

0 to

251

/o W

HIL

E S

TIL

L M

AIN

TA

ININ

G A

DE

QU

AT

E

TR

IAL

CO

VE

RA

GE

.

• N

AT

ION

WID

E, S

AV

ING

S C

OU

LD

TO

TA

L t&

O M

IWO

N A

NN

UA

LL

Y

• S

OM

E C

OU

RT

S A

LR

EA

DY

US

ING

TH

E N

EW

ME

TH

OD

S, W

ITH

NE

W Y

OR

K

CO

UN

TY

RE

PO

RT

ING

$1.

2 M

IWO

N A

NN

UA

L S

AV

ING

S

• .J

UR

Y R

E·F

OR

M P

RO

GR

AM

S B

EG

INN

ING

IN

18

CO

UR

T S

YS

TE

MS

WIT

H

INS

TIT

UT

E R

JND

ING

.

PO

LIC

E R

ES

PO

NS

E T

IME

: e

CIT

IZE

NS

FA

IL T

O R

EP

OR

T M

OS

T C

RIM

ES

IMM

ED

IAT

EL

Y

• R

EP

OR

TIN

G D

EL

AY

S D

IMIN

ISH

IM

PA

CT

OF

RA

PID

PO

LIC

E R

ES

PO

NS

E T

IME

e R

ND

ING

S H

A V

E I

MP

LIC

AT

ION

S F

OR

MA

NP

OW

ER

AL

LO

CA

TIO

N,

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

, AN

D C

RIM

E R

EP

OR

TIN

G P

AlT

ER

NS

.

CR

IMIN

AL

INV

ES

TIG

AT

ION

S:

e V

ICT

IM/W

ITN

ES

S K

EY

TO

SO

LV

ING

MO

ST

CR

IME

S

e IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

FR

OM

CR

IME

SC

EN

E M

OR

E I

MP

OR

TA

NT

TH

AT

••L

EA

DS

..

DE

VE

LO

PE

D L

AT

ER

ON

e S

CR

EE

NIN

G P

RO

CE

DU

RE

S D

EV

EL

OP

ED

TO

HE

LP

PO

LIC

E D

EC

IDE

WH

ET

HE

R

CA

SE

CA

N B

E P

RO

DU

CT

IVE

LY

PU

RS

UE

D

• IM

PR

OV

ED

IN

VE

ST

IGA

TIV

E P

RO

CE

DU

RE

S T

O B

E T

ES

TE

D IN

FIV

E

JUR

ISD

ICT

ION

S.

78


KE

Y R

ES

EA

RC

H R

ES

UL

TS

L

IGH

TW

EIG

HT

BO

DY

AR

MO

R·

•IN

•

· C

ON

SP

ICU

OU

S, C

AN

BE

WO

RN

RO

UT

INE

LY

•

FIE

LD

TE

ST

ED

IN 1

5 M

A.J

OR

Cm

Es

e C

RE

DIT

ED

WIT

H S

AV

ING

TH

E L

IVE

S O

F 3

OFF

ICE

RS

AN

D

AN

D P

RE

VE

NT

ING

SE

RIO

US

IN.J

UR

Y T

O A

NO

TH

ER

10

SE

NT

EN

CIN

G G

UID

EL

INE

S:

• D

ES

IGN

ED

TO

RE

DU

CE

DIS

PA

RIT

Y W

ITH

IN A

.JU

RIS

DIC

TIO

N

• G

UID

EL

INE

SE

NT

EN

CE

S C

OV

ER

E

PE

RC

EN

T O

F C

AS

ES

•

DE

NV

ER

NO

W U

SIN

G G

UID

EL

INE

SY

ST

EM

• G

UID

EL

INE

S B

EIN

G D

EV

EL

OPE

D IN

CH

ICA

GO

, NE

WA

RK

A

ND

PH

OE

NIX

PO

LIC

E P

ER

FO

RM

AN

CE

ME

AS

UR

ES

: e

AR

RE

ST

DA

TA

AN

D R

EP

OR

TE

D C

RIM

E F

IGU

RE

S

INA

DE

QU

AT

E M

EA

SU

RE

S

e N

EW

SY

ST

EM

US

ES

A V

AR

IET

Y O

F ..

IND

ICA

TO

RS

.. T

O

AS

SE

SS

A D

EP

AR

TM

EN

T'S

PR

OD

UC

TIV

ITY

e S

OU

ND

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E E

VA

LU

AT

ION

ME

TH

OD

S IN

CR

EA

SIN

GL

Y

CR

UC

IAL

IN L

IGH

T O

F B

UD

GE

T A

RY

PR

ES

SU

RE

S

e T

ES

TIN

G T

O B

EG

IN S

OO

N I

N F

OU

R C

ITIE

S.

79


EV

AL

UA

TIO

N R

ES

UL

TS

e E

VA

LU

AT

E I

MP

AC

T O

F N

EW

LA

WS

AN

D P

RA

CT

ICE

S S

UC

H A

S S

TA

TE

SPE

ED

Y

TR

IAL

LE

GIS

LA

TIO

N, M

AS

SA

CH

US

E 11

S G

UN

LA

W, N

EW

YO

RK

DR

UG

LA

W

AN

D C

LO

SIN

G O

F S

EC

UR

E F

AC

ILIT

IES

FO

R -J

UV

EN

ILE

OF

FE

ND

ER

S

• E

VA

LU

AT

E W

IDE

LY

-US

ED

CR

IMIN

AL

-JU

ST

ICE

PR

AC

TIC

ES

:

Z7

PR

OG

RA

MS

EV

AL

UA

TE

D T

O D

AT

E, R

AN

GIN

G F

RO

llll J

UV

EN

ILE

DN

ER

SIO

N

TO

PR

EV

EN

TA

nvE

PA

TR

OL

TO

ST

RE

ET

UG

HT

ING

SO

ME

RN

DIN

GS

INC

LU

DE

:

PR

OP

ER

TY

-MA

RK

ING

PR

OJE

CT

S R

ED

UC

E B

UR

GL

AR

Y R

AT

ES

FO

R

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

, BU

T C

OM

MU

NIT

Y-W

IDE

RA

TE

S M

AY

BE

UN

AFF

EC

TE

D

AL

AR

M S

YS

TE

MS

LIN

KE

D D

IRE

CT

LY

TO

PO

LIC

E E

FFE

CT

IVE

IN

RE

DU

CIN

G

CO

MM

ER

CIA

L R

OB

BE

RIE

S

DR

UG

AB

US

ER

S IN

TA

SC

PR

OG

RA

MS

SH

OW

LO

W R

EA

RR

ES

T R

AT

ES

WH

ILE

IN

PR

OG

RA

M,

BU

T F

OL

LO

W-U

P S

TU

DIE

S N

EE

D T

O M

EA

SU

RE

LO

NG

TE

RM

P

RO

GR

ES

S

e IN

TO

TA

L, O

VE

R 1

00 P

OL

ICY

RE

LEV

AN

T E

VA

LU

AT

ION

S A

ND

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

S

HA

VE

BE

EN

CO

ND

UC

TE

D T

O D

AT

E.

80


AN

NU

AL

BU

DG

ET

$7

5M

O

FF

ICE

OF

JU

VE

NIL

E J

US

TIC

E A

ND

D

EL

INQ

UE

NC

Y P

RE

VE

NT

ION

.J

UV

EN

ILE

.JU

ST

ICE

AN

D D

EL

INQ

UE

NC

Y P

RE

VE

NT

ION

AC

T 1

974

(PU

B. 1

. 93

-415

)

PR

OG

RA

M O

PE

RA

TIO

NS

SP

EC

IAL

EM

PH

AS

IS:

DIS

CR

ET

ION

AR

Y G

RA

NT

S F

OR

IM

PLE

ME

NT

ING

A

ND

TE

ST

ING

DE

MO

NS

TR

AT

ION

PR

OG

RA

MS

FO

RM

UL

A G

RA

NT

S A

ND

TE

CH

NIC

AL

A

SS

IST

AN

CE

: P

RO

VID

E F

INA

NC

IAL

AN

D T

EC

HN

ICA

L

AS

SIS

TA

NC

E T

O S

TA

TE

AN

D L

OC

AL

A

GE

NC

IES

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

OF

FE

DE

RA

L E

FF

OR

T:

DE

VE

LO

P 0

8.J

EC

TIV

ES

AN

D P

RIO

Rm

ES

TO

C

OO

RD

INA

TE

All

FE

DE

RA

L P

OU

CIE

S A

ND

P

RO

GR

AM

S R

EL

AT

ED

TO

.JU

VE

NIL

E

DE

LIN

QU

EN

CY

NA

TIO

NA

L IN

ST

ITU

TE

(.

l.D

. R

ES

EA

RC

H)

ST

AT

IST

ICS

AN

D D

AT

A B

AS

E:

ES

TA

BL

ISH

INFO

RM

AT

ION

CL

EA

RIN

GH

OU

SE

TR

AIN

ING

: PR

OV

IDE

TR

AIN

ING

PR

OG

RA

MS

FO

R

JUV

EN

ILE

JU

ST

ICE

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

LS

AN

D

OT

HE

R P

RA

C 11

1 IO

NE

RS

ST

AN

DA

RD

S:

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T O

F C

OM

PR

EH

EN

SIV

E

ST

AN

DA

RD

S F

OR

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIO

N O

F

JUV

EN

ILE

JU

ST

ICE

RE

SE

AR

CH

AN

D E

VA

LU

AT

ION

: E

ST

AB

LIS

H C

EN

TR

AL

IZE

D R

ES

EA

RC

H E

FF

OR

T

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F F

ED

ER

AL

AN

D S

TA

TE

J.J

. PR

OG

RA

MS

81


~ O

FF

ICE

OF

JU

VE

NIL

E J

US

TIC

E A

ND

A

ND

DE

LIN

QU

EN

CY

PR

EV

EN

TIO

N

PR

OG

RA

M O

PE

RA

TIO

NS

SP

EC

IAL

EM

PH

AS

IS:

AW

AR

DE

D:

e D

EIN

ST

ITU

TIO

NA

' •Z

A T

ION

OF

ST

A T

US

O

ffE

ND

ER

S-1

1 A

CT

ION

PR

OG

RA

MS

e

DIV

ER

SIO

N-1

1 A

cn

oN

PR

OG

RA

MS

e

INT

ER

AG

EN

CY

GR

AN

T O

N S

CH

OO

L V

IOL

EN

CE

TO

OF

RC

E O

F. E

DU

CA

TIO

N

FO

RM

UL

A G

RA

NT

S A

ND

TE

CH

NIC

AL

A

SS

IST

AN

CE

: 4

8 S

TA

TE

S H

AV

E C

OM

PR

EH

EN

SIV

E

PR

OG

RA

MS

e

lWO

MA

JOR

CO

NT

RA

CT

S F

OR

FO

RM

UL

A

GR

AN

TS

AN

D S

PE

CIA

L E

MP

HA

SIS

T.A

. P

RO

GR

AM

S

CO

NC

EN

TR

AT

ION

OF

FE

DE

RA

L E

FFO

RT:

P

UB

LIS

HE

D R

RS

T A

NA

LY

SIS

AN

D

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LL F

ED

ER

AL

JU

VE

NIL

E

DE

LIN

QU

EN

CY

RE

LA

TE

D P

RO

GR

AM

S

NA

TIO

NA

L I

NS

.I I I

UT

E

(J.D

. RE

SE

AR

CH

)

TR

AIN

ING

: e

PR

EP

AR

ED

OF

RC

E T

RA

ININ

G P

LA

N

e P

RO

VID

ED

TR

AIN

ING

FO

R .J

UV

EN

ILE

CO

UR

T

.JU

DG

ES

e

IMP

LE

ME

NT

ED

AC

A P

RO

JEC

T R

EA

D I

N

TR

AIN

ING

SC

HO

OL

S

ST

AN

DA

RD

S:

e •J

UV

EN

ILE

.JU

ST

ICE

ST

AN

DA

RD

S

SU

BM

ITT

ED

TO

CO

NG

RE

SS

e

140

ST

AN

DA

RD

S R

EA

DY

FO

R S

UB

MIS

SIO

N

• 71

PR

EV

EN

TIO

N S

TR

AT

EG

IES

CO

MP

LE

TE

D

RE

SE

AR

CH

AN

D E

VA

LU

AT

ION

: e

GR

AN

TS

AW

AR

DE

D T

O E

VA

LU

AT

E

SP

EC

IAL

EM

PH

AS

IS P

RO

GR

AM

S

e IM

PL

EM

EN

TE

D N

AT

ION

AL

A8

8E

9S

ME

NT

P

RO

GR

AM

e

GR

AN

TS

AW

AR

DE

D T

O IM

PL

EM

EN

T A

R

ES

EA

RC

H A

ND

DE

MO

NS

TR

AT

ION

P

RO

GR

AM

ON

LE

AR

NIN

G D

ISA

BIL

ITIE

S

AN

DJU

VE

NIL

E D

EL

INQ

UE

NC

Y

82


MA

JOR

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

IM

PR

OV

EM

EN

TS

PU

RP

OS

E:

TO

PR

OV

IDE

EFF

EC

TIV

E M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T D

IRE

CT

ION

AN

D

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

CO

NT

RO

L.

KE

Y F

AC

TO

RS

: e

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

-BY

-OB

JEC

TIV

ES

e Z

ER

O-B

AS

ED

BU

DG

ET

S T

IED

TO

MB

O

-

e P

RO

GR

AM

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T S

YS

TE

M

e L

ON

G R

AN

GE

PL

AN

S F

OR

SY

ST

EM

S A

ND

ST

AT

IST

ICS

e L

ON

G R

AN

GE

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N P

LA

N A

ND

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N

UT

ILIZ

AT

ION

SY

ST

EM

e IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

SY

ST

EM

(P

RO

RL

E)

TO

ME

ET

M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T I

NF

OR

MA

TIO

N N

EE

DS

e M

ON

TH

LY

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

RE

VIE

WS

e G

RA

NT

/CO

NT

RA

CT

RE

VIE

W B

OA

RD

e G

RA

NT

-MO

NIT

OR

ING

SY

ST

EM

e A

CC

OU

NT

ING

SY

ST

EM

AP

PR

OV

ED

BY

GA

O

83


,,,,,,,...

--

LEA

A B

ud

get

His

tory

(I

n$

Mil

lion

s)

871

886

753

70

4•

RU

"~

Rn

"n

n

n

RN

"~

nn

n

n

nn

•RE

QU

ES

TE

D

84


,-

TH

E L

EA

A D

OL

LA

R

Fis

cal Y

ea

r 197

7 -$

754

Millio

n

TE

Cll#

ICA

L AS

SIST

ANC

E t1

3, .

...

CO

l•U

llT

Y A

llTl-C

RIM

E ~

t15,

000,

000

2%

1

DA

TA S

YS

TEM

S A

ND

~ 2%

: S

TA

nsT

JCA

L ASSISTANCE--..

....

..._

_~

m,1

22,m

o ---

........

..._

•Alf

AG

EllE

#T

& O

l'EllA

TIO

llS ---

ta,6

31

,00

0

#A

no

NA

L IN

STI

TUTE

~

OF

LA

W E

llFO

RC

EllE

llT ~

,,,

AN

O ~#AL J

US

TIC

E

t'Z1 ,

029,

000

HI-C

RIM

E A

REA

PllO

GR

AM

'40,

000,

000·

M

ANPO

WER

DE

VR

OIW

EN

T

$44,

300,

000

41

%

aoc«

(PA

RT

CJ

~

$306

,039

,000

JUVE

WIL

E JU

STIC

E

---------

$75,

000,

000

CORR

ECTI

ON

S IP

ART

EJ

-----

$72,

009,

000

' ..

.__

__

__

__

Pl.A

NN

ING

(PA

RT

BJ

""

$80,

000,

000

DIS

CR

ETIO

NAR

Y (P

AR

T CJ

t64,

007 ,

000

• P

rop

ose

d r

epro

gra

mm

ing

as

foll

ows:

P

SO

B-

$30

M,

Par

t C

& E

-$1

0 M

.

85


I, sU

DG

ET

BY

FU

NC

TIO

N -

PO

LIC

E/A

DJU

DIC

AT

ION

/CO

RR

EC

TIO

NS

FY

197

5

AS

% O

F T

OT

AL

CR

IMIN

AL

.IU

ST

ICE

·EX

PE

ND

ITU

RE

PO

LIC

E

AD

.JU

DIC

AT

ION

CO

RR

EC

TIO

NS

~1

1%

S

TA

TE

/LO

CA

L

r------.i

-..

aA

....

~~~~~ 4

1%

BL

OC

K G

RA

NT

S

iiiC

AT

EG

OR

ICA

L

~STATE/LOCAL

11

%

BL

OC

K G

RA

NT

S

~I a'1

1>

CA

TE

GO

RIC

AL

~ATE/LOCAL

31

%

BL

OC

K G

RA

NT

S

I 47

%

CA

TM

OR

ICA

L

OT

HE

R D

I n.

ST

AT

E/L

OC

AL

IO

NL

YI

LE

AA

FY 1

--

FY 1

171

(CU

MU

LA

TIV

E)

~44%

PO

LIC

E

. 11

%

D

UD

I A

nO

N

40%

C

OR

RE

CT

ION

S

86


~-

LEA

A B

UD

GE

T

(IN

TH

OU

SA

ND

S

FU

NC

TIO

N B

Y Y

EA

R

OF

DO

LL

AR

S)

AS

OF

12

/31

/76

P

OU

CE

C

OU

RT

S

BU

DG

ET

1

96

9 -

19

74

C

OR

RE

CT

ION

S

TO

TA

L

·-A

UT

HO

RIT

Y

BL

OC

K

914,

480

49

%

NO

N B

LO

CK

•.

21

0

15%

71

5,13

1 3

1%

1,

914,

129

24

5,8

24

39

%

87

,16

3

14%

3

01

,1•

47%

13

4,17

3 T

OT

AL

1.

209,

504

48

%

313,

113

15%

1,

811,

332

31

%

2.11

8,99

9 3

,28

6,3

10

8

0%

197&

BL

OC

K

Ja.2

42

...

M.9

11

11%

1&

1,40

3 3

1%

46

3.15

1 N

ON

BL

OC

K

11

,81

1

31

%

U,I

DO

2D

%

•,7

31

47

%

1•,

41

5

TO

TA

L

2117

,121

4

2%

12

2.71

1 11

%

21

1,1

• 3

1%

83

1,17

1 .. ,o

oo•

72

%

19

78

BL

OC

K

10

7,1

27

~

13,4

75

23

%

103,

987

31

%

27&

,319

NO

N B

LO

CK

•,

57

2

21

%

31,7

80

17%

12

2,34

1 6

4%

7

%1

,88

TO

TA

L

17

4,4

99

3

5%

10

2,26

6 2

0%

2

28

,33

3

45

%

&03

JWI

809,

838

62

%

TO

TA

L

BL

OC

K

1,2

77,

84

9

47%

4

63

,51

8

17

%

98

2,5

28

3

8%

2,

713,

771

NO

N B

LO

CK

37

3,47

5 3

5%

18

4,63

3 18

%

510,

278

48%

1,

048,

288

T()

TA

L

1,85

1,12

4 4

4%

11

8,12

9 1

8%

1,

492,

804

40%

3,

782,

057

4,9

19

,94

8

75

%

• 1

NC

LU

DE

S F

UN

DS

FO

R J

UV

EN

ILE

JU

ST

ICE

AN

D D

EL

INQ

UE

NC

Y P

RE

VE

NT

ION

AC

T.

DO

J-t9

n-O

l

87


-\;' l

L \1

'?f"

$'..?

k

Fede

ral A

ic! to

C

rim

inal

Jus

tice

Rhe

toric

, Res~s, L

esso

ns

John

K. H

udzi

k P

rinc

ipal

Aut

hor

wit

h co

ntri

buti

ons

by

Tho

mas

J. M

adde

n an

d

Ern

est E

. All

en

Cor

neli

us J.

Beh

an

Geo

ff G

alla

s R

ober

t M. M

orge

ntha

u R

ober

t L. S

mit

h

1984

The

Nat

iona

l Cri

min

al J

usti

ce A

ssoc

iati

on

Was

hing

ton,

D.C

.

\ \

(• "!.&

t!;j

88


\

14

"Fed

eral

Aid

to

Cri

min

al J

usti

ce"

the

find

ings

and

rec

omm

enda

tions

wer

e ba

sed

on t

he m

ost

com

pre

hens

ive

revi

ew e

ver

unde

rtak

en o

f th

e na

ture

and

cau

ses

of c

rim

e, o

f th

e pe

rfor

man

ce a

nd c

apab

ility

of

the

crim

inal

jus

tice

sys

tem

, an

d of

th

e pr

oble

ms

conf

ront

ed b

y th

at s

yste

m.

Cri

ticis

m w

as l

evel

led

not

so

muc

h ag

ains

t th

e C

omm

issi

on's

fin

ding

s an

d co

nclu

sion

s as

aga

inst

its

fai

lure

to

offe

r co

ncre

te s

ugge

stio

ns f

or m

eani

ngfu

lly a

ffec

ting

crim

e in

the

nea

r te

rm.3

4 T

his

too

wou

ld b

e ad

dres

sed

if n

ot r

esol

ved

in t

he

deba

tes

surr

ound

ing

pass

age

of th

e Sa

fe S

tree

ts A

ct i

n 19

68.

Safe

Str

eets

: T

he P

anop

ly o

f C

onfl

icti

ng V

iew

s B

y 19

67 r

epor

ts o

f cri

me

cont

inue

d to

pai

nt a

n in

crea

sing

ly g

loom

y pi

ctur

e. C

ivil

diso

rder

s o

f mas

sive

pro

port

ions

eng

ulfe

d se

vera

l Am

er

ican

citi

es d

urin

g th

e su

mm

ers

of

1965

, 19

66,

and

1967

. Pu

blic

ire

an

d co

ncer

n re

quir

ed a

fed

eral

res

pons

e gr

eate

r th

an t

hat

mad

e un

der

prov

isio

ns o

f th

e 19

65 L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent

Ass

ista

nce

Act

. In

res

pons

e,

Pre

side

nt J

ohns

on s

ent

Con

gres

s a

legi

slat

ive

mes

sage

on

crim

e (h

is

thir

d) t

hat

incl

uded

a p

ropo

sed

bill

entit

led,

"T

he S

afe

Stre

ets

and

Cri

me

Con

trol

Act

of

1967

." T

he P

resi

dent

's m

essa

ge w

as d

eliv

ered

on

Feb

ruar

y 6,

196

7, a

nd t

hirt

een

days

lat

er t

he P

resi

dent

's C

omm

is

sion

iss

ued

its l

ong

awai

ted

repo

rt.

The

tim

ing

of

the

two

even

ts w

as

not

acci

dent

al,

and

the

titl

e of

the

Pre

side

nt's

bill

was

cal

cula

ted

to

elic

it m

axim

um p

ositi

ve p

oliti

cal

resp

onse

. T

he S

afe

Stre

ets

Bill

rec

ogni

zed

the

prim

acy

of st

ate

and

loca

l pol

ice

pow

ers;

all

of it

s pr

ovis

ions

wer

e ai

med

at

assi

stin

g th

e st

ates

in

per

form

ing

thei

r fu

nctio

ns r

athe

r th

an a

t ta

king

ove

r th

ose

func

tions

or

undu

ly i

nter

feri

ng i

n th

e pe

rfor

man

ce o

f th

em.

Spec

ific

pro

visi

ons

incl

uded

pro

posa

ls o

f ass

ista

nce

to m

oder

nize

equ

ipm

ent,

to r

eorg

aniz

e la

w e

nfor

cem

ent a

genc

ies,

to

recr

uit a

nd tr

ain

law

enf

orce

men

t off

icer

s,

to m

oder

nize

the

cou

rt s

yste

m, t

o de

velo

p m

ore

effe

ctiv

e re

habi

litat

ion

tech

niqu

es,

and

to s

et u

p ef

fect

ive

crim

e-pr

even

tion

prog

ram

s. E

ven

thou

gh s

ever

al p

orti

ons

of th

e bi

ll of

fere

d as

sist

ance

to

corr

ectio

ns a

nd

the

cour

ts,

ther

e w

as a

n ap

pare

ntly

wid

espr

ead

assu

mpt

ion

held

in

Con

gres

s as

wel

l as

by

the

publ

ic t

hat

the

assi

stan

ce w

as p

rim

arily

, if

no

t ex

clus

ivel

y, a

imed

tow

ard

law

enf

orce

men

t. B

oth

the

Pre

side

nt's

pr

opos

ed le

gisl

atio

n an

d th

e su

bseq

uent

rep

ort o

f his

Com

mis

sion

gav

e fo

rthr

ight

rec

ogni

tion

to t

he c

once

pt o

f a c

rim

inal

jus

tice

sy

stem

-an

in

terr

elat

ed a

nd i

nter

depe

nden

t gr

oup

of "

crim

e-fi

ghti

ng"

agen

cies

.

I I l I l. I I

The

Ori

gins

of L

EA

A .

15

Yet

, du

ring

deb

ate

and

pass

age

of

the

legi

slat

ion

ther

e w

as l

ittl

e to

in

dica

te t

hat

this

con

cept

rec

eive

d m

arke

d re

cogn

ition

or

trea

tmen

t. T

he P

resi

dent

's S

afe

Stre

ets

prop

osal

s w

ere

clos

ely

fash

ione

d af

ter

the

appr

oach

und

erta

ken

in t

he 1

965

Law

Enf

orce

men

t A

ssis

tanc

e A

ct.

The

gra

nts

wou

ld f

und

inno

vati

on a

nd i

mpr

ovem

ent

in a

var

iety

of

cate

gori

es.

Gra

nt a

dmin

istr

atio

n w

ould

be

fede

rally

con

trol

led

unde

r th

e A

ttor

ney

Gen

eral

. T

here

was

muc

h m

ore

mon

ey i

nvol

ved

in t

he

19.6

7 pr

opos

als,

but

the

inte

nt o

f gra

nts-

in-a

id, a

s in

the

1965

legi

slat

ion,

w

ould

be

to m

ake

dire

ct "

cate

gori

cal"

gra

nts.

Citi

es w

ith a

pop

ulat

ion

of fi

fty

thou

sand

or

mor

e (f

ollo

win

g th

e co

urse

laid

out

by

othe

r gr

eat

soci

ety

fund

ing

vent

ures

) w

ould

be

elig

ible

for a

ctio

n fu

nds,

but

fund

ing

leve

ls p

ropo

sed

wer

e fa

r sm

alle

r th

an t

hose

pro

pose

d fo

r ot

her

grea

tso

ciet

y pr

ogra

m e

ffor

ts s

uch

as O

E0

.35 T

his

may

hav

e be

en a

con

scio

us

effo

rt t

o sh

ield

the

cri

me

prop

osal

s fr

om t

he t

ype

of

criti

cism

the

n be

ing

leve

lled

by C

ongr

ess

agai

nst O

EO

-nam

ely

, tha

t OE

O h

ad g

one

in t

oo f

ast

wit

h to

o m

uch

and

had

prod

uced

mas

sive

was

te b

ecau

se

the

infr

astr

uctu

re w

as n

ot a

vaila

ble

to m

anag

e th

e fu

nds

effe

ctiv

ely.

" A

ltho

ugh

the

Pre

side

nt's

fun

ding

and

pro

gram

pro

posa

ls w

ere

lim

ited

to i

nnov

atio

n an

d im

prov

emen

t th

at w

ere

likel

y to

hav

e a

sign

ifi

cant

eff

ect

on t

he c

rim

e pr

oble

m o

nly

in t

he l

ong

run,

the

pub

lic

and

Con

gres

s w

ere

for

quic

ker f

ixes

. P

art o

f thi

s di

spar

ity c

an b

e tr

aced

to

Pre

side

nt J

ohns

on h

imse

lf:

in 1

965

he c

harg

ed h

is C

rim

e C

om

mis

sion

to

find

the

way

s no

t onl

y to

red

uce

crim

e bu

t to

"ba

nish

" it.

37

Lat

er a

ttem

pts

by t

he P

resi

dent

to

retr

eat

from

thi

s ex

cess

ive

goal

w

ere

too

late

-th

e p

ublic

was

fixe

d on

the

notio

n o

f qui

ckly

min

imiz

ing

if n

ot e

limin

atin

g cr

ime.

The

Pre

side

nt's

Com

mis

sion

in it

s fi

nal

repo

rt

did

not

help

in

setti

ng e

xpec

tatio

ns s

trai

ght:

at

one

poin

t it

ass

erte

d,

"Am

eric

a ca

n co

ntro

l cr

ime.

'"8

The

Com

mis

sion

not

ed t

hat

it w

ould

no

t be

ach

ieve

d qu

ickl

y or

eas

ily,

but

few

hea

rd t

hat.

Am

ong

othe

r fa

ctor

s in

volv

ed,

the

nati

on w

as m

ovin

g th

roug

h a

peri

od o

f unb

ridl

ed

faith

in

the

pow

er o

f m

oney

and

esp

ecia

lly i

n th

e po

wer

of

fede

ral

expe

nditu

res

to s

olve

pro

blem

s.

Cha

pter

2 w

ill t

reat

the

leg

isla

tive

deba

tes

and

fina

l fe

atur

es o

f the

Sa

fe S

tree

ts A

ct i

n gr

eate

r de

tail.

How

ever

, th

ere

are

aspe

cts

to t

hat

deba

te a

nd t

o th

e ch

ange

s su

bseq

uent

ly m

ade

to t

he P

resi

dent

's p

ro

posa

l th

at r

efle

ct t

he s

ever

al c

ompe

ting

soc

ial

and

polit

ical

for

ces

disc

usse

d ab

ove.

Cle

arly

, the

sta

te's

pre

roga

tives

in e

xerc

isin

g th

e po

lice

pow

er w

ere

hotl

y at

iss

ue.

So,

too,

the

get

-tou

gh p

refe

renc

es o

f co

nse

rvat

ives

, la

rgel

y ig

nore

d in

Pre

side

nt J

ohns

on's

legi

slat

ive

prop

osal

s,

~~·

89


\

The

Orig

ins

of L

EA

A

21

26.

Ric

hard

Har

ris,

The

Fea

r o

f Cri

me,

(N

ew· Y

ork,

Fre

deri

ck A

. P

raeg

er,

1968

), p.

10.

Als

o se

e W

alke

r, o

p. c

it.,

p. 2

3 !.

27

. L

yndo

n Jo

hnso

n, T

he C

hoic

es W

e F

ace

(New

Yor

k: B

anta

m B

ooks

, 19

69),

p. 1

25.

28.

See

Cap

lan,

op.

cit.

, p.

586

.

29.

Wal

ter

B.

Mil

ler,

"Id

eolo

gy a

nd C

rim

inal

Jus

tice

Pol

icy:

Som

e C

urre

nt I

ssue

s,"

Jour

nal o

f C

rim

inal

La

w a

nd C

rim

inol

ogy

64,

no.

2 (J

une,

197

3),

p. 1

41.

30.

Cap

lan,

op.

cit

., p.

590

.

31.

Hea

ring

s on

S.

1792

and

S.

1825

bef

ore

a S

ubco

mm

itte

e o

f th

e S

enat

e C

omm

itte

e on

the

·

Judi

ciar

y, 8

9th

Con

gres

s, 1

st s

essi

on (

1965

), p

. 7.

32.

Cap

lan,

op.

cit

., pp

. 59

3-59

4.

33.

The

Pre

side

nt's

Com

mis

sion

on

Law

Enf

orce

men

t an

d A

dmin

istr

atio

n o

f Ju

stic

e R

epor

t,

op.

cit.,

p.

15.

34.

See,

for

exa

mpl

e, J

ames

Q.

Wil

son,

"A

Rea

der's

Gui

de t

o th

e C

rim

e C

omm

issi

on R

epor

ts,"

T

he P

ubli

c In

tere

st,

Fal

l, 1

967,

p.

65. A

lso

see,

Hen

ry R

uth,

"T

o D

ust

Sha

ll Y

e R

etur

n?",

Not

re

Da

me

Law

yer

43 (

1968

), p

. 81

!.

35.

The

Bud

get

in B

rief

, E

xecu

tive

Off

ice

of

the

Pre

side

nt,

Bur

eau

of

the

Bud

get,

U.S

. Gov~

emm

ent

Pri

ntin

g O

ffic

e. S

ee t

hese

for

the

yea

rs 1

965-

1969

.

36.

Tho

mas

E.

Cro

nin,

Tan

ia Z

. C

roni

n, a

nd M

icha

el E

. M

ilak

ovic

h, U

.S.

v. C

rim

e in

the

Str

eets

(B

loom

ingt

on:

Indi

ana

Uni

vers

ity

Pres

s, 1

981)

, p.

32.

37.

Pub

lic

Pap

ers

of

the

Pre

side

nts

of

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es,

Lyn

don

B.

John

son,

196

5 (1

966)

pp.

98

2-83

.

38.

Th

e P

resi

dent

's C

-0m

mis

sion

on

Law

Enf

orce

men

t and

Adm

inis

trat

ion

of J

usti

ce,

The

Cha

lle

nge

of

Cri

me

in a

Fre

e So

ciet

y (N

ew Y

ork,

Avo

n B

ooks

, 19

68),

p. 6

21.

39.

Cro

nin,

Cro

nin,

and

Mil

akov

ich,

op.

cit.

, PP

: 50

-53.

40.

Law

Enf

orce

men

t A

ssis

tanc

e A

dmin

istr

atio

n, O

ffic

e o

f G

ener

al C

ouns

el,

"Ind

ex t

o th

e L

egis

lati

ve H

isto

ry o

f th

e O

mni

bus

Cri

me

Con

trol

and

Saf

e S

tree

ts A

ct o

f 19

68.''

Jan

uary

23,

19

73,

p. 1

17.

41.

Cro

nin

et a

l., o

p. c

it.,

p. 5

1.

42.

LE

AA

, O

ffic

e o

f G

ener

al C

ouns

el,

op.

cit.,

p.

240.

43.

Ibid

., p.

238

.

44.

Wal

ker,

op.

cit.

, p.

237

.

\ \

r ·r_'( \1 :1 \! l I

Cha

pter

2

LA

WS

AN

D R

EG

UL

AT

ION

S

GO

VE

RN

ING

TH

E L

EA

A P

RO

GR

AM

T

hom

as J

. M

adde

n

In t

he 1

960s

, C

ongr

ess

bega

n to

use

the

con

stit

utio

nal

spen

ding

po

wer

to e

xert

sub

stan

tial

pol

icy

cont

rols

ove

r st

ate

and

loca

l fun

ctio

ns

and

to c

reat

e a

host

of n

ew g

rant

pro

gram

s. I

n 1

962,

the

re w

ere

only

16

0 fe

dera

l gr

ant

prog

ram

s au

thor

ized

by

the

Con

gres

s.'

By

Janu

ary

of

1967

, w

hen

Con

gres

s pr

epar

ed t

o ta

ke u

p th

e de

bate

on

the

Safe

St

reet

s A

ct,

the

num

ber

of i

nter

gove

rnm

enta

l gr

ant

prog

ram

s ha

d gr

own

to 3

79 w

ith s

ome

109

new

gra

nt p

rogr

ams

bein

g en

acte

d in

19

65 a

lone

. 2 F

eder

al a

ssis

tanc

e in

dol

lar

term

s m

ore

than

dou

bled

be

twee

n 19

63 a

nd 1

967,

ris

ing

from

7.7

per

cent

to

11 p

erce

nt o

f an

. fe

dera

l bu

dget

out

lays

and

fro

m 1

.5 p

erce

nt to

2.2

per

cent

of t

he g

ross

na

tion

al p

rodu

ct. 3

By

1967

, it w

as a

lso

clea

r tha

t the

new

pro

gram

s an

d la

ws

cont

roll

ing

the

expe

ndit

ure

of

the

new

gra

nts4

ha

d su

bsta

ntia

lly

alte

red

the

rela

tio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

stat

e, l

ocal

, an

d fe

dera

l go

vern

men

t re

latio

nshi

ps

wit

hout

est

ablis

hing

an

esse

ntia

l ra

tion

ale

for

assi

gnin

g in

terg

over

nm

enta

l fu

nctio

ns o

ther

tha

n th

at o

f pr

agm

atic

pol

itics

.' T

he S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

fol

low

ed t

he p

atte

rn le

adin

g to

the

cre

atio

n o

f m

any

of th

ese

new

pro

gram

s. T

he r

ise

in c

rim

e in

196

3 an

d 19

64 w

as

the

subj

ect

of d

ebat

e in

the

196

4 el

ectio

ns a

nd i

t w

as a

ddre

ssed

by

Pre

side

nt J

ohns

on i

n a

crim

e m

essa

ge i

n 19

65 c

allin

g fo

r a

nati

onal

re

spon

se to

the

crim

e pr

oble

m.•

Thi

s m

essa

ge w

as fo

llow

ed b

y C

ongr

es

sion

al e

nact

men

t o

f a

smal

l cr

imin

al j

usti

ce a

ssis

tanc

e pr

ogra

m a

nd

the

appo

intm

ent

of th

e P

resi

dent

's C

omm

issi

on o

n L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent

and

the

Adm

inis

trat

ion

of Ju

stic

e.7

The

Com

mis

sion

doc

umen

ted

the

need

for

a m

ajor

fed

eral

res

pons

e to

sta

te a

nd l

ocal

cri

me

prob

lem

s,

and

Con

gres

s re

spon

ded

with

the

Om

nibu

s C

rim

e C

ontr

ol a

nd S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

. W

hen

Con

gres

s to

ok u

p th

e de

bate

on

Pre

side

nt J

ohns

on's

pro

posa

l in

196

7 to

cre

ate

a m

ajor

new

cri

min

al j

usti

ce a

ssis

tanc

e pr

ogra

m,

it

quic

kly

beca

me

clea

r th

at th

ere

wer

e tw

o is

sues

of o

verr

idin

g co

ncer

n to

the

con

serv

ativ

e m

embe

rs w

ho w

ere

in a

pos

ition

to

cont

rol

the

Preced

ing p

age b

lank

23

.,,

90


\

24

"Fed

eral

Aid

to

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e"

deba

te.

The

fir

st w

as a

con

cern

tha

t by

ves

ting

the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al

wit

h th

e au

thor

ity

to p

rovi

de g

rant

s to

sta

tes,

the

Con

gres

s w

ould

als

o be

giv

ing

the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al t

he p

ower

to

cont

rol

stat

e an

d lo

cal

law

enf

orce

men

t ag

enci

es a

nd w

ould

the

reby

be

nati

onal

izin

g st

ate

and

loca

l la

w e

nfor

cem

ent f

unct

ions

. T

he s

econ

d an

d re

late

d co

ncer

n w

as t

hat t

he J

ohns

on p

ropo

sal b

ypas

sed

stat

e go

vern

men

t an

d al

low

ed

the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al t

o de

al d

irec

tly w

ith c

ities

in

mak

ing

gran

ts.

In

the

view

of

then

Hou

se M

inor

ity L

eade

r G

eral

d R

. F

ord,

a "

dire

ct"

fede

ralis

m a

ppro

ach

wou

ld e

nabl

e th

e A

ttor

ney

Gen

eral

to

"arb

itra

rily

" de

cide

whi

ch l

ocal

law

enf

orce

men

t ag

enci

es w

ould

rec

eive

fun

ds

and

wha

t th

ese

agen

cies

cou

ld d

o w

ith t

he f

unds

.' T

he S

enat

e Ju

dici

ary

Com

mitt

ee w

as t

he i

nitia

l fo

cus

of m

uch

of

the

conc

ern

over

the

crea

tion

of t

he n

atio

nal p

olic

e fo

rce.

The

min

orit

y re

port

of

the

com

mitt

ee,

for

exam

ple,

in

com

men

ting

on t

he d

iscr

eti

onar

y au

thor

ity

give

n to

the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al to

mak

e gr

ants

sta

ted:

[W]e

don

't w

ant

the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al,

the

so-c

alle

d "M

r. B

ig"

of

Fed

eral

law

enf

orce

men

t to

bec

ome

the

dire

ctor

of

Stat

e an

d lo

cal l

aw e

nfor

cem

ent a

s w

ell.

It is

tru

e th

at th

e A

ttor

ney

Gen

eral

is

the

chi

ef la

w e

nfor

cem

ent

offi

cer

of th

e F

eder

al g

over

nmen

t. B

ut h

e is

not

chi

ef l

aw e

nfor

cem

ent

offi

cer

of S

tate

s an

d ci

ties.

W

e be

lieve

Am

eric

a do

es n

ot w

ant

him

to

serv

e in

tha

t ca

pac

ity .

...

We

don'

t w

ant

this

bill

to

beco

me

the

vehi

cle

for

the

impo

sitio

n of

Fed

eral

gui

delin

es,

cont

rols

, an

d do

min

atio

n?

The

Hou

se o

f R

epre

sent

ativ

es,

whi

ch a

cted

fir

st o

n th

e Jo

hnso

n pr

opos

al,

had

acce

pted

the

vie

w t

hat

the

stat

es s

houl

d ha

ve c

ontr

ol

over

exp

endi

ture

s by

loc

al g

over

nmen

t.10

T

his

view

was

rej

ecte

d by

th

e Se

nate

Jud

icia

ry C

omm

ittee

11

and

the

Sena

te f

loor

bec

ame

the

foru

m f

or t

he k

ey d

ebat

e on

thi

s is

sue.

The

con

test

was

bet

wee

n th

e su

ppor

ters

of d

irec

t fe

dera

lism

-lar

ge c

ity m

ayor

s an

d th

eir

Con

gres

si

onal

su

pp

ort

ers-

and

the

sup

port

ers

of s

tate

con

trol

thr

ough

so

calle

d bl

ock

gran

ts-g

over

nors

fro

m t

he M

idw

est

and

the

Wes

tern

st

ates

and

Rep

ubli

can

sena

tors

and

sou

ther

n D

emoc

rati

c se

nato

rs.

Am

endm

ents

to

conv

ert

the

Sena

te C

omm

ittee

bill

fro

m a

dir

ect

loca

l ai

d pr

ogra

m t

o a

stat

e bl

ock

gran

t pr

ogra

m w

ere

intr

oduc

ed b

y Se

nate

Min

orit

y L

eade

r E

vere

tt M

. D

irks

en.

Sen

ator

Dir

ksen

con

te

nded

that

gub

erna

tori

al s

uper

visi

on o

ver s

tate

pla

nnin

g w

as n

eces

sary

to

avo

id d

upli

cati

on o

r con

flic

t bet

wee

n lo

cal a

nd s

tate

cri

me

redu

ctio

n pl

ans

and

prog

ram

s. I

n th

e de

bate

he

stat

ed t

hat:

Law

s an

d R

egul

atio

ns G

over

ning

the

LE

AA

Pro

gram

We

are

neve

r go

ing

to d

o a

job

in th

is f

ield

unt

il w

e ha

ve a

cap

tain

at

the

top

, in

the

for

m o

f th

e G

over

nor,

and

tho

se h

e ap

poin

ts,

to c

oord

inat

e th

e m

atte

r fo

r a

Sta

te b

ecau

se c

rim

e m

ay b

e co

m

mit

ted

in a

spo

t, bu

t be

fore

it

gets

thr

ough

its

ram

ific

atio

ns,

it

may

spr

ead

over

a v

ery

cons

ider

able

are

a.12

25

The

vie

w s

tate

d by

S

enat

or D

irks

en h

ad r

oots

no

t on

ly i

n th

e S

enat

or's

tra

diti

onal

con

cern

for

sta

te i

nter

ests

but

als

o in

the

196

7 re

port

of

the

Pre

side

nt's

Com

mis

sion

on

Law

Enf

orce

men

t an

d th

e A

dmin

istr

atio

n of

Jus

tice,

whi

ch r

ecom

men

ded

that

:

In e

very

Sta

te a

nd e

very

city

, an

age

ncy,

or

one

or m

ore

offi

cial

s,

shou

ld b

e sp

ecif

ical

ly r

espo

nsib

le f

or p

lann

ing

impr

ovem

ents

in

crim

e pr

even

tion

and

cont

rol

and

enco

urag

ing

thei

r im

plem

en

tatio

n.13

The

rec

omm

enda

tion

of t

he P

resi

dent

's C

rim

e C

omm

issi

on re

flec

ted

a co

ncer

n fo

r sy

stem

-wid

e pl

anni

ng.

Thi

s m

eant

at

the

very

lea

st a

d

hoc

coor

dina

tion

am

ong

polic

e,

cour

ts,

and

corr

ecti

ons

agen

cies

so

that

pol

icie

s im

plem

ente

d in

one

par

t of

the

syst

em w

ould

not

hav

e an

adv

erse

eff

ect

on o

ther

com

pone

nts.

T

he D

irks

en a

men

dmen

ts r

equi

red

each

sta

te to

cre

ate

a st

ate

crim

in

al ju

stic

e pl

anni

ng a

genc

y (S

PA)

and

to d

evel

op a

n an

nual

com

pre

hens

ive

plan

. T

hese

am

endm

ents

wer

e in

tend

ed,

in p

art,

to

addr

ess

the

conc

erns

of

the

Pre

side

nt's

Cri

me

Com

mis

sion

. T

he a

men

dmen

ts

wer

e al

so i

nten

ded

to a

ssur

e th

at t

here

was

a c

oord

inat

ed i

nter

gov

ernm

enta

l ap

proa

ch t

o cr

ime

cont

rol

in e

ach

stat

e.

The

blo

ck g

rant

was

als

o se

en b

y its

sup

port

ers

as a

way

of

min

im

izin

g su

bsta

ntiv

e fe

dera

l con

trol

ove

r sta

te a

nd lo

cal l

aw e

nfor

cem

ent.

In th

e Se

nate

Jud

icia

ry C

omm

itte

e re

port

on

the

Safe

Str

eets

Act

, th

e su

ppor

ters

of

bloc

k gr

ants

sta

ted

that

the

pur

pose

of

the

bloc

k gr

ant

was

"to

insu

re th

at fe

dera

l ass

ista

nce

to s

tate

and

loca

l law

enf

orce

men

t do

es n

ot b

ring

with

it

fede

ral

dom

inat

ion

and

cont

rol

nor

prov

ide

the

mac

hine

ry o

r pot

enti

al fo

r th

e es

tabl

ishm

ent o

f a fe

dera

l pol

ice

forc

e. "

14

The

Uni

ted

Stat

es C

ourt

of

App

eals

for

the

Fou

rth

Cir

cuit

in

197

1 ha

d an

opp

ortu

nity

to

com

men

t on

thi

s la

tter

con

cern

of

the

bloc

k gr

ant

prop

onen

ts.

In a

law

sui

t cha

lleng

ing

the

lack

of c

ontr

ols

exer

ted

over

blo

ck g

rant

exp

endi

ture

s, t

he c

ourt

sta

ted:

"The

dom

inan

t co

ncer

n of

Con

gres

s ap

pare

ntly

was

to

guar

d ag

ains

t an

y te

nden

cy t

owar

ds f

eder

aliz

atio

n of

loca

l po

lice

and

~----~

~

91


\

26

"Fed

eral

Aid

to

Crim

inal

Jus

tice"

law

enf

orce

men

t age

ncie

s. S

uch

a re

sult,

it

was

fel

t, w

ould

be

less

ef

fici

ent

than

allo

win

g lo

cal

law

enf

orce

men

t of

fici

als

to c

oord

ina

te t

heir

sta

te's

ove

rall

effo

rts

to m

eet

uniq

ue l

ocal

pro

blem

s an

d co

nditi

ons.

Eve

n m

ote

impo

rtan

t th

an C

ongr

ess'

s se

arch

for

ef

fici

ency

and

exp

ertis

e w

as it

s fe

ar th

at o

ver-

broa

d fe

dera

l co

ntro

l of

sta

te l

aw e

nfor

cem

ent

wou

ld r

esul

t in

the

cre

atio

n of

an

Or

wel

lian

'fede

ral

polic

e fo

rce.

"'"

The

Sen

ate

pass

ed t

he b

ill c

onta

inin

g th

e D

irks

en a

men

dmen

ts b

y a

72 t

o 4

roll-

call

vote

and

fin

al a

ctio

n on

the

leg

isla

tion

cam

e on

Ju

ne 6

, whe

n th

e H

ouse

acc

epte

d w

itho

ut c

hang

e th

e Se

nate

ver

sion

.16

On

June

19,

196

8, P

resi

dent

Joh

nson

sig

ned

into

law

the

Om

nibu

s C

rim

e C

ontr

ol a

nd S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

of

1968

.17

-

A k

ey a

ssum

ptio

n un

derl

ying

the

Saf

e St

reet

s pr

ogra

m w

as t

hat,

lik

e m

any

of

the

hund

reds

of

new

gra

nt p

rogr

ams

crea

ted

by t

he

John

son

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

"m

oney

mak

es a

dif

fere

nce,

" -th

at

is,

the

mor

e fu

nds

that

are

ava

ilabl

e, t

he g

reat

er t

he p

ossi

bilit

y o

f re

duci

ng

crim

e."

Whi

le th

e fe

dera

l gov

ernm

ent h

ad b

een

exte

ndin

g no

nfin

anci

al c

rim

in

al ju

stic

e as

sist

ance

to s

tate

and

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

at t

he o

pera

tion

al

leve

l fo

r se

vera

l ye

ars

prio

r to

the

ena

ctm

ent

of th

e Sa

fe S

tree

ts A

ct,

the

Act

was

the

fir

st m

ajor

eff

ort

to p

rovi

de f

inan

cial

ass

ista

nce

for

stat

e an

d lo

cal c

rim

inal

just

ice

effo

rts.

19 T

he S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

had

thr

ee

basi

c pu

rpos

es:

o th

e st

imul

atio

n of

eff

orts

to

impr

ove

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

sta

te

and

loca

l cr

imin

al j

usti

ce a

genc

ies;

o

the

coor

dinr

<tio

n of

the

activ

ities

of

stat

e an

d lo

cal

crim

inal

ju

stic

e sy

stem

s;

o th

e up

grad

ing

of th

e ca

pabi

litie

s o

f st

ate

and

loca

l cr

imin

al

just

ice

agen

cies

to

deal

with

crim

e.2°

The

Saf

e St

reet

s A

ct a

lso

gave

the

fed

eral

gov

ernm

ent

new

pow

ers

to

enfo

rce

cont

rol

over

the

sal

e an

d po

sses

sion

of

hand

guns

.21 It

mad

e po

sses

sion

of

fire

arm

s by

con

vict

ed f

elon

s a

fede

ral

crim

e.22

It

als

o m

ade

unau

thor

ized

wir

etap

ping

a f

eder

al c

rim

e.23

Tit

le I

of t

he S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

whi

ch e

stab

lishe

d th

e L

EA

A p

rogr

am,

had

the

follo

win

g m

ajor

pro

visi

ons:

Adm

inis

trat

ion.

A

Law

Enf

orce

men

t A

ssis

tanc

e A

dmin

istr

atio

n (L

EA

A)

was

est

ablis

hed

with

in t

he D

epar

tmen

t of

Jus

tice.

In

do

ing

so,

Con

gres

s se

vere

ly l

imite

d th

e au

thor

ity

of th

e A

ttor

ney

i J l I ~ I 11 I I i

n l. f i l' r! ll ti it i! ll 11 11 I! l

Law

s an

d R

egul

atio

ns G

over

ning

the

LE

AA

Pro

gram

Gen

eral

ove

r L

EA

A b

y es

tabl

ishi

ng L

EA

A w

ithi

n th

e D

epar

tm

ent

of J

usti

ce u

nder

the

"ge

nera

l au

thor

ity

of t

he A

ttor

ney

Gen

eral

." I

n es

senc

e, t

his

mea

nt t

hat

LE

AA

was

to

be f

ree

of

the

day-

to-d

ay s

uper

visi

on o

f the

Att

orne

y G

ener

al t

o op

erat

e as

an

ind

epen

dent

age

ncy.

LE

AA

was

sub

ject

to

the

Att

orne

y G

en

eral

's c

ontr

ol o

nly

whe

n th

e A

ttor

ney

Gen

eral

est

ablis

hed

polic

ies

of g

ener

al a

pplic

abili

ty t

o th

e en

tire

Jus

tice

Dep

artm

ent.

The

A

ttor

ney

Gen

eral

did

hav

e fi

nal

auth

orit

y to

rec

omm

end

to t

he

Pre

side

nt a

nd t

he O

ffic

e of

Man

agem

ent

and

Bud

get

the

amou

nt

of f

unds

tha

t sh

ould

be

appr

opri

ated

eac

h ye

ar f

or t

he L

EA

A

prog

ram

s.

The

LE

AA

was

put

und

er t

he d

irec

tion

of

a "t

roik

a" -an

ad

min

istr

ator

and

tw

o as

soci

ate

adm

inis

trat

ors,

app

oint

ed b

y th

e Pr

esid

ent,

and

conf

irm

ed b

y th

e Se

nate

. T

he "

troi

ka"

had

au

thor

ity

join

tly

to c

arry

out

, th

e fu

nctio

ns,

pow

ers

and

dutie

s of

th

e L

EA

A.

Blo

ck G

rant

s. B

lock

gra

nts

wer

e au

thor

ized

und

er P

art

B o

f th

e A

ct t

o co

ver

up t

o 90

per

cent

of

the

tota

l co

st o

f th

e op

erat

ion

of s

tate

pla

nnin

g ag

enci

es (

SPA

s),

whi

ch w

ere

to b

e cr

eate

d or

de

sign

ated

by

the

gove

rnor

of

each

sta

te a

nd w

ere

to d

evel

op

annu

al c

ompr

ehen

sive

cri

min

al j

usti

ce p

lans

. T

he S

P A

was

to

have

a r

epre

sent

ativ

e ch

arac

ter

incl

udin

g re

pres

enta

tives

of

law

en

forc

emen

t an

d un

its o

f loc

al g

over

nmen

t. E

ach

stat

e w

as t

o be

al

loca

ted

each

yea

r a

flat

am

ount

of $

100,

000,

with

the

rem

aind

er

of p

lann

ing

fund

s to

be

dist

ribu

ted

on a

pop

ulat

ion

basi

s. F

orty

pe

rcen

t of

the

plan

ning

gra

nt f

unds

wer

e to

be

mad

e av

aila

ble

to

loca

l ju

risd

ictio

ns.

27

Und

er P

art

C o

f th

e A

ct,

eigh

ty-f

ive

perc

ent

of t

he s

o-ca

lled

"act

ion

gran

t" f

unds

w

ere

to b

e al

loca

ted

to

the

stat

es o

n a

popu

lati

on b

asis

as

bloc

k gr

ants

, w

ith

seve

nty-

five

per

cent

of

the

fund

s to

be

pass

ed t

hrou

gh t

o lo

cal

gove

rnm

ents

. In

ord

er t

o re

ceiv

e a

bloc

k ac

tion

gran

t, th

e st

ate

had

to s

ubm

it a

com

pre

hens

ive

plan

tha

t m

et c

erta

in r

equi

rem

ents

, in

clud

ing

spec

ial

em

phas

is o

n or

gani

zed

crim

e an

d ci

vil d

isor

der

prog

ram

s. T

he fe

dera

l go

vern

men

t w

as a

utho

rize

d to

pay

up

to s

even

ty-f

ive

perc

ent

of

the

tota

l co

st f

or o

rgan

ized

-cri

me

and

riot

-con

trol

pro

ject

s, f

ifty

perc

ent

for

cons

truc

tion

pro

ject

s, a

nd s

ixty

per

cent

for

oth

er a

cti

on p

urpo

ses.

One

sig

nifi

cant

lim

itatio

n, a

dded

by

thos

e co

nce

rned

abo

ut f

eder

al c

ontr

ol o

f st

ate

and

loca

l la

w e

nfor

cem

ent

·-::-

92


\

44

"Fed

eral

Aid

to

Crim

inal

Jus

tice"

LE

AA

con

clud

ed t

hat

its b

lock

gra

nts

wer

e no

t go

vern

ed b

y th

ese

Jaw

s. In

197

1 th

e co

urts

hel

d ot

herw

ise

and

by 1

973

the

adve

rse

effe

cts

of th

e la

ndm

ark

deci

sion

in

Ely

v.

Vel

de,4

' th

e fi

rst

case

to

test

the

ap

plic

atio

n of

the

blo

ck-g

rant

con

cept

to

Fede

ral

stri

ngs,

wer

e be

ing

felt

by s

tate

s.

Ely

v.

Ve/

de a

rose

out

of

a bl

ock

gran

t th

at L

EA

A m

ade

to t

he

Sta

te o

f V

irgi

nia.

In

mak

ing

the

bloc

k gr

ant,

LE

AA

app

rove

d th

e ;:;

:impr

ehen

sive

pla

n pr

epar

ed b

y th

e S

tate

of

Vir

gini

a in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Om

nibu

s C

rim

e C

ontr

ol a

nd S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

. T

he p

lan

indi

cate

d th

at V

irgi

nia

inte

nded

to s

pend

app

roxi

mat

ely

$500

,000

for

a

corr

ectio

nal

faci

lity.

The

exp

endi

ture

of

thes

e fu

nds

was

con

sist

ent

with

the

Saf

e St

reet

s A

ct.

The

pla

n di

d no

t sp

ecif

y w

here

Vir

gini

a pl

anne

d to

bui

ld t

he f

acili

ty.

At

the

tim

e th

e V

irgi

nia

plan

was

app

rove

d by

LE

AA

, V

irgi

nia

had

not

yet

sele

cted

a f

inal

site

. A

fter

the

pla

n w

as a

ppro

ved,

Vir

gini

a an

noun

ced

in a

loc

al n

ewsp

aper

tha

t it

inte

nded

to

buil

d a

new

pen

al

faci

lity

in G

reen

Spr

ings

, V

irgi

nia.

Vir

gini

a di

d no

t no

tify

LE

AA

of

the

sele

ctio

n of

this

site

bec

ause

it w

as n

ot re

quir

ed b

y L

EA

A g

uide

lines

to

do

so.

Sho

rtly

aft

er t

he a

nnou

ncem

ent,

a la

wsu

it w

as f

iled

agai

nst

the

Adm

inis

trat

or o

f L

EA

A a

nd t

he H

ead

of th

e D

epar

tmen

t of

Cor

rec

tions

in V

irgi

nia.

The

law

suit

alle

ged

that

Vir

gini

a ha

d fa

iled

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e N

atio

nal H

isto

ric

Pre

serv

atio

n A

ct (

NH

P A

) an

d th

e re

cent

ly

enac

ted

Nat

iona

l Env

iron

men

tal P

olic

y A

ct (

NE

PA

) in

sel

ectin

g a

site

fo

r th

e pr

ison

fac

ility

and

that

the

Adm

inis

trat

or o

f LE

AA

had

fai

led

to e

nfor

ce N

HP

A a

nd N

EP

A.

In t

heir

def

ense

, L

EA

A a

nd t

he S

tate

of

Vir

gini

a co

nten

ded

that

th

e L

EA

A p

rogr

am w

as a

blo

ck-g

rant

pro

gram

and

, un

der

the

LE

AA

la

w,

the

loca

tion

for

the

pen

al f

acili

ty w

as a

sta

te c

once

rn a

nd n

ot a

F

eder

al c

once

rn.

LE

AA

con

tend

ed t

hat

the

Sta

te in

exp

endi

ng L

EA

A

fund

s di

d no

t ha

ve to

com

ply

with

NE

PA

sin

ce th

e de

cisi

on o

n w

here

to

bui

ld a

pen

al f

acili

ty w

as t

he s

tate

's d

ecis

ion

and

not

subj

ect

to t

he

revi

ew o

r di

sapp

rova

l of

the

Fed

eral

gov

ernm

ent.

The

dis

tric

t co

urt

agre

ed w

ith t

his

ratio

n,al

e an

d ru

led

agai

nst

the

plai

ntif

fs.

The

cou

rt o

f 11

-ppe

als d

isag

reed

and

ove

rrul

ed t

he d

istr

ict

cour

t, m

akin

g th

e fo

llow

ing

obse

rvat

ion:

The

. LE

AA

ins

ists

tha

t it

is

not

oblig

ed t

o co

mp

ly-i

nd

eed

it

may

not

co

mp

ly-w

ith

NH

PA

and

NE

PA

bec

ause

it

has

been

di

sabl

ed,

whe

n ap

prov

ing

bloc

k gr

ants

, fr

om i

mpo

sing

any

con

-

I l I 1\ ti ..

. ~--~.::..=·· --=-

· --'-'------~"-"--'-------~

--

Law

s an

d R

egul

atio

ns G

over

ning

the

LE

AA

Pro

gram

ditio

ns n

ot f

ound

in

the

Safe

Str

eets

Act

its

elf.

Sup

port

for

thi

s pr

opos

ition

is

clai

med

in

the

lang

uage

and

the

pol

icy

inhe

rent

in

the

Safe

Str

eets

Act

.

* *

*

45

Rel

ianc

e in

the

pre

sent

cas

e is

mis

plac

ed,

for

it i

s pl

ain

that

the

L

EA

A h

as o

verd

raw

n th

e 'h

ands

off

' po

licy

of t

he S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

. P

rope

rly

read

, ne

ithe

r th

e A

ct's

lan

guag

e no

r it

s po

licy

proh

ibit

s or

exc

uses

com

plia

nce

wit

h N

HP

A a

nd N

EP

A.49

In 1

97 5

ther

e w

ere

19 d

iffe

rent

"cr

oss-

cutt

ing"

law

s w

hich

gov

erp.

ed

the

expe

ndit

ure

of f

eder

al g

rant

s w

hich

, un

der

the

rati

onal

e of

the

ru

ling

in

Ely

v.

Vel

de,

neit

her

proh

ibit

ed n

or e

xcus

ed c

ompl

ianc

e w

ith

thes

e st

atut

es.

(App

endi

x IL

) In

197

3, L

EA

A h

ad u

nder

gone

ano

ther

reo

rgan

izat

ion

whi

ch d

ivi

ded

the

stat

e an

d lo

cal

gran

t pr

ogra

m a

mon

g se

vera

l of

fices

with

in

LE

AA

. (S

ee F

igur

e 6.

)

The

Juv

enile

Jus

tice

and

Del

inqu

ency

Pre

vent

ion

Act

of

1974

B

y 19

74, C

ongr

essi

onal

dis

satis

fact

ion

with

the

low

em

phas

is p

lace

d by

LE

AA

on

juve

nile

jus

tice

pea

ked.

Con

gres

sion

al c

ritic

s ch

arge

d th

at L

EA

A's

app

roac

h ha

d be

en t

o se

e th

e ju

veni

le o

ffen

der

in t

erm

s of

cri

me

and

puni

shm

ent.

In t

heir

vie

w,

LE

AA

had

not

pro

vide

d ad

equa

te f

unds

for

juv

enile

del

inqu

ency

pro

blem

s, p

arti

cula

rly

pre

vent

ion,

and

had

not

suc

ceed

ed in

bri

ngin

g ab

out e

ffec

tive

coor

dina

tion

of

Fed

eral

juve

nile

del

inqu

ency

pro

gram

s.

Ult

imat

ely

Con

gres

s pa

ssed

the

Juv

enile

Jus

tice

and

Del

inqu

ency

P

reve

ntio

n A

ct o

f 19

74 a

nd e

stab

lishe

d an

Off

ice

of J

uven

ile J

ustic

e an

d D

elin

quen

cy P

reve

ntio

n in

LE

AA

to

adm

inis

ter

it. T

he S

enat

e Ju

dici

ary

Com

mitt

ee s

tate

d th

at th

e pu

rpos

e of

the

Act

was

as

follo

ws:

The

Com

mitt

ee b

ill,

as a

men

ded,

pro

vide

s fo

r F

eder

al l

eade

rsh

ip a

nd c

oord

inat

ion

of th

e re

sour

ces

nece

ssar

y to

dev

elop

and

im

plem

ent

at t

he S

tate

and

loc

al c

omm

unity

lev

el e

ffec

tive

pro

gram

s fo

r th

e pr

even

tion

and

trea

tmen

t of

juve

nile

del

inqu

ency

. T

owar

ds t

his

end,

it

esta

blis

hes

a ne

w J

uven

ile J

usti

ce a

nd D

elin

quen

cy P

reve

ntio

n pr

ogra

m w

ithin

the

Dep

artm

ent

of Ju

stic

e,

Law

Enf

orce

men

t A

ssis

tanc

e A

dmin

istr

atio

n,

to p

rovi

de c

om

preh

ensi

ve n

atio

nal

lead

ersh

ip f

or a

ttac

king

the

pro

blem

s of

ju

veni

le d

elin

quen

cy a

nd t

o in

sure

coo

rdin

atio

n of

all

delin

quen

cy

activ

ities

of

the

Fed

eral

gov

emm

ent.'

0

93


~·

\

66

"Fed

eral

Aid

to

Cri

min

al J

usti

ce"

Dep

artm

ent o

f T

reas

ury

Circ

ular

s

Tre

asur

y C

ircul

ar

1075

T

reas

ury

Circ

ular

10

82

Exe

cutiv

e O

rder

s

E.O

. 11

246

E.O

. 11

764

E.O

. 11

914

With

draw

al o

f C

ash

from

the

Tre

asur

y fo

r A

dvan

ces

Und

er F

eder

al G

rant

and

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Not

ifica

tion

to S

tate

s o

f G

rant

-In-

Aid

Inf

orm

atio

n

Non

disc

rimin

atio

n in

Em

ploy

men

t in

Fed

eral

ly A

ssis

ted

Con

stru

ctio

n P

roje

cts

Non

disc

rimin

atio

n in

Fed

eral

ly A

ssis

ted

Pro

gram

s N

ondi

scrim

inat

ion

with

Res

pect

to

Han

dica

pped

in

Fed

eral

ly A

ssis

ted

Pro

gram

s

AP

PE

ND

IX I

I S

TA

TU

TE

S C

ON

TR

OLL

ING

EX

PE

ND

ITU

RE

S O

F G

RA

NT

FU

ND

S

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

LAW

S

1.

Nat

iona

l E

nviro

nmen

tal

Pol

icy

Act

of

1969

, 42

U.S

.C.

§ 43

21,

et

seq.

(1

970)

[N

EP

A].

NE

PA

req

uire

s F

eder

al g

rant

or a

genc

ies

to c

onsi

der

the

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

of

maj

or F

eder

al a

ctio

ns f

unde

d by

Fed

eral

gr

ants

and

to

prep

are

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

sta

tem

ents

on

thes

e ac

tio

ns.

2.

Nat

iona

l H

isto

ric P

rese

rvat

ion

Act

of

1966

, 16

U.S

.C.

§ 47

0, e

t se

q.

(197

0) [

NH

PA

]. N

HP

A r

equi

res

Fed

eral

gra

ntor

age

ncie

s an

d gr

ante

es

to c

onsi

der

the

effe

ct o

f F

eder

ally

ass

iste

d pr

ojec

ts o

n hi

stor

ical

pro

per

ties

liste

d in

the

Nat

iona

l R

egis

ter

of

His

toric

Pla

ces.

3.

F

lood

Dis

aste

r P

rote

ctio

n A

ct o

f 19

73,

42 U

.S.C

. §

4001

, e

t seq

. (S

upp.

Ill

, 19

73)

[FD

PA

]. F

DP

A p

rohi

bits

the

use

of

Fed

eral

gra

nt f

unds

to

su

ppor

t co

nstr

uctio

n in

any

are

a id

entif

ied

by t

he S

ecre

tary

of

Hou

sing

an

d U

rban

Dev

elop

men

t as

ha

ving

spe

cial

flo

od h

azar

ds u

nles

s th

e bu

ildin

g an

d an

y re

late

d pe

rson

al p

rope

rty

is c

over

ed b

y flo

od in

sura

nce.

T

his

is t

he o

nly

stat

ute

in t

his

listin

g w

hich

exe

mpt

s bl

ock

gran

ts f

rom

its

cov

erag

e.

4.

Cle

an A

ir A

ct o

f 19

70,

42 U

.S.C

. §

7401

, e

t se

q. (

Sup

p. I

I, 19

72).

The

C

lean

Air

Act

and

Exe

cutiv

e O

rder

117

38 p

rohi

bit f

undi

ng t

hrou

gh g

rant

s of

act

iviti

es w

ith a

n or

gani

zatio

n th

at p

ropo

ses

to u

se a

fac

ility

whi

ch

viol

ates

the

air

pollu

tion

stan

dard

s of

the

Cle

an A

ir A

ct.

5.

Fed

eral

Wat

er P

ollu

tion

Con

trol

Act

of

1948

, as

am

ende

d, 3

3 U

.S.C

. §

1251

, e

t se

q. (

Sup

p. I

I, 19

72)

[FW

PC

A].

The

FW

PC

A a

nd E

xecu

tive

Ord

er 1

1738

pro

hibi

t fu

ndin

g th

roug

h gr

ants

of

activ

ities

with

an

orga

ni

zatio

n th

at p

ropo

ses

to u

se a

fac

ility

whi

ch v

iola

tes

the

wat

er p

ollu

tion

stan

dard

s o

f th

e F

WP

CA

. 6.

S

afe

Drin

king

Wat

er A

ct o

f 19

74,

42 U

.S.C

. §

300f

, e

t se

q. (

Sup

p. I

V,

1974

) [S

OW

A].

SD

WA

pro

vide

s th

at n

o gr

ant

may

be

used

to

fun

d a

proj

ect w

hich

may

con

tam

inat

e an

aqu

ifer

whi

ch is

the

prin

cipa

l drin

king

w

ater

sou

rce

for

a co

mm

unity

. 7.

E

ndan

gere

d S

peci

es A

ct o

f 19

73,

16 U

.S.C

. §

1531

, e

t seq

. (S

upp.

Ill,

19

73)

[ES

AJ.

ES

A r

equi

res

Fed

eral

gra

nto~

age

ncie

s to

ass

ure

that

gra

nt

I ~ H

if lj !, I

Law

s an

d R

egul

atio

ns G

over

ning

the

LE

AA

Pro

gram

fund

are

not

use

d in

a m

anne

r th

at j

eopa

rdir

ns th

e c

ontin

ued

exis

tenc

e o

f a

thre

aten

ed o

r en

dang

ered

spe

cies

. 8.

W

ild a

nd S

ceni

c R

iver

s A

ct o

f 19

68,

as a

men

ded,

16

U.S

.C.

§ 12

71,

et

seq.

(19

76)

[WS

RA

]. W

SR

A r

equi

res

Fed

eral

gra

ntor

age

ncie

s to

ass

ure

that

gra

nt f

unds

are

no

t us

ed i

n a

man

ner

that

jeo

pard

izes

the

cle

ar

and

free

-flo

win

g co

nditi

on o

f ce

rtai

n w

ild a

nd s

ceni

c riv

ers.

9.

H

isto

rical

an

d A

rche

olog

ical

D

ata

Pre

serv

atio

n A

ct

of

1960

, as

am

ende

d, 1

6 U

.S.C

. §

469

et

seq.

(S

upp.

IV

, 19

74)

[HA

DP

A].

HA

DP

A

plac

es li

mita

tions

on

the

use

of F

eder

al fu

nds

to s

uppo

rt a

n ac

tivity

that

m

ay c

ause

irre

para

ble

loss

to s

igni

fican

t his

toric

al o

r arc

heol

ogic

al d

ata.

10

. C

oast

al Z

on

e M

anag

emen

t Act

of 1

972,

16

U.S

.C. §

145

1, e

t seq

. (S

upp.

II,

197

2) [

CZ

MA

]. C

ZM

A s

peci

fies

that

gra

nt-s

uppo

rted

act

iviti

es m

ust

be c

onsi

sten

t w

ith S

tate

land

-man

agem

ent p

rogr

ams

for

the

prot

ectio

n o

f co

asta

l zo

nes,

inc

ludi

ng G

reat

Lak

e w

ater

s.

CIV

IL R

IGH

TS

LA

WS

67

11.

Titl

e V

I o

f th

e C

ivil

Rig

hts

Act

of

1964

, 42

U.S

.C.

§ 20

00d

(197

0).

Titl

e V

I pr

ovid

es t

hat

no p

erso

n on

th

e g

roun

d o

f ra

ce,

colo

r, o

r na

tiona

l or

igin

can

be

excl

uded

fro

m p

artic

ipat

ion

in,

be d

enie

d th

e b

enef

its o

f, o

r b

e s

ubje

cted

to

disc

rimin

atio

n un

der

any

prog

ram

or

activ

ity f

unde

d w

ith F

eder

al g

rant

s.

12.

Reh

abili

tatio

n A

ct o

f 19

73,

29 U

.S.C

. §

701,

et

seq.

(S

upp.

Ill,

197

3).

The

Reh

abili

tatio

n A

ct e

xten

ds th

e T

itle

VI

type

pro

tect

ions

to th

e h

and

icap

ped.

13

. T

itle

!X o

f th

e E

duca

tion

Am

endm

ents

of

1972

, 20

U.S

.C.

§ 16

81 (

Sup

p.

II, 1

972)

. T

itle

IX p

rovi

des

that

no

pers

on c

an o

n th

e ba

sis

of

sex

be

excl

uded

from

par

ticip

atio

n in

, be

den

ied

the

bene

fits

of,

or

be s

ubje

cted

to

dis

crim

inat

ion

unde

r an

y ed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

or

proj

ect

fund

ed w

ith

Fed

eral

gra

nts.

OT

HE

R

14.

Indi

an S

elf-

Det

erm

inat

ion

Act

, 25

U.S

.C.

§ 4

50

f (S

upp.

V,

1975

). T

he

Sel

f-D

eter

min

atio

n A

ct r

equi

res

Fed

eral

gra

ntor

age

ncie

s to

giv

e pr

ef

eren

ces

to t

rain

ing

and

empl

oym

ent

of I

ndia

ns a

nd u

se o

f In

dian

en

terp

rises

for

adm

inis

trat

ive

func

tions

und

er g

rant

pro

gram

s w

hich

ben

efit

Indi

ans.

In

terg

over

nmen

tal

Coo

pera

tion

Act

of

1968

, 42

U.S

.C.

§ 42

01,

et s

eq.

(197

0).

The

Int

ergo

vern

men

tal C

oope

ratio

n A

ct a

utho

rizes

the

cre

atio

n o

f cle

arin

ghou

ses

at th

e S

tate

and

loca

l lev

els

to c

oord

inat

e an

d re

view

gr

ant p

rogr

ams

and

proj

ects

. U

se o

f the

cle

arin

ghou

se b

y F

eder

al g

ran

ter

agen

cies

and

Sta

te a

nd lo

cal g

rant

ees

is m

anda

ted

by O

MB

Circ

ular

A

-95.

16

. U

nifo

rm R

eloc

atio

n A

ssis

tanc

e an

d R

eal

Pro

pert

y A

cqui

sitio

n P

olic

ies

Act

of

1970

, 42

U.S

.C.

§ 46

01,

et

seq.

(1

970)

. T

he

Rel

ocat

ion

Act

re

quire

s gr

ante

es t

o p

ay t

he c

osts

of

relo

catin

g in

divi

dual

s di

spla

ced

by c

onst

ruct

ion

and

leas

ing

unde

rtak

en w

ith F

eder

al g

rant

fund

s. I

t als

o re

quire

s gr

ante

es to

ass

ure

that

dis

plac

ed p

erso

ns fi

nd a

dequ

ate

hous

in

g.

·-;}

94


,.,,._

\

68

"Fed

eral

Aid

to

Cri

min

al J

usti

ce"

17.

Hat

ch P

oliti

cal

Act

ivity

Act

of

1940

, as

am

ende

d, 5

U.S

.C.

§ 15

01,

et

seq.

(S

upp.

IV

, 19

74).

The

Hat

ch A

ct p

rohi

bits

Sta

te a

nd l

ocal

gov

ern

men

t of

ficia

ls w

hose

sal

arie

s ar

e pa

id i

n pa

rt w

ith F

eder

al g

rant

fun

ds

from

run

ning

fo

r po

litic

al o

ffice

oth

er th

an t

he o

ffice

they

cur

rent

ly h

old.

It

also

pro

hibi

ts c

oerc

ion

of

polit

ical

con

trib

utio

ns

from

go

vern

men

t em

ploy

ees

who

se s

alar

ies

are

paid

with

gra

nt f

unds

. 18

. A

nim

al W

elfa

re A

ct o

f 19

70,

7 U

.S.C

. §

2131

, et

seq

. (1

970)

. T

his

Act

re

quire

s re

sear

ch f

acili

ties

to c

ompl

y w

ith h

uman

e st

anda

rds

for

the

ca

re a

nd h

andl

ing

of

anim

als

whi

ch a

re u

sed

in F

eder

ally

-ass

iste

d pr

oj

ects

or

expe

rimen

ts.

19.

Dem

onst

ratio

n C

ities

and

Met

ropo

litan

Dev

elop

men

t A

ct o

f 19

66,

42

U.S

.C.

§ 33

01,

et s

eq.

(197

0).

Thi

s A

ct r

equi

res

gran

tees

to

subm

it pr

opos

ed m

etro

polit

an c

onst

ruct

ion

proj

ects

to

an a

reaw

ide

plan

ning

ag

ency

for

com

men

ts a

nd r

ecom

men

datio

ns p

rior t

o su

bmitt

ing

a gr

ant

appl

icat

ion

to t

he F

eder

al g

over

nmen

t.

Titl

e 18

of

the

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Cod

e co

ntai

ns a

num

ber

of

crim

inal

san

ctio

ns

appl

icab

le t

o gr

ants

. T

hese

in

clud

e pr

ohib

ition

s ag

ains

t fa

lse

stat

emen

ts,

18

U.S

.C.

§ 10

01 (

1970

); pr

ohib

ition

s ag

ains

t us

ing

gran

ts f

or p

oliti

cal

purp

oses

, 18

U

.S.C

. §§

600-

607

(197

0);

and

proh

ibiti

ons

agai

nst t

he e

xpen

ditu

re o

f gra

nt fu

nds

for

purp

oses

oth

er t

han

for

whi

ch t

he f

unds

wer

e ap

prop

riate

d.

The

lis

ting

does

not

inc

hide

leg

isla

tive

rider

s at

tach

ed t

o ap

prop

riatio

n bi

lls.

It do

es n

ot i

nclu

de a

cts

such

as

the

Dav

is B

acon

Act

, 40

U.S

.C.

§ 27

69 (

1970

), w

hich

are

inc

orpo

rate

d by

spe

cific

sta

tuto

ry r

efer

ence

int

o th

e en

ablin

g st

atut

e o

f se

lect

ed g

rant

pro

gram

s.

I l I ~ ij

Cha

pter

3

LE

AA

IN

TH

E S

TA

TE

S: 1

968-

1980

T

his

chap

ter

focu

ses

on w

hat

happ

ened

to

the

LE

AA

pro

gram

at

the

stat

e le

vel a

nd p

arti

cula

rly

on t

he r

ole

play

ed b

y th

e st

ate

plan

ning

ag

enci

es (

SPA

s).

The

less

ons

to b

e ga

ined

fro

m t

he e

xper

ienc

e ar

e ri

ch

but n

onet

hele

ss c

ompl

icat

ed in

wha

t the

y of

fer

to g

uide

fut

ure

crim

inal

ju

stic

e de

velo

pmen

t. T

he c

hapt

er b

egin

s w

ith a

few

rem

arks

con

cern

ing

our

appr

oach

to

asse

ssm

ent,

and

then

exa

min

es t

he L

EA

A p

rogr

am

in t

he s

tate

s by

fol

low

ing

its e

volu

tion

from

196

8 to

198

0. E

mpl

oyin

g th

e pe

rspe

ctiv

e pr

ovid

ed b

y m

odel

s of

inte

rorg

aniz

atio

nal

and

inte

rgo

vern

men

tal r

elat

ions

, the

cha

pter

end

s w

ith a

pre

lim

inar

y as

sess

men

t an

d an

alys

is

of t

he i

nitia

l de

sign

and

sub

sequ

ent

evol

utio

n of

the

pr

ogra

m.

LE

AA

Pro

gram

Obj

ecti

ves

and

an A

ppro

ach

to

Ass

essm

ent

The

cen

tral

obj

ectiv

e of

the

Safe

Str

eets

Act

was

to

build

the

capa

city

of

stat

e an

d lo

cal c

rim

inal

just

ice

agen

cies

to

com

bat

crim

e. W

hile

the

pr

ogra

m e

nact

ed t

o ac

hiev

e th

is e

ffor

t w

as m

ultif

acet

ed,

the

lync

hpin

w

as a

gro

up o

f pr

ogra

mm

atic

and

fun

d:ng

pri

oriti

es d

irec

ted

tow

ard

thre

e ca

paci

ty-b

uild

ing

initi

ativ

es a

t th

e st

ate-

leve

l: (1

) co

mpr

ehen

sive

sy

stem

pla

nnin

g an

d co

ordi

nati

on,

(2)

prog

ram

inn

ovat

ion,

and

(3)

de

velo

pmen

t of n

ew c

rim

e-fi

ghtin

g te

chno

logy

. Sta

te p

lann

ing

agen

cies

w

ere

crea

ted

to s

uppl

y es

sent

ial

dire

ctio

n to

the

se e

ffor

ts.

A c

omm

on a

ssum

ptio

n am

ong

prop

onen

ts o

f tji

e L

EA

A p

rogr

am

had

been

that

sta

te a

nd lo

cal u

nits

of g

over

nmen

t lac

ked

both

suf

fici

ent

fina

ncia

l re

sour

ces

and

polic

y co

mm

itm

ent

to s

uppo

rt c

hang

e in

the

cr

imin

al j

usti

ce s

yste

m. 1

The

blo

ck g

rant

s w

ere

inte

nded

not

onl

y to

of

fer

the

nece

ssar

y fi

nanc

ial

supp

ort

for

inno

vatio

n bu

t w

ere

also

in

tend

ed t

o al

ter

crim

inal

jus

tice

age

ncy

task

env

iron

men

ts (

that

is,

who

m a

nd w

hat

crim

inal

jus

tice

age

ncie

s re

spon

ded

to,

or m

ore

for

mal

ly,

the

sour

ce a

nd k

ind

of in

puts

and

the

dem

and

for

outp

uts

mad

e by

the

cri

min

al ju

stic

e ag

ency

's re

leva

nt e

nvir

onm

ent)

.2 T

o al

ter a

genc

y ta

sk e

nvir

onm

ents

, ne

w a

genc

ies,

sup

port

ed l

arge

ly t

hrou

gh L

EA

A

fund

s, w

ere

to a

dvan

ce c

ompr

ehen

sive

pla

nnin

g, i

nnov

atio

n, a

nd c

o-

69

·I

95


45828

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND . BUDGET A

. (Circular No A· 102 Revised]

UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIRE· MENTS FOR GRANTS.IN-AID TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

NOTICES

budget revisions to grants under $100,ooo.

•h• Provision that title to real property funded partly or wholly by the Federal- Government shall vest in the recip-ient. .

• f• A revision to the criteria governing when a grantee may keep nonexpendable

AUGUST 24. 1977. property without reimbursement to the 1. Purpose. This Circular promulgates Federal Government when it is no longer

standards for establishing consisten::y needed for any Federal program. and uniformity among Federal agencies 4 Background The standards inin the administration of grants to State, eluded in the attachments to this Cirlocal, and federally recognized Indian.- cular replace the multitude Of varying tribal governments. Also in.eluded in the and oftentimes conflicting r~quirements Circular are standards to insure the con- in the same subject matter'which have sistent implementation of sections 202, been burdensome to the State and local 203. and 204: of the Integrovemental Co- governments. Inherent in this standoperation Act of 1968 • 82 Stat. 1101 • · ardization process is the concept of plac-

2. Supersession. The President by Ex- ing greater reliance on State and local ecutive Order 11717 transferred the func- governments. In addition, the Intergovtions covered by OMB Circular No. A-102 ernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 was dated October 19. 1971, from the Office passed, in part, for the purposes of: ut• of Management and .Budg.et to the G~- Achieving the fullest cooperation and eral Services AdminISt~ation. O~ Cir- coordination of activities among levels of cular No. A-102 was rev_1sed and lSsued as government: 1 b, improving the adminFederal Management Circular 74-7 dated istration of grants-in-aid to the States; September 13. 1974. On Decem!Jer 31, and •c• establishing coordinated inter-1975. the President superseded thIS order governmental policy and administration

· by Exe ·utive Order 11893 and ~ra~ferred of Federal assistance program. This Act the functions covered by th1S Circular provided certain basic policies pertaining back to. the Office of ~agemen_t and to administrative requirements to be imBudget. FMC_ 7'.1-7 is reyISed .and reISsued posed upon the States as a condition to under its ongmal des1gnat1on of OMB receiving Federal grants. The impleCircular No. A-102. . . menting instructions of these policies

3. Su~mary. of signtfica~t changes. were initially issued in Circular A-96. The rey15e!l _circular contalDS chan~es These instructions are modified herein in that brmg it mto ge~eral agreement w!th the interest of achieving further conthe more recent cn:cula7 .A-110 ":hich sistency in implementing that Act. covers grants to un~ve~ties, hospitals, 5 Applicable provisions of the Inter-and nonprofit orgamzat10ns. · t f 1968

The more significant·changes·in"clude; governmental _cooperation Ac o . Federal agencies shall continue to fol-

' a• An amendment to the basic Cir- low the provisions of the Act, quoted r ular to make-it clear that the pro"!5ions below: of the attachments shall be applied to subgrantees except where they are specifically excluded.

• b 1 A provision that Federal agencies may accept the bonding policies and requirements of the grantee for construction contracts over $100,000 provided that the Government's interest is adequat.ely protected.

•c1 A revision to the criteriaµ for the valuation of donated real and personal property to provide that the value of such property shall be based on fair market value. The original Circular provided that property should be based on the cost of the property less depre ·ia- · tion or fair market value, whichever was less.

1 d' A provision that grantee audits should be made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, including Standards · for Audit of Governmental Organizations, Pr,ograms, Activities and Functions, published bY the General Accounting Office.

•e1 A provision to require Federal agencies to nay within 30 days after the receipt of billing when the reimbursement method is used.

1f1 A revision to the criterion for issuance of a letter of credit from $250,000 to $120,000.

• g 1 Deletfon of the requirements for grantees to obtain prior approvals for

DEPosrr OF GRANTS-IN-Am

Sec 202 No grant-In-aid to a ·state -shall be required by Federal law or admlnlstratlve regulatloll: to be deposited In a separate bank account a.part from other funds admln-

. lstered by the State All Federal gra.nt-hiald funds made available to the States shall be properly accounted for as Federal funds in. the accounts of the state rn· each case the State agency concerned shall render regUlar authenticated reports to the appropriate Federal agency covering the status and the appllcatlon of the funds, the liablllties and obligations on hand. and such other facts as may be required by said Federal agency The head of the Federal agency and the Comptroller General of the United States or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any. books, documents, papers. and records that are pertinent to the gra.nt-in·ald received by the States. .

SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL TRANSFERS TO THE STATES

Sec 203 Heads of Federal departments and agencies responsible for administering grantin-aid programs shall schedule the transfer of grant-in-aid funds consistent With program purposes and applicable 'Treasury regulations. so as to mlnimlze the time elapsing between the transfer or' such funds from the United States Treasury and the disbursement thereof by a State, whether such dis· bursement occurs prior to or subsequent to such transfer of funds, or subsequent to such

transfer of :funds I Sic 1 Staten ohall not bo beld accountable for interest l)arned on grant-in-aid funds. pending their dlobltrSD• ment for program purposes

ELIGWLE STATE AGENCY

Sec 204 Notwithstanding nny other Fed• era.I law wblch provides that a oingto State agency or mutttmember board ol' comml.%1on must be establlShed or deslgnat-Od to admln· lster or supervise the administration or any grant-in-aid program, the head or any Fed· eral department or agency admlnlnterlng such program may upon request of tho Oovernor or other appropriate executive or log• islative authority of tho State responolbio for determining or- revising tho organlz.a• tional structure of State government, waive tbe single" State agency or muttlmE'mbor board or commission provision upon ado· quate showing that such provision provonkl the establishment or tho moot ollectlvo and .efficient organizational arrangemento within the State government and approve other Sta.to admlnlstratlvo structure or arrnngo• ments Provided, That tho head or tho Fed• eral department or agency determines that the objectives of the Federal statute author• izlng the grant-In-aid program wlll not bo endangered by tho use or such other Stat-0 structure or arrangements

Some of the above provisions require implementing instructions and they are provided in several of the attachments to this Circular which deal with the spe· cific subject matter

6 Applicability and scape. The stand· ards promulgated by this Circular apply to all Federal agencies responsible for administering programs that involve grants to State and local governments and federally recognized Indian tribal governments However. agencies are- en• couraged to apply the standards to loan and loan guarantee Programs to the ex• tent practicable If the enabltng lefflsla· tion for a specific grant program pre· scribes pol!cies or requirements that dif· fer from the standards provided herein, the provisions of the enabltng legtslatton shall govern. Except where they arc spe• cifically excluded, the provisions or the attachments of this Circular shall be ap· plied to subgrantees performing sub· stantive work under grants that arc passed through or awarded by tho Pri• mary grantee if such subgrantees are States, local governments or federally recognized Indian tribal governments as defined in paragraph 7

7 Definitions For the purposes of this Circular:

1 aJ The term "grant" or "grant· in· aid" means money. or property in lieu of money. paid or furnished by the Fed· eral Government to a State, local, or federally recognized Indian tribal gov• ernment under programs that provide financial assistance through grant or contrabtual arrancements. The term does not include technical ass!stanco pro· grams which provide services hlStead of money or other assistance in the form of general revenue sharing, loans, loan guarantees, insurance, or contracts

, which are entered into and administered under procurement laws and reeulti· tions.

•b• The term "State" means any of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Common·

'wealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or·

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 176-MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1977

96


NOTICES

Attachment M

PARTV

ASSURANCES

The Applicant hereby assures and certifies that he wili comply with the re_gulations, policies, guidelines and requirements, including OMB Circulars No. A-95, A-102 and FMC 74-4, as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of Federal funds for this federally-assisted project. Also the Applicant assures and certifies to the grant that:

1. It possesses legal authority to apply for ~he grant; that a resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the applicatio~, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application apd to provide such additional information as may_ be required.

2. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and in accordance with Title VI of that Act, no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national· origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the ben!)fits of, or be otherwise subjected to discriminatiori under any pro· gram or actil.~ity for which the applicant receives Federal financial assistance and will immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement.

3. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d) prohibiting employment discrimination where (1) the primary purpose of a grant is to provide employment or (2) discriminatory employment practices will result in unequal treatment of persons who are or should be benefiting from the grant-aided activity.

4. It will comply with requirements of the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provides for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of Federal and federally assisted programs.

5. It will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act /

which limit the political activity of employees. 6. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum

hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as they apply to hospital and educational lnstitu· tion employees of State and local governments.

7. It will_establish safeguards to prohibit employees from t1sing their positions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private b

gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties.

8. It will give the s~onsoring cg.ency or the Comptroller General through any authorized representative tho access to and the right to examine all records, books, pa.eers, or documents related to the grant.

9; It will comply with all requirements imposed by the Federal sponsoring agency concerning special

- requirements of law, program requirements, and other administrative requireme~ts.

10. It will j.nsure that th.e ··;eacili.ties. under its ownership, lease or · supervision which. ·sh.all b~utilizea in the accomplishment of the

project are ·not listed on the ~vironmental Protection Agency's (El?A} list of Violati~g Facilities and that it will notify the · Federal grantor agency of the receip~ of any communication from the Director of the El?A Office of Federal Activities indicating that ~ ~acility to ~e used in the p~oject is under consideration for listing by. the 'EPA.

11.It will comply with the flo~d insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law.93-234, 87 Stat. 975, approved December 31, 1976. Section 102(a) requires, on and after March 2, 1975, the purchase of flood insurance in communities where such insurance is available as a condition for the receipt of any Federal financial assistance for construction· or acquisition purposes for use in any area that has been identified by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development as an area having special flood hazards.

,•

Exhibit M-3. Application for F~deral Assistance (Nonconstruction Proqrams)

(Page 12-of 13)

22

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 176-MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1977

97


NOTICES

Attachment M

PART v (Continued}

The~phrase "Federal. financial·assistance" includes any form of loan, grant, guaranty-, insurance payment, rebate, subsidy, disaster assistance loan or grant, or any other form of

_. _ __ _ _ _ direct or indirect Federal assistance. 12. It will. assist the Federal grantor agency in its compliance

with Section 106 of the National.Hist~ric Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 u.s.c. 470), Executive Order 11593,. and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 u.s.c. 469a-l et seq.) by (a) consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer on the conduct of investigations, as necessary, to identify properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that are subject to adverse effects(see 36 CFR Part 800.8) by the activity, and notifying the Federal granter agency of the existence of any such properties, and · by (b) complying with all requirements established by the Federal granter agency to avoid or mitigate adverse effects upon such properties.

{Page .13 of 13)

Exhibit M-3. Application for Federal Assistance (Nonconstruction Programs)

23

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 176-MONDAY, SEPTEMIElt 12, 1977

98


--

RESTRUCTURING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

HEARINGS BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON CRIME OF THE

-COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS

lf'IRST AND SECOND SESSIONS

PART 1

AUGUS'l' J.; OCTOBER 3, 4, 20, 1977; AND !\IARCH 1, 1978

Serial No. SS-38


U.S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

W ASilINGTON : 1978

99


3

Mr. CONYERS. Having said that, we now recognize and welcome A.soociate Deputy Attorney General Walter M. Fiederowicz· Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Patricia. M. Wald; General Counsel for LEAA . Thomn~ Madden ; the Actin~ Director of the National Institute of Law Enforcement, Blair Ewm~i Mr. James Gregg, Acting Adminis· trator of LEAA, and Paul NeJeJski, a.1$0 a member of the task force study group.

We welcome you all, ladies and gentlemen. We know that the Dep· uty Attorney General has sent a prepared statement, and we would welcome you to proceed with it in your own way. .

TESTIMONY OF WALTER M. FIEDEROWICZ, ASSOCIATE DEPUTl' ATTORNEY GENERAL, ACCOMPANIED BY PATRICIA M. WALD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE OFFICE OF LEGISLA· TIVE AFFAIRS; BLAIR G. EWING, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT; PAUL A. NEJEL. SKI, OFFICE OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; THOMAS l. MADDEN, GENERAL COUNSEL, LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION; AND 1AMES M. H. GREGG, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSIST· ANCE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. FIEDERowrcz. Although the Deputy Attorney General cannot be here today, I would like his statement introduced in the record.·

I also have a prepared statement, fairly lengthy, of which I would like to read excerpts and have the full statement introduced in the record, with your permission.

Mr. CoNYERS. All of the prepared statements will be incorporated into the record.

[The prepared sttt.tements of Messrs. Fiederowicz and Flaherty follow:]

STATEMENT OF PETER F. lrLA.HEBTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT 01' JUSTICE

The hearings which your Committee has scheduled to discuss the Depart~nt of Justice Study Group "Report to the Attorney General'' come at a most opportune time bP.Cause the Department is currently evaluating the recoinmenda· tions contained in the Report for restructuring the Law Enforcement Assistance AdmlnJstra Uon.

Attorney General BP-11 and I have assigned a high priority to the Improvement of the e.trectlYenes.~ and resJY,.1nslveness of the Department of Justice's program ot assistance to state and local governments for crime control and criminal

- justice system lmprovemeut:. Among our initiatives in this area was the creation of the Study Group and our charge to the Group that it present for our consider&.· tlon recommendations tor change in the program.

On June 23, 1977, the Study Group submitted its Report to Attorney General Bell and me. On June 30, 1977, the Attorney General publicly released the Report and asked !or specific comments on the Report for a period ot sixty days be-ginning on July 1, 197T. . .

In response to the Attorney Chmeral's request for public comment, the A.ttomey General and I have received a number of letters and reports which cogently dis· cuss the LEA.A program and its future. I ft.ad this response heartenlng .. As the Attorney General noted in releasing the report : "Crime is a problem which

100


4

touches every one of us. A Federal rol.e in this area must be shaped with the greatest possible participation ot the American people and their elected leader.J."

At tbistime and until the end of the sixty-day comment period, the Attorney General and I will be studying the .. Report to the Attorney General," as well as the various documents that we receive in response to the Attorney General's re· quest for commentary upon the Report.

I know that the hearings which your Committee hns scheduled wJU enhance the quality ot the discussion ot the issues raised in the Study Group's "Report to the Attorney General" and will assist Attorney General Bell and me to evaluate the Report and the iesues which it addresses.

The Attorney General and I look forward to working closely with you to resolve those issues.

STATEMENT Ol!' WALTER )f, }""IEDf:BOWICZ, OFFICE OF THE ..\ TTOR~EY GENl!2U.L, l>EPABTKENT 01' JUSTICE

.Mr. Oh.airman, I want to take this opportunity on behalf ot the Department of Justice and the members ot the Study Group to thnnk sou for tbil! opportunity to appear before your Committee to discuss its "Report to the Attorney <kneral" regarding the restructuring of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

The Attorney General has made the Improvement of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration nnd its programs one ot his top priorities. In April ot this year, he organized the Study Group and asked it to conduct a comprehensive review of the preisent LEAA program and to undertake a basic rethinking ot the Department of Justice's program or assistance to state and local gov· ernments in crime control and criminal justice system improvement. On June 23, 1977, the Study Group submitted lt.s Report to the Attorney General nnd the Deputy .Attorney General. On June 30th, because ot his belief tnat a "Federal role in this area must be shaped with the greatest possible participation of the American people and their elected leaders,'' Attorney General Bell public1y distributed the Report and solicited comments concerning the Report

During the comment period, which extends through the end of August. the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General will be considering the Study Group's recommendations and the comments they receive from public officials and the general public. Only after such a process has been completed will the &\ttorney General nnd the Deputy Attorney General adopt a position concerning tbe recommendations contained in the "Report to the Attorney General". Accordingly, I would like to emphasize that the conclusions and recommendations of the Study Group in its "Report to the Attorney General" do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Department of Justice on the issues addressed in the Report. Similarly, I would like to emphasize that at these hearings my colleagues and I can speak only on behalf of the Study Group and not on behalf of the Department of Justice.

Today, I would like to briefly outline the process followed by the Study Group in examining the LEAA program and to highlight the key findings contained in the Report. In the session Bl!heduled for Thursday it is my understanding that we will be asked to discuss the specific recommendations contained in the Report.

Serving with me on the Study Group were six individuals who have had a wide range of experience in and out of government. Patricia M. Wnld, Assistant Attorne1 General for the Office of Legislative Atrairs, has among numerous other activities, served as a member of the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia, as a consultant to the President's Commisslon on Lnw Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justlce and on the Executive Committee of the Juvenile Justice Standards Project IJA-ABA.

Ronald J,, Gainer currently ser\'es as Deputy Assistant Attorney Genernl for the Office for Improvements In the Administration of Justice. Prim~ thereto, Mr. Gainer served as an attorney In the Criminal Division of the Department ot Jmitice and as Director ot the Department's Office of Polley and Planning. In these positions, Mr. Gainer has had an opportunity to work on a number of criminal justice matters on a policy-making level and to review the operations of the LEAA program for the Department ot Justice.

Panl A. Nejelskf, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Oftlce for Improvements in the Administration of Justice, was employed by LEAA in its Ne.tional Institute of J,aw Enforcement and Criminal Justice in 1969 and 1970. He

101


9

"In 1rnmmary, then, the lessons of the past nine yenrs of the LEAA program have heen mixed. The comprehenslYe reYlew undertaken by the Study Group Ie<l to the conclusion that there is the need for n major restructuring of tbe Justice Department's program of assistance to state and local governments for crime controi · and criminal justice Improvements. This major restructuring must take place in the context of both the positive as well as the negative lessons ot the past. I,EAA was always viewed as an experiment. It Is time now to cnp-ltnllze on the lessons of nine years of experience and design a !Jetter }'ederal r<>sponse to the nation's crime problem."

Bnsed upon its review of the LEAA program and Its findings, tlle Study Grou-p Identified certain major issues pertinent to the future ot LEAA, nn<l made recommendations to the Attorney Oem~rnl concerning those issues. Mr. Nejelski con" curred only with recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 of the Report.

As I mentioned at the outset, the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney Gf'neral nre reviewing the Report. Over 3,000 copies of the Report have been distributed for publlc comment. A listing of the individuals nncl groups who have received copies of the Report fs attached to my testimony. Tile Study Group will be reviewing and analyzing responses to the Report, as will the statl' ot the Attorney General and the Deputy .Attorney General. Your hearings come at a most opportune time to assist the Department of Justice in its evaluation of J,EAA and its future.

l\Iy coleagues and I would be pleased to attempt to respond to any questions the Committee may have.

DISTRmUTION OF THE REPORT TO THE ATIOR~EY GENERAL

As of this date, over 3,000 copies of the report have been distributed among the following groups:

(a) All members of the U.S. Congress. ( b) All Governors. ~ c) All State Attorneys General. ( d) All State Chiefs Justice. ( e) The Mayors of the 120 Largest Ci ties. (/) All Stnte Planning Agencies under the LEAA Program. (fl) .All major national interest groups including:

( 1) National Governors Conference; (~) National Association of Criminal Justice Planning Directors; ( 3) X n ti on al Association of Regional Councils ; (4) Xntional Association ot Counties; (5) Xntional Conference of Stnte Criminal Justice Planning Administra-

tors; (6) National Conference of State Legislators; ( 7) National Leai~ue of Cities/ U.S. Conference of 'Mayors; ( S) AdYisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations; ( 9) International City l!anagement Association; (10) National Center for State CourtB; ( 11) American Correctional Association; ( 12) Council of State Governments; ( 13) American Bar Association; ( 14) National Sheriffs Association; ( 15) International .Association of Chiefs of Police; (16) National Legal Aid and Defender Association; (17) National Association of Attorneys General; ( 18) National District Attorneys Association; (10) National Urban League; (20) National Association of Neighborhoods; (21) National PeopleR Action; (2'2) National Center for Community Action; (23) National Council of La Raza; and (24) National Congress for Community Economic Development.

( h) All :\lajor Newspapers. < i) The General PulJlic upon request.

Mr. FrnnEROWICZ. Thank you.

102


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES

HEARING BEFORE THE

'f SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON

..

. -k t

CRIMINAL LA 'vs AND PROCEDURES OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 1245, S. 1882, S. 3270, and S. 3280

PART I RESTRUCTURING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT

ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

A'VGUST 16 AND 23, 1978


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1978

:55:l. l - I 'f

103


6

the State role should be strengthened. 'Ve will hear from t.he cities about how the city role should be strengthened. We have tried to develop an imaginative concept of arbitration. We have provided new flexibility so that if the cities do not get sufficient resources, they can get more under other formulas.

This legislation has flexibility. I think it make,s clear that if we had a $6 billion authorization for this year, we might do a lot more. But we do not have that.

One of the prin'Ciples of this administration has been trying to target limited resources tlirough leveragins. 'Ve are not going to be able to do everything, but we can make this a responsible pro~m. We can make tlie Federal Government's limited participation with local communities, States, and counties an important _instrument to help meet one of the great concerns of the citizens of this Nation.

So I look forward to working with the chairman of this subcommittee and the other membeirs. !regret I will not be able to hear the testimony, but I have reviewed the testimony, Attorney General Bell and Governor Hunt. I was prepared to develop some.of these points with you. I think the testimony will be excellent and I will try to get back ..

I give you the assurance that I have read your testimony in detail prior to the hearing. I will look forward to working with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator BmF.N. Without objection, Senator Kennedy, your state

ment shall become a pnrt of this hearing record at this point. [Material follows:] .

STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD 1\1, KENNEDY AT OPEN HEARINGS ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

Today, the Subcommittee on Crlmfnnl l.nws nnd Procedures begins a compre-hensive series of hearings on the future of the Federal Law Enforcement Assist· ance· Administration. These hearings are aimed at analyzing the structure, method, goals and future '>f the current J,EAA program. which Is subject to reautl\orlzatlon next year. In a broader sense, these hearings provide us with an opportunity to examine the federal government's role In aiding local crlmeftgbtlng efforts.

The development of just, workable proposals for combating crime ls an urgent ooncern of all of us. It fs an Intolerable situation In this Nation when our own citizens cannot walk down the streets without facing the dangers of robbery. mugging and other street crimes. Although there are no hidden panaceas for elimfnntlng crime from our society, It ts clenr that certain measures can nnd must he taken to make our streets safe and our citizens secure. I am convinced that the federal government does have a limited, but very Important role to play In this area. r~EAA ls both the symbol and the reallty of the federal government's modest commitment to assist localities in this continuing struggle. We need J.,EAA.

The major legislative vehicle for reorganizing and restructuring the LEAA program ls S. 8270. the "Justice System Improvement Act of 1978,0 which I ln· troduced, with strong administration and bipartisan support last month. This hlll ls designed to make the J.,EAA program more efficient and ettectlve. It bas been personally endorsed by both President Carter and Attorney General Bell and should go a Ion~ way In eliminating the defects and faults which have plagued the LEAA program during the past decade.

These current defects are many: poor priorities; excessive red tape: lack ot clearly delineated federal, state, and local crtme-ftghttng roles; excessive state control ot the program at the expense of the cutes and oountfes: poor Internal J,EAA structural organization; absence of etrectlve research and evaluation com· ponents; lack of clearly understandable purposes and goals; poor targeting of block grant funds and the fallure o-f comprehensive planning.

'

104


7

But beyond these speclftc detects, there remain troublesome general questions concerning LEAA-why does LEAA remain the stepchild of the federal grant programs? Did LEAA get off on the wrong toot in 1068 with Its extensln hardware and antirlot purchases? Is the llrogram still perceived tn Ideological terms, as 11la w and order" oriented?

During tbe past year I have been engaged in lengthy discussions wltb the De· partment of Justice in an eaort to make tbe program more effective. These dis· cusslons have been most cooperative and constructive. But the basic roots ot S. 3270 go all tbe way back to the early 1970's, when I first proposed steps to Im· prove the functioning ot the program. For too long the Congress bas been unnble or unwllllng to confront the structural and administrative defects which binder LEAA. In 1970, 1978, and, especially in 1976, various amendments were made to the program In an effort to improve it; but these amendments, although important and constructive, were largely band-aid reforms, aimed at particular LEAA weak· nesses. l\lnjor surgery was left tor another day.

I continue to question, not the concept of federal assistance to aid IocaUtles In the war on crime, but, r&ther, the nature and administration ()f that assistance. Since 1968 LEAA bns authorized expenditures totaling over $6 billion, and yet many, including myself, question how this money has been spent. I am, of course, aware that crime is primarily a local problem and that LEAA's role is, by necessity, lhnlted. But the issue ts not whether LEAA can cure the naUon's crime problem-it cannot-but whether l.1EAA can be altered and restructured in order to make a more meaningful contribution. I believe It can.

S. 3270 attempts to provide the trpe of comprehensive reform which has not taken place during the last decade. I bell eve this blll and these heart ngs will go a long way ln mnklng J,EAA the type of federal agency contemplated by Congress when it enacted the LEAA program ln 1968.

The Justice System Improvement Act ls not a palllatlve; It constitutes a major break with the existing program. All of tbe major concepts found fn the current statute-block grant assistance, discretionary funding, the National Institute of Justice, criminal justlce planning-are substantially restructured and reorganized to meet the constructh·e crltlcl~ms raised during recent years. Thus, the blll: (1) creates n separate National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice, Statistics within the Justice Department-and outside of J~EAA-and places both of them, in addition to l..EAA under a new umbrella office-the Office of JnstlceAsslstance, Research and Statistics; (2) eliminates the annual comprehenstveplan requirement and Its attendant red tape; (3) replnceR state planning ngenrles; ( 4) prohibits the expenditure of Ll<~AA funds tor equipment and hardware· unless such expenditures are a necessary part of a larger Innovative program;. (5) gh·es special emphasis to judicial needs and programs; (6) provides dlr~t ftnanclnl assistance to larger cities and counties; (7) provides greater com· muntty and neighborhood involve-ment In choosing local prlorltJes and (8) crE>ntes new criminal justice formulas to target funds to local areas of greatest 1need.

I look forward to the upcoming testimony on S . ..3270 and other J"'EAA bflls, as we attempt to fashion a tlnnl legislative product which wm glYe LEAA nn opportunity-long overdue-to make a more meaningful contribution to the local war on crime. The provisions ot the~m bftls are not etched fn stone; I believe we cnn do an even better job. The hen rings, heglnnlng today and continuing Into next year, wfll give us an extended opportunity to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the pending legMatlon. What ts needed during the months ahead ls the \'nluable Input of those manning the front lines fn the battle against crime-the police, judges, corrections officers, district attorneys and the detense bar. These hearings wfll ahm afford an opportunity for us to hear from the governors, mayors, county officials, criminal justice planners and all those who have a very t•eal, dedkated Interest ln seeing the LEAA program work. The hearings are designed to assure thnt the Ame-rlcnn taxpayer wlll receive a better return on his or her investment in tlie war on <'rime than on the $6 billion spent so far. We owe It to the public to put this agency fn order and to rE>store the confidence of the people that we are mnklng progress In dealing with the problem of crime In America.

Senator BmEN'. Senator Thurmond i Senator TnURMOND. Mr. Chairman, today the Criminal Laws Suh·

committee b£1gins its oversight nnd r£1nutliorization proc£1ss for the

105


>

)

)

)

Hon. w ALTER F. MO!'WALE Vice Prtsident of the Unifcd States The White House, ' Washington, D.O.

383

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAi.,

lra8hinytrm, n.r•., .July 10, 1978.

DEAR MR. VICE PRESIDENT; Enclosed for your consideration is a Iegislatin' proposal ~ntftled. the "Justice System Im11rovement Act of 1978'' which amends in its entirety Title I of the Omnibus CrimC' Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. This proposal restructures the Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and is intended to assist state and local governments in improving the quality of their justice systems.

The Jufltice System Improvement Act provides a four-year authorization for Justice assistance, research and statistks programs. The Act Is significantly different than the current LEAA statute and makes major :;trnctural and substantive changes in tbe financial assistance. resear('}1 and statistical programs now being administered by LEAA.

The Act is designed to correct the major criticisms directed at the l..iEAA program by simplifying the grant process and eliminating ne<'dless red tape, by the targeting of funds, by stn-ngthening the role of local governments in the program, by eliminating wasteful use of LEAA funds, by increasing community participation in the LEAA program, and by improving justice research, demonstration, and statistics programs.

More specifically, the bill can be described as follows:

(1) STATE AND L-0CAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

The btll replaces the current LEAA block and discretionary grant programs with a formula grant program, a priority grant program, and n dis.?retionnry grant program. Seventy percent of such funds must he set aside for formula grants, twenty percent for priority grants and ten percent for discretionary grants. These grants are to be administered hy LJ<~AA and LEc~A is to be under the direct authority of the Attorney General. Under the bill, tht Administrator of LEAA has final sign-off authority on all grants and contracts and reports to th(> head of an Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics established by the bill.

FORMULA GRANTS

The bill contemplates the submission to LEAA of n very simple three-year applicutlon which would not contain much of the verbiage that has led to larger paper submission requirements under current law. The application must be based on an analysis of the crime problems in the state and must include priorities for addressing t11ese crime problems.

Under the new bill, the state is authorized to prepare those parts of the application which relate to state agencies and to cities uncler 100,000 population and counties under 250,000 population. The state courts through .Judicial Coordinating Committees are authorized to preparl.' n single application for state court activities. Each major city and county is a uthorlzell to pre pa re n single application for their own activities. The State would then integrate these applications Into a single application to be submitted to LJDAA.

The state review of the application from major cities and <'Otmtie8 under the bill is limited. Applications can only be reviewed for coropliancl.' with Federal requirements ancl state law, for duplication of other projects, and for inc~nsistencies with priorities. Any disngreements h<'twE>en state and large umts of local government must be resolved through arbitration.

Formula ~rant funds are to be distributed on the lta8is of a national formula \'\ith a hold harmless provision which assures that no state re<'eives less than a population share of the funds as undf'r cn_rrent law. The bill also contain~ pr~visions under which some states with particularly severe crime 11rohlems rece1v<' additional funds based on a formula that takes into account crime, population, tax effort, and criminal justice expenditures.

Major cities and counties receive a ftxerl allotm('nt of funds from the state share. The amount of funds received is determined by u formula has2d on criminal justice expenditures.

106


384

An annual performance report must be submitted to LEAA each year by each state. LEAA must review this performance report and, if based on this performance report or on LEAA's independent evaluation it is determined that the funds were not being used effectively, LEAA must ~itber suspend all funds going to a jurisdiction or suspend only those funds which would be otherwise used for an ineffective program or project.

The annual state comprebensiv~ plr.ns now being submitted to LEAA average about 1,000 pages. The single three-year application should not exceed 300-400 pageJ. Over a three-year period total paper submission, including amendments nnd annual performance reports, could be cut by 75 percent.

NATIONAL PRIORITY GRANTS

Under the priority grants provisions of the bill, the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics is directed, after consultation with the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, state and l()('al governments, and others to establish programs for priority grant funding which have been shown thron,gh re~earch, demonstration or evaluation, to he particularly effective in improving the criminal justice sy8tem nnd reducing crime.

In order to receive a priority grant, a sta1e or local government must provide for 50 percent ot the cost of the program or project. In providing such a matching share, a recipient can use the fo1mula grant, general revenue sharing funds, state and local appropriations, or any other source of funds available for that jurisdiction.

DlBCBETION ARY GRANTS

The blll also authorizes LEAA to award discretionary grants. Under the bill, these grants are to be used to fund programs for improving the criminal justice system which might not be otherwise undertaken ur der the formula or priority grant programs.

(2) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

The bill creates a National Institute of Justice witbln the Justice Department that replaces two existing units (the National Institute for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice and the National Institute of Corrections) and part of a third unit (Institute of Juvenile Justice Development and Research). The bill authorize! the National Institute of Justice to undertake basic and applied research in the areas of civil and criminal justice and to conduct evaluations and sponsor demonstrations tn these areas. To insure the independence and integrity of the research operation, the bill gives the Director of the National Institute of Justice sign-off authority for all grants and contracts to be awarded by the National Institute ot Justice. To insure administrative responsib!Uty, the Director of the National Institute of Justice reports to the Director of the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics: The bill establishes a National Institute of Justice advisory board to be appointed by the Attorney General and to consist of a broadly based group of the academic and research community, justice practltlonerl!I, st.ate and lO<'al officials, officials of neighborhood and communtly organizations, and citizens. The board would have authority to develop, in conjunction with the Director, pollcles and priorities for the National Institute of Justice.

(3) BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS

The bill also creates a Bureau of Justice Statistics within the Department of Justice under the direct authority of the Attorney General. Under the bill, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics report8 to tbe Director of the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics and has final sign-oft' authority for all grants and contracts to be awarded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics Is authorlzed to collect, analyze and disseminate statistics on criminal and civtl justice maHers.

The bill estah118hes a Bureau of Justice Statistics advisory board to be appointed by the Attorney General and to consist of a broadly based group of researchers, statisticians, justice practitioners, state and local officials and citizens. The hoard would have authority to recommend to the Director policies and priorttles for the Bureau of Jul!ltlce Statistics.

Prompt and favorable consideration of the proposed "Justice System Improvement Act of 1978" is recommended. In addition to the btll, there is enclosed a

(

107


)

385

section-by-section analysis. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there fs no objection to the sullmission of rthls legislative proposal to the Congress and that its enactment would be in accord with the program of the President.

Yours sincerely, GBIFFIN B. BELL, Attorney General.

Enclosure. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALi'SIS

Section 2-Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, ls amended in its entirety as follows:

The Declaration and Purpose Clause sets out justice system improvement as the overall purpose of the new title. The clause provides that the policy of Congress ls (1) to provide financial and technical assistance with maximum certainty and minimum delay; (2) to support community anti-crime efforts; (3) to encourage development of basic and applied research In the eivll, criminal, and juvenile justice systems; and ( 4) encourage the collection and analysts of statistical Information concerning crime and the operation of Justice systems.

PAB'l' A-LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

Section 101-Section 101 of Part A retains wlthin the Department of Justice, under the direct authority of the Attorney General, a Law Enforcement Assist· ance Administration. The office Is under the direction of an Administrator who reports to the Director of the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics established In Part H.

Section 100-Section 102 sets out the duties and functions of the Administrator.

Section 103-Section 103 i·etalns within the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration the Office of Community Anti-Crime Programs. This office Is authorized to encourage community and citizen participation in crime prevention, to coordinate lts &ctivties with ACTION and other Federal programs designed to increai;.e citizen participation, and to provide grants and technical assistance for such purposes.

PA.BT B-NA.TIONAL IIJSTI1'UTE OF JUSTICE

Sections 201 and 203-These sections establlsb within the Department of Justice, under the direct authority of the Attorney General, a National Institute of Justice. The Institute ts to be headed by a Director who will report to the Director of the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics.

Section 202 ( c )-Section 202 ( c) sets out the authority of the Institute. This authority Includes: (1) making grants and entering Into cooperative agreements and contracts to conduct research, demonstrations, or spC'Cial projects; (2) conducting or authorizing multi-year and short term research in civil, criminal, and juvenile justice systems; (3) conducting evaluations; (4) providing research fellowships and internships; (5) serving as a national and international clearinghouse; (6) serving In a consulting capacity to Federal, State, and local justice systems .

. Section 202(d)-Sectlon 200(d) sets out the functions and authority of the Director ot the Institute.

Section 203-Section 203 provides that grants under Part B may be up to 100 per centum of the total cost of each project.

Section 204-Section 204 establishes a 21 member National Institute ot Justice Advisory Board consisting of researchers, criminal justice practitioners, State and local elected officials, and members of the general public. The Board develops research policy for the National Institute of Justice.

) PART C-BUBEAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS

Sections 301 and 800-Sections 301 and 302 establish within the Department of Justice, under the direct authority of the Attorney General, a Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Bureau is to be headed by a Director who wi11 report to

) the Director of the Office of Justice Assistance. Research and Statistics. Section 302(c)-Section 300(c) sets out the authority of the Bureau. This au

thority Includes: ( 1) making grants and entering into cooperative agreements and contracts for the purpose of gathering justice statistics; (2) collecting and

108


NEWS RELEASE PETER W . RODINO

- --

FOft IJ"1lDIATt RELEASe

l 0th O lJ.tfl(.t • New JetMY

Chairman Commltwe on th• Judiciary

U.S. Hoo• of Representatives

ntm..'1>,\Y, MAY 10, 1979, AHO AFT1!R ClMACT: J<llN RlJSSONELLO 202·225·3436

IASHTHCTClf, D. C. -- The ttouH Juclici&JT eo.ittff , by a 2C to 6 vote, 1pprovod

today 1 bill NOTt•hlna th• &Aw enfoTC..nt Asalst1n049 AdllJnlstratton which

pl1ee1 lncreuecl ..,..uh • 1nu-m. pl'Ofl'lllS ln loc1l comunitlos.

"9p. '9ter w. ~odlllo, cha\nan of the comittee and tht bil 111 priury l'JIOUW• 11ld lt 'tprovldH a llplflc111t improvement in LI!M'• 1tructure Ind ori•h•tlOft, whldl w\11 111b lt llON tlltcth• in helping loc1l govem•nt1 flsht en.."

fte Hld the blll "offtl"I 111 important blllnct in the lftH of lnvolYWRt for LIM, "'-Ht puttla1 .,,.cial tllphuil on those artH Which have Pl'O'f'9ll llOlt succ.s1f\al •• .. ,.,tally the C~lty Anti -Cri .. pro1na."

" If we an ever to ult real pro1ress ln reducina criJDt , we 11USt tftCoun,. effort• by l~~J citbens who are aost fuillar with the dangers and the ~ of crlllO," ht 1ddM.

11'• bi l l would require 10~ of all LEAA funds to go for the c.-.itr Aatl·Cri.M f'•'O.,._ which prollOtes cri11e prevention activities by nonCoftnmlllal ~tf ~to·.ips.

The bill also provides a cri.nimum of 20\ of tJ!AA funds for juvenile deli.nqu9Dcy p1'0gr aas w~th prilla.ry emphasis on serious juvenile offenders.

Rodino said "the bill is designed to drdstically reduce the red tape which hL~ plagued the process of getting federal assistance to states and local government s."

By requiring state and local governments to sub111it one applicat ion every tbne years instead of annual ly, the bi ll is expected to reduce paperwork by 60\ .

The bill also would set up new "priority grants" which would provide ertra llOTley to programs that have proven especially effective in cOllbatting crime.

A Bureau of Justice Statistics also would be established to collect and analyze infonnation concen1ing crime, juvenile del inquency and the operation of the criminal justice system at various l evel s of government.

Rodino said lie would "push very strongly for this bill's approval by the House because crime is a problem which concer.,s all of us - - and LEAA is the only instrumertt that the federal government has to assist states and localities to fight crime ."

- 30 -

109


FOR RELEASE SUNDAY NAY 6, 1979. AND AFTER CONTACT: JOllN RUSSONELLO 202·225-3436

RODINO LEAm FJGrl' TO SAVE LEM

WASHtNG'lu., D. c. -- Peter w. Rodino, Clain.an of tl\e House Judiciary Comittee,

ii leading a fight to save the Law EnforceMnt Assistance Adainiltration from

drastic bud.set cuts in 1980.

Rodino has sent a letter to all House ...t>ers as~in1 them to vote a1alnst all ... ndme:nts to the Fiscal 1980 Budget Resolution which would eliminate or redu~ tl\e amount Congress can authorize foT LEM in 1980.

"I aa convinced that now ls not the time to abandon L&M, which is our last ~ federal ~ment to the fight against street crime," Rodino said.

"l think that tl'le recent cliute to cut expenditures across-the-board can be lrre1ponlible When you an considering vital programs," he added.

He pointed out that the SS46 million proposed by the 1980 budget resolution u a llOdost aaount to spend for criminal justice assistance -substantially below that •l'Propriated for fiscal 1979."

He also added, "Cri11e continues to rank very high among the concerns of Americans, pa!'ticularly those in our cities; yet less than one percent of the federal assistance that will be awarded to state and local governments next year will be allocated to LEM under the 1980 budget resolution."

He promised to "make an all-out effort to save this program because I ltnow how illportant it is to our states and localities. There must be a national comait:ment to fight crime. and if we abaondon LEM we will be turning our backs on the problem. 11

11te House will be considering t he 1980 budget resolution on Monday and Tuesday ne.n week.

Rodino also annol.mced that the House Judiciary Committee would begin on TUesday marking up legislation to reorganize and restructure the LEAA.

'"nae committee's goal will be to allow the successful projects under LE.AA to continue. while eliminating the less productive aspects of the program," Rodino said.

He noted that "the costs of more than 65% of the projects initially flmded by LEAA are now financed by the participating communities or states."

Rodino is the principal sponsor of an LBAA reauthorization proposal in his c011111ittee. which he introduced for President Carter this year.

He said that the Judiciary Committee "must complete consideration of LEAA by May lSth according to d1e time limits established by the House budget process.

"If the House cuts the Budget authority for LEAA. it will tie the hands of the committee to decide the most constructive proposal to reorganize the agency.

"Crime is a national problem and LEAA is the only instrument that the federal government has to assist states and localities to fight crime."

- 30 -

110


CONTROLLING CRIME THROUGH MORE EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT

1/33---1 HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

' .,,...--s.· ao9, s.

MARCH 7 •. 8, AND 9; APRIL 18, 19, AND 20;. MAY 9; JULY 10, lla AND 12, 1967

Printed for the use ot the Committee on the J'udil.cla17

U.S. OOVJ!lBNMBNT PRINTING OJJTJCB

W AS!fl:NGTON ·: i987

-------··,.-·~-~-----------For a6te bt tb..• ·~taperlntendent ol DOC\\Inents, tr.a. Government Prfntlns Otnoe ·

Wubfngtoo, D.O. ~ • frlce $MO

111


100 CONTROLLINO CRIME·

eral department or. agency engaged· in. admlnlaterh~li proaraui~ .related· to i law enforcement and criminal Justice .s)JaU.'. t9, the maximum extent practicable, consult with and seek advice from the Attorney General to Insure fully coordl· nated e«orts. .. · · " . . ~ . . .

SE(J. 404. The, Attotney. General.may. arrange with amt. re.lmbul'Se. the· heads of other Federal departments and egencles.fori the pe,rtorpinbce·of!nny .of his functions under~ this Act, and,. as necessary or appropriate; delegate any. of bis powers under this Act. with respect to any part thereof, andJ authol'lie the redele· gatlon of such powers. . .

SEo.. 405. Tbe Attorney. Ge11eral le authorized- ~ · . . (a). to. conduct, re$earch and, evaluation .. studies: with l respect· to· matters

relnted to this Act; and (b) to· collect, evaluate, pubUsh, and· disseminate. statistics .and ·other In·

tormaUon on:.the ·condltlon and, progress of· law enforcement andicrlmlnal justice In: the. several States. _ .

SEO. 406. Payments under this Act may be made ln Installments, and·ln·advance or by way of•. rellll bursement, as may· be determined! by· the· Attorney General.

SEO. 407. Whenever· the Attorney. General, after. reasonable; notice and ·oppor· tuntty for hearing. to .a grantee un,der this Act. finds: that, with r~pect· to· any payments made::under thle1Act, there ls a· substantial tallure·to. comply wltb-

(a) the provisions of, this ·Act; , (b) regulations promulgated by the· Attorney· General under· this Act; or (c) the law, enforcement· and crlmln.al· Justice plan submltted.Jn:accord·

ance with too provisions of this Act' the Attorney.. General shall notify such grantee that further:payments shall not·be,made (or ln,bls discretion· that further payments shall· not be made tor actlvltles In which there , ls such failure), until there Is no longer such failure. ·

Szo. 408, Notblng contained ·In· this· Act shall ·beiconstrued to authorize any department, agency, ofDceri, or. elllployee of the· U~ted ·States to exercise. any direction,; ~Qpeivlslon, ·or control i over any· Poll~e torce. or. other agency· of; any State or local law ~ntorcement and criminal juaUce; system.

·SEO. 409. Unless, otherwlse:speclOed~ in :thie-::Act, the!Attorney General shall carr11out.the •. progranul:provlded~tor In.this· Act during the 0 flscal:year. ending June 80,.1~: and· tha fou1' suc~edlng .flsoal ·year&.;

Szo.·410. Not n:tore tban,l'5lper._centwn1ot the,·sums approprtatedior allocated for any, fiscal year, to carry. out the purpose. of thla: A.ct shall .be used within any one State. · . , . . . .

Szo. 411. The Attorney .. General;, atter; appro~rlate consultation with· repre· sentatlnis ot State and local governments, ls authorized to precsrlbe such regulations as may be necessary. to implement the: purpos~ of this Act, Including regulations whtcb-

( a)· provfd6 tl}at a·grantee·wlll from ttm:e to ftme, but not less often· than annually, submit a ·rewrt ·evaluating aecompllshments and cost-effectiveness ot acttvltles ft1bded ·under this Act·; . . : .

- ( b) · provide tor· fiscal control; sound· accounting'. ·procedures and periodic revorts to the Attorney General regarding the appllcatlon of funds· paid under thte Act; and , ·

(c) establish criteria to achieve an equitable' distribution among tlie States of· assistance\ uttdel" this A:ct · · - · · ·

SEC. 412, On·or:b~<h'e ~UgUSt·Bl,· 1968; ant1 eacli y~ar tbereaf,er; the'·Attor-rtey General shall rel)Ort to tlie· Prestde~t and to th& COngress on actlvltl~s ·p_ursuant to tlie pro~&tons o~ .th's ·A~t dtlrln$ th.e·p~eced~ng-fiscal 1~~r.. . . : · :. ·

SEC. 418. ·For· the· ·PU~ ot: carrying' out; thl~ Act, there· is: heteby authorized to be approprfat~!tlie sum'of f59,000;00:0 for the ·ti~\ ·y~ar e~dlng Jtine so, )008; and· to~ each· $~~~ng ftfleatlyear· au.cb· s~11· as, tlie Oong,~ess m.a1 hereafter ap~roprlrtteJ FUtlds ap,p~prt~t~.d for .tlie• p1;tr~se of ·catritng· out thJs ;Act shall remain. avallabl& \lJltlll expended;- ' · · -.· · · · · · , .. ·

· . 1 • r "" ., TIT;LE. V-nEFl~IfribNS . . . .1 .' : · •

\- : - ... ~ " ' s~o. e>o1 •. h l ui'.ec1 ~ tp. ltbla '._.Act-._ · · . _ . "!: - : · : -• ~. · ·1 · . · • ) · .• , .:'- •

(a) ''Daws entor_ceme:qi.·,andr crhulnat·jqatlc~~: m~ana.all-aotlvltteaipertalnhig to crlw.e:P~TentiQn. Ql" the ~ntorcement· and· admlnlatratton of 1 the crtmtnal law, lncludlnc .but iiotilbnlted to ·acttvltles.1.n.voltlng. Police; prosecutlon'or detense·ot crtmln}ll/cuetJ;:.courf.a,i probatlon,,correcttona and patolei, · · · ... ':; · ",: .·

" i I

112


CONTROLLING CRIME 383

course, the Governors often play n vital role in these functions. The nttorne'-s general of the States have general supervision of nll major criminal P.rosecutions and the trials. There is a very close support.mg relationsli!I? between States and cities. For example, how can it b6 said that New York City is free and clear of State government and does not have any close ties or relationship in law enforcement. I cannot follow that reasoning.

Would you have a comment on thist .Jt is not limited to New.York, but, ~nerally, I cannot see nny dift'erence between t.his field and any other fields. Attome~ Geneml CLARK. I guess thnt p<>lice activities were the first

function of cities if not of ~vernment itself. It hts been ~ function we have left to the cities in this country. New York City provides an illustration. There are 28,000 policemen there. The nnnuttl bud~t. of the New York City Police Department exceeds the budget of the U.S. Department of Justice by $400 million. As far n8 I know the Stnte does not provide any funds for police protection in. New York City. They supply no advice. Only· last year they established 'nn office inlhe State govemment involving one mnn and one staff assistant.. What can they. contribute to the mighty police department of New York City, which has protected the people for generations. ·

As far as the powers of the State attomeys generals are concerned, the average attorney genel1'1 of a State exercises no si~iftcant crlm· inal powers. Many have no 1~1 authority hl'tltis nrea. Thase that do have common law pqwers find it diftlcult to use them. A·rare exception is the State of California where there is a department of justice but its functions, too, are limited. It tends to be on the· prosecution slde1 rather than to: involve police protection.· And it exercises no control over the local. district attom~ys in their handling of prosecutions.

Senator HRUSKA. Your bill emphasizes that we nre ·prosecutors of cases.. . ·;. i · ,

AttorneJ: GeneralCLARK. Yes. 1• · ;. • · • •

~ene:tor HnusxA. Those claiming. to be in the lR.w enforcement part of Justice make.up a very small percentage.· . . ·

Attome1- General CLARK. Y~ very_ small. . · · · ·~nator Hnus1u. In many. of the Middl~.W~em Stat~ the At~r·

ney General prosecutes all appeals from trial courts nnd ·m many·m· st~nces p~rticipat~ in the pro~u~ion of cases nn~ trials in St.(\te <lis-trl~ oourts. .. : . . .·, '·. . . . . . . · · · ·. .

Attorner. General CLARK. There·would·be no need for n Governor veto there because he would be directly' involved, presumably.

Senator HnusKA. Of course, when we exJ.>erienoo breakdown~ ·in n city ,police .. fo~:due to eith~r,civil.commotion or massive civil disobedience, th~ Governor ste~ Jn, does he not t ... : , · · · ·. ~ ; .. AttorneI General CLARK. He hl\8=to sorqetim.es, unfortunlltely. ·: ·: ·

1 ~nator HntrsKA.:ln. thinking of.the~ CJ6vernor, I wonder .jf the fear of .. bypassing the State in• a program.:of· this kh~d :w~u)d! i1dt gr~J? the heart a8 much. as other programs wluch tliey-l~ave·dascu~d so;v1go~ 0 1 I • . . > . • t I ,

.,~if i~bl~y. Ge~e~l C~n~." ~ j~dgi~ent '.i~ 'thtt it .~~~Id' llot~ ~a~9' police.departm~n!-8 are old·lipe n~n:~wa wi~h which.the.G~vem~rs have had o, vel'I._ mm1mal experience, connect.ton, and. ·telat1onsh1p.· · \ · j • • •

, :S.epa~r :HRUSKA, I do not- know. lf .\JOU .have convinced. me.· I: just wAnted.to Ascertain from yo\l.\tl,ether thRt. had.~ive~ Rny thought,

113


384 CONTROLLING CRIME

Such questioning is going to be rniscd on tho Sennto floor because t.here nro mRny Govel'nol's who sny yon rn1111ot. ho t>nrtners with tlm lt'oderal Government.

Tho Federal Government is dcnling out this money nnd Riter it ho· comes n substnnt.inl nmount tho nnmicipnllty is hooked. If munloipali· ties do not substant.ially c.~Qmply witli the plan, thnt money cnn be wit.hdrn.wn nncl they hn\'O no nlternntlve. They must. run"t.ht\t depR1t .. ment the wny tho Attornoy General says t.hoy must., imrsunnt to t.Jrnt plan. Control then sliJ?s nwny from the municipality and gooa into the Attorney Oenoml's Office.

Is that not nbout tho sizo of it 9 Atton1oy General Cr,ARK. No. Not nt nll. That would be both R

violation of tho mnndnto nncl SJ?irit of section 408. I t.hink as a practical mntter tho Attorney Gmornl will not. run the police dep1ntment because t.hoy will not let. hlm nnd because ho does not want Eo. He would not even if he could do so.

And the nmount of money conh·ilmted by tho Federal Government will bo n smnll fmction of tho totnl investment nnct it could hArdly be tho controlling pn.rt.

Senntor HRUSKA, You can go ns high ns 60 percent of thoso budgeta for ndministmtlvo improvement. The oxponditure ·of 60 percent is n big percenta~. .

Attorney General Cr,ARK. Sixty percent. of t.he incre·11se nbove 10~ percent the first yenr 110 t>ercont t.he next year, 1 US percent

Senator Hnu&KA.· ~t is only to nn imt>rovement component which this 60 percent applies t

Attome.1-General CLAnx. Thatjs nll. Senator HRUSKA. Will It not in due time be a sizable nmount9 Attorney Goneml Cr.ARK. It will become I\ Jnrgo sum· 1n some cnses

in duetlme. · · · Senator HnusKA. Now you rofe1• to section 408 which states that

nothing contained in this net shntl be construed 'to aut.horize nn'y de· pnrtment, ngenoy, ofttcer, or employee of the United StaUs to exercise any dlrection\8UP.Orvislon1 or control over nny potlce force or·agenoy of imy Stnto or ocal law entorcement nnd criminal justice ~stem.

That is n. most noble statement. innde In good faith. Yet the p~lng ~~~: .

Whenever tho Attorney Oeneral, after reaBOnablc notlt'G and opp0_rtunlty for ht,\arlug to a 1ranteo under thle Act, ftnda that, with respect to any payml'nt11 made under thla Act. there le a substantial tallu'ro to compl7 with-

( a) the provlalone of ~la Act-And (b) and (o)-Considerlng tho vnst discretionary power invested in·.-the Attorney

Genernl in this net and its overwhelming discretion' In· connection lVith this p~m, any ~~~t of tho plan ~hat hns bee,n subm)tted nnd np1_>roved~must be OK'd ·by' the Attorney,General~ Thus, if ho feels it 1s being. maladmlnistered nnd not subatm\tially complied wlt.11, he will say "Sorry; boys• the show Is over. No· more money.,,

Would that. constitute control and sut>t?rvlslon in your judgment f It is well intended and·ft11ed .with· the spirit of wnnUng improved Jaw enforcement . service nnd all . of ·, ite p~ but is Tt, not a; pretty compulslvo eituatlon I ·: · · · ·

·:Attomey General Cr,ARK. No. ·I think it-is n~ry to·the ln~lty of~ the act that its provisions be com,Plied with1 and· its regulations be

114


496 CONTROLL1NG CRIME

A~tomey Gen·eral CLARK. It can apply t<> any need of a police department or ii. corrections agency or a court..

Senator· '.\'ffun110N'o. You· have got a bill here then· in which any p<>lice ~epar_tnu~nt of any_c~t:y irt·t~1s· N'at~on can·as]c Washin~n,'!>Ur Govemm¢nt, to· help to ·supply uniforms and clothmg to their pohce .. men; is thnt right 9 . ·

Attorne_y General OLARK. Well, that is a peculiar way of thinki~g about it. But they could come out that way. We require, however, that 'they have sperit 105 perce.rit before the1- are· entitled· to any.thi~ from the Federal Government. We would look at the wl,tole budget to!{ether. Why in the world they would take out of all their budget umforms and put it in the Federal part! Whether they could _get, the. fun~s when tliey actually ~ught tll~t_n for ~~ch a lim~ted purpose or not 1& anoth~r' question~ ·-nut these ftin~s w~uld ]>e available for any need of a PQhce departmenUhat me.t the quah.~cattons.

SenatorTHuRHOND. Would thatmclucleshoes, to09 Attotriey· Gert6ral eu·nK • .Yt could include shoes·; yes. Senafor .TliuRM:oNo. Well now, ·supp'ose the Federal Government

said to the police departments over· the countt'1-, ~uppose, your director says, "Now, I thinR·the:policemen wiff look handsomer, better· and appear more disciplined if. they all ·used blue uniforms and 'black shoes, and we are goipg. to w~thhold funds unless you'buy blue· tthi-fornisand blackshoeg." ·, · ·

Would your direcfor have· that authority ttYdothat t· ·: ·Attomey:General ·cuID(:Well, 1·t1iihk we would start'ldOking·for

a new director about that tiiri~. , ' · ' Sena.tor •T!rimM:b1'tn. ;I know) but that' is ·not 'the· question.· I am

visualizing some Attorney General othe~. than· Mr. Cl~J;k ·now; soineo~e. wh~ ·~ig~t. ·su~~ .'yo~. aom~ )Ja~t an~ ~. ,arbi~rti~ ... w o~ld y~u~ director have the right' ro wlthho~d ·fundEflf the p(,Iice ·departments did'not·use'the tcolor·uniform'·he' wanted·;or the oolor shoes ·or· the quality of uniform or shoos that he wanted them to use t . Atto~ey 06n~ral CLARK. He has to have broad discretion, ·and in

theory he would probably hat~tliatdiscretion under the bill. . As "° practical matter, the opportunity to exercise it ~.oul,d be ve~ .

limited. The _poli~ are an independ~nt ty~· of person, arid I ju~ do not think th'at is a. real possibility~ . , ;·, · · .

. s~~~t.o~ ~MO.ND." B~t }'_Oµ tpink he' would. ha ye' that .. aut~brity_t A'.~tn:e1-General CLARk .• Yes, sir. . . , · ',~en_at~r.~tmHO~~ Well~ tlien· wotiJd~y(i~r director:als0 have 'tlie

authority to satthat, "We dbn't t~ih, k, ·a. c~'t is ~·very good P.i~~· It ~98Sll't .. ~ resut~, and!l,herefo~e,.-;~ve .are 1,1ot going to gtve any 'fUnds unlessyoubuySm1th& wesson_pistOls." . · . ,

Would :your 'director have .tile authority· to withh'old:ftin,. ·· ds unless the 'used Smith & Wesson ,. istols 9. . ' ' . I' . . ' •

Fl;r~~s~~r!,~o{ ;;~~tV:~:tW>~~:~:a~~;:g:f~! '\Ulrehable or otherwise defective; that we would ltave· a duty to'w1th· hold funds. · · · , ,. · · , .

Senator TH~uoNI>. So the· Dil-ector-,.w()UJ.d' have.th& authontf to wi_thho~~- ·1und1f as t6 1thd:ldnd 'of :W~J>On :of the··qualit)' ,of '9eaP<>n that th& city police department ot' the "State law enforcement· ·agency would purchase I . . ··

. t . . I

115


CONTRO~LJNO CRIME 497

Attorney General CLARK. The probability of an exercise of discre-tion like tliat is very, very slight. It deP.ends, unless- .

Senator THURMOND. I am not sayi~ how he would use this discretion, Mr. AttorneY. General. I am just a~drlng, I am trying to get at the authority' the tiill gives.J.. whether he would have the authority.

AttorneI General CLARK. The bill g!ves broad discretion. Senator THURMOND. It gives broad discretion. AttorneI General CLARK. Yes. .

. Senator TaURHOND. So your director would have the right to withhold funds if he saw fit· unless a policemap used the kind of .weapons that he said they must use or use the kind of unifornis that he says they must use or use the kind of shoes that he said they must use.

Atlorney (1eqeral CLARK. No. I think that really" is ve!-1 remote. It is n~ry under the bill to· give broad discretion. But if 1t came tO the s~iflcity you· are t~lkhig. (\boU~ suqh a~te~erci8e of discretion wotild probabty·vtolate section 408 1tselt. It is so unreal. . . . . -~enator ~imM;o~o. ~t is not ~nte~platoo, bJit is it~po~~ble 9

Attorney General CLARK. I would say when 1t reaclies the.level that you· lia.':e· n~w re~hed with ~p~ and w;iif~rms al;l,d ~ps ~n.~ a~l ~hese oh~.i; things. thei:e ~ould begm to be control o~ ~he pohoo department, arid th:'re would lie.a vi,Qlatfon of·section 408 of the act, and; therefore, it would be iri viOlation of 'thtract. · . ·

!Se;nator THua~oND. WeJJ, X tOQ]:c ·up· t;&ch.orie separ~tely,, an:d y.ou said . he . wo'uld have th'e aut)lority, ,'f\t)d then l. ~ummarized lt and Jumpe<l ii to~ther, and no\'1 you say you <Jo riot. Wliat is· your pe>Sttion t : . Attorney General. 1CLARK. 'My "position is as stated . that the case

you"P<>se .would be" clearly·~arpitrary, when y<>u .. ,d.~ "the!ri '\ip'tlie. ~ay y9µ d<>:-:-µt fQ9t1 llllY _one.by·1tself woµld ~m highly arbitrary to· me anaso·unrealistioastchtot~ . ..,~U~ility~_ . . .. . .. ·: .... ; .. • ... _Sepato~.,~9~· WJio ·~~going~ .control whether 4e ts arbitrary

or :\}Ott ·He D).~kes the flnal decu~1on .<loes he nott · . · . 1

i.\ttomey ~n~~aJ,'Cuitx. WelJ, lhere·.are loufo~.~ecks and'-balances t~a~_~e ha.ye .Jtft~~ ~~ni,,and o~e:is_~e ~oul~ .hope.he wo:~td al~ays try ~ a~mph$1}. t.~e purposes o.f Ute act; a.nd ,if he proceeded the way you md1~ted, I thmk the act would break down. . ~ ,

Sen.~to.r ,T~<>~. 'l'hat iEino.t the question. I asked yo\t' who would caU_ ltl~ ha~c:t if li!~ be9&me arbitra~. '. . . ·., • . . 1 t . , . " ; .•

Attorney General CLARK. Well perhaps, with y9u Senato~ .UP pere, you. would· help and there would ~ an Attorney Ge~eral and other

· peo~tor TJunui:ONn. That is nOtit. I m!\&n in the executive, br&noJi. · Supp0ae

1you ~ad~ director under you·or s0~e othe~ Attorney, General

who was arbit~ry, ·and he,wa$ trying to. bring about c6nforrµity 'in every· :w.ay,· :·shape· ~d f9rm, J'ust ~mpletely arbitx-Qry. __ Now, wlio Js above him to 'corr~t him' . . : .. . ; i\ttorney. General .CLARK. We 'fOrked for these 19 'monthS under

·the _LjLw · Enfo~men~. 1\~istance 4~. Tl;\~re is con\t>le~ .-~i~~ii>n .. in ... ~~e.dt~4'C~r: tli~re .. ~e can ~nt or _no.t:gr$~t. ,~Jt~~ ~~ n~j~rl:t,ria or standards set w~atever, ana we. have not ,had any compla~t8 Qf any

t~~:0\?'~:;.;~1>: In <>di~ ~Qr4s, h~ 4~ ~ave the· d~reiiO~ hut · youdonott~11;1~-h~_woul~ooar~Jt~ey;_istn,~titf. . ... ,.,·· .-;

116


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff,

v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.

No. 17-cv-5720 Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

MOTION BY THE STATES OF NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT,

DELAWARE, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, VERMONT,

AND WASHINGTON, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR AS AMICI CURIAE AND FILE A

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General CAROLINE A. OLSEN Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. HAREN Special Counsel & Senior Advisor of Counsel (Counsel list continues on signature pages.)

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General State of New York 120 Broadway, 25th Floor New York, NY 10271 (212) 416-8921 Dated: January 31, 2018

Case: 1:17-cv-05720 Document #: 149 Filed: 01/31/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:2171

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF

The States of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, and the

District of Columbia respectfully move for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in support of

Chicago’s opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on

January 3, 2018 (ECF No. 137). Plaintiff and defendant consent to the filing of the motion. For the

reasons set forth below, the motion should be granted.

This Court may permit the filing of an amicus brief when the amicus has an interest that

may be affected by the case, or “when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can

help the court.” Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir.

1997).

Here, the amici States have important interests that are affected by the three immigration-

related conditions that DOJ seeks to impose on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance

Grant (Byrne-JAG) program. The amici States have received law-enforcement grants under Byrne-

JAG and its predecessor grant programs for decades, and they have used those funds to support a

diverse array of critical law-enforcement programs, ranging from efforts to reduce gun violence to

programs to combat opioid addiction. Moreover, DOJ has announced that the immigration-related

conditions imposed on States will be substantively identical to the conditions that are being

challenged in this litigation. The amici States therefore face the same choice as Chicago: accept

unconstitutional conditions or forego critical law-enforcement funding. Based on their strong

interests in this case, the amici States have already filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of

Appeals of the Seventh Circuit supporting the Court’s nationwide preliminary injunction. See Br.


2

for Amici Curiae States of New York et al., City of Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-2991 (7th Cir. Jan.

4, 2018), ECF No. 76.

In addition to offering the amici States’ perspective on the new conditions, the proposed

amicus brief identifies legislative history relevant to the Court’s analysis of the proposed condition

requiring applicants to certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. The history makes clear that 34

U.S.C. § 10153(a), which requires Byrne-JAG applicants to certify compliance with “applicable

Federal laws,” refers only to statutes that, by their terms, apply to federal grant-making, and not

collateral statutes like § 1373.

The proposed amicus brief also discusses the implications of another relevant statute, 34

U.S.C. § 10228(a), which is located in the same chapter of the United States Code as the Byrne-

JAG statute, and provides that “[n]othing in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed to

authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any

direction, supervision, or control over any police force or any other criminal justice agency of any

State or any political subdivision thereof.” As the brief explains, the text and legislative history of

§ 10228(a) make clear that DOJ’s immigration-related conditions are invalid because they attempt

to commandeer grant recipients in a number of ways.

No party would be prejudiced by the filing of this amicus brief, which is filed on the same

day as Chicago’s opposition to DOJ’s motion to dismiss, and two weeks before DOJ’s reply is due

on February 15, 2018.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for leave to file the proposed amicus brief should be

granted. The proposed amicus brief is attached as Exhibit 1 to this motion.


3

Dated: New York, NY January 31, 2018

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General CAROLINE A. OLSEN Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. HAREN Special Counsel & Senior Advisor of Counsel

Respectfully submitted, ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General State of New York

By: /s Caroline A. Olsen Caroline A. Olsen* Assistant Solicitor General

120 Broadway, 25th Floor New York, NY 10271 (212) 416-6184 *Admitted pro hac vice

(Counsel list continues on next page.)


4

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General State of California 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814

THOMAS J. MILLER Attorney General State of Iowa 1305 E. Walnut Street Des Moines, IA 50319

HECTOR BALDERAS Attorney General State of New Mexico 408 Galisteo Street Santa Fe, NM 87501

GEORGE JEPSEN Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106

JANET T. MILLS Attorney General State of Maine 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General State of Oregon 1162 Court Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97301

MATTHEW P. DENN Attorney General State of Delaware Carvel State Bldg., 6th Fl. 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801

BRIAN E. FROSH Attorney General State of Maryland 200 Saint Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202

THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR. Attorney General State of Vermont 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609

DOUGLAS S. CHIN Attorney General State of Hawaii 425 Queen St. Honolulu, HI 96813

MAURA HEALEY Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108

BOB FERGUSON Attorney General State of Washington 800 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 2000 Seattle, WA 98104

LISA MADIGAN Attorney General State of Illinois 100 W. Randolph Street 12th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601

GURBIR S. GREWAL Attorney General State of New Jersey R. J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market St. Trenton, NJ 08625

KARL A. RACINE Attorney General District of Columbia One Judiciary Square 441 4th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that she caused a copy of the foregoing document and its attachments to be filed and served via the Court’s CM/ECF system on all counsel of record registered to receive such service.

Dated: January 31, 2018

New York, NY

. /s/ Caroline A. Olsen .


exhibit 1 - new york state attorney general | new york ... 1 case: 1:17-cv-05720 document #: ... the...

Documents