united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit...18-17308, 18-17311 united states court of...

18-17308, 18-17311

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, et al., Defendants-Appellants,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, et al., Defendants-Appellants,

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE STATES OF NEW YORK, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, ILLINOIS, MARYLAND,

MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT,

AND WASHINGTON, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General ERIC R. HAREN Special Counsel LINDA FANG Assistant Solicitor General of Counsel (Counsel listing continues on signature pages.)

LETITIA JAMES Attorney General State of New York 28 Liberty Street New York, New York 10005 (212) 416-8656 Dated: May 29, 2019

Case: 18-17308, 05/29/2019, ID: 11312598, DktEntry: 38, of 162

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

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

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI .................................... 1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................... 4

A. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program ............................................................... 4

B. The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Anti-Methamphetamine Program and Anti-Heroin Task Force Program ........................................................................... 7

C. The Immigration-Related Conditions ....................................... 9

ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 10

THE CHALLENGED REQUIREMENTS ARE UNLAWFUL

A. The Byrne JAG Statute Does Not Permit the U.S. Attorney General to Impose New Eligibility Requirements on Byrne JAG Recipients. ............................... 10

B. The Notice and Access Requirements Are Not Authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a)(6). .................................. 12

C. The New Requirements Are Not Authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10153. ........................................................................ 18

D. Section 1373 Violates the Tenth Amendment. ....................... 24

E. DOJ May Not Require States to Certify Compliance with § 1373 to Be Eligible for COPS Grants. ......................... 27

F. The Challenged Requirements Are Inconsistent with 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a). ............................................................... 31

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 35


ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) City of Chicago v. Sessions,

321 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2018) ..................................................... 2

City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018) ............................................. 10, 13, 14, 17

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

City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) .................................................................. 26

City of Philadelphia v. Attorney General of the United States, 916 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2019) ........................................................ passim

City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 579 (E.D. Pa. 2017) ................................................... 14

City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 309 F. Supp. 3d 289 (E.D. Pa. 2018) ................................................... 25

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 909 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................. 31

McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991) ....................................................................... 16, 22

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018) ............................................................. 24, 25, 26

New York v. DOJ, 343 F. Supp. 3d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ........................................ 2, 13, 25

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) ....................................................................... 33, 34


iii

Cases Page(s) United States v. California,

314 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (E.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................... 25

Laws

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181 ........ 4

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub L. No. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130 (2014) ........................... 8, 28

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5 ......................................................................................... 7, 8

Justice Assistance Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837 .......... 4

Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96-157, 93 Stat. 1167 ................................................................................... 4, 21

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 ......................................................... 4, 5, 32

Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-162, 119 Stat. 2960 (2006) ................................................................................... 4

8 U.S.C. § 1373 ................................................................................ passim

34 U.S.C. § 10102 ................................................................................................ 12 § 10110 ................................................................................................ 13 §§ 10151-58 ........................................................................................... 5 § 10152 ...................................................................................... 6, 12, 18 § 10153 .......................................................................................... 18, 19 § 10156 ............................................................................................ 6, 11 § 10228 ...................................................................................... 5, 11, 31 § 10381 ........................................................................................... 27-28 § 10381 et seq. ....................................................................................... 7

2 C.F.R. § 200.207 ............................................................................. 15, 16


iv

Laws Page(s) 28 C.F.R. § 66.12 (2006) .............................................................. 14, 15, 16

53 Fed. Reg. 8,034 (Mar. 11, 1988) ......................................................... 14

79 Fed. Reg. 75,872 (Dec. 19, 2014) ........................................................ 15

Legislative History

H.R. Rep. No. 109-233 (2005) .................................................... 5, 6, 11, 18

H.R. Rep. No. 112-463 (2013) .............................................................. 7, 27

S. Rep. No. 90-1097 (1968) .................................................................. 4, 32

S. Rep. No. 113-181 (2014) .................................................................. 8, 27

S. Rep. No. 114-66 (2015) .................................................................... 8, 27

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) ................................................................................ 22

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) .............................................................................................. 32-33

Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3009, 114th Cong. (2015) ........................................................................................ 28

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) ...... 23

Restructuring the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. (1977) ........................ 23


v

Miscellaneous Authorities Page(s) Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, S. 2146,

114th Cong. (2015) .............................................................................. 28

Dep’t of Justice, Certified Standard Assurances (exp. May 31, 2019), at https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/ StandardAssurances.pdf ..................................................................... 20

Dep’t of Justice, COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program, FY 2014 Award Selection Methodology, at https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2014AwardDocs/CAMP/2014_CAMP_Methodology.pdf ........................................................................ 30

Dep’t of Justice, COPS Office Anti-Heroin Task Force Program, FY 2015 Selection Methodology, at https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2015AwardDocs/ahtf/2015_AHTF_GOM_v6_508.pdf ............................................................................ 30

Dep’t of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Admin., General Briefing (1977)....................................................................... 21

Dep’t of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Admin., Guideline Manual: Guide for Discretionary Grant Programs (1978) ................. 22

Dep’t of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Servs., 2017 COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program Application Guide, at https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2017AwardDocs/ camp/App_Guide.pdf ........................................................................... 10

Dep’t of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Servs., 2017 COPS Office Anti-Heroin Task Force Program Application Guide, at https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2017AwardDocs/ahtf/2017_AHTF_App_%20Guide.pdf ......................................................................... 10

Dep’t of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Byrne JAG Program: FY 2017 State Solicitation, at https://www.bja.gov/funding/JAGstate17.pdf .................................... 17


https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/%20StandardAssurances.pdf

https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/%20StandardAssurances.pdf

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2014AwardDocs/CAMP/2014_CAMP_Methodology.pdf

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2014AwardDocs/CAMP/2014_CAMP_Methodology.pdf

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2015AwardDocs/ahtf/2015_AHTF_GOM_v6_508.pdf

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2015AwardDocs/ahtf/2015_AHTF_GOM_v6_508.pdf

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2017AwardDocs/%20camp/App_Guide.pdf

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2017AwardDocs/%20camp/App_Guide.pdf

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2017AwardDocs/ahtf/2017_AHTF_App_%20Guide.pdf

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2017AwardDocs/ahtf/2017_AHTF_App_%20Guide.pdf

https://www.bja.gov/funding/JAGstate17.pdf

vi

Miscellaneous Authorities Page(s) Dep’t of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Byrne JAG

Program: FY 2018 State Solicitation, at https://www.bja.gov/funding/JAGState18.pdf .................................... 15

Dep’t 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) .............................................................................. 23, 24

Grants.gov, What Is a Discretionary Grant?, Community Blog (May 17, 2016), at https://blog.grants.gov/2016/05/17/ what-isa-discretionary-grant/ ............................................................. 28

John K. Hudzik et al., Federal Aid to Criminal Justice: Rhetoric, Results, Lessons (1984)........................................................ 32

Malcolm S. Mason, Monitoring of Grantee Performance, in Federal Grant Law (Malcolm S. Mason ed., 1982)............................. 14

Office of Representative Peter W. Rodino, Press Release, Committee Approves LEAA Reorganization (May 10, 1979) .............. 23

Paul G. Dembling & Malcolm S. Mason, Essentials of Grant Law Practice (1991) ............................................................................ 14


https://www.bja.gov/funding/JAGState18.pdf

https://blog.grants.gov/2016/05/17/%20what-isa-discretionary-grant/

https://blog.grants.gov/2016/05/17/%20what-isa-discretionary-grant/

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI

The amici States of New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,

Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey,

New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, and the

District of Columbia submit this brief to support plaintiffs’ challenges to

certain immigration-related requirements imposed by the U.S.

Department of Justice (DOJ) on law-enforcement grants made to state

and local governments through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice

Assistance Grant program (Byrne JAG) and the Community Oriented

Policing Services (COPS) program.

Amici have received grants under Byrne JAG and its predecessors

for decades, and have relied on these funds to support a diverse array of

law-enforcement programs tailored to local needs. Certain amici have

also benefited from grants under branches of the COPS program that

Congress created to support state and local drug investigation and

interdiction efforts.

Like California and San Francisco, amici are harmed by DOJ’s

threatened withholding of these grant funds from States and localities

that have chosen to limit their voluntary involvement with enforcing


2

federal immigration policy based on their determinations that such

involvement could jeopardize the trust between their law-enforcement

officials and their immigrant communities, and thus harm public safety.

Several of amici and their localities have filed their own lawsuits against

the new Byrne JAG requirements.1 Amici thus have a strong interest in

the outcome of this lawsuit and, particularly, in the affirmance of the

final judgment entered by the district court.

As numerous other courts have already recognized, DOJ has no

authority to condition Byrne JAG funding upon a grantee’s willingness to

affirmatively assist in federal immigration enforcement. DOJ’s position is

contrary to the text, structure, and history of the Byrne JAG statute—

which Congress enacted to create a mandatory formula grant. Nothing in

the text or legislative history of the Byrne JAG statute ties the Byrne

JAG program to federal immigration enforcement, or permits DOJ to

1 See, e.g., New York v. DOJ, 343 F. Supp. 3d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

(actions brought by New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, and New York City), appeals filed Jan. 28, 2019, Nos. 19-267, 19-275; City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2018), appeal argued April 10, 2019; Illinois v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-4791 (N.D. Ill.); City of Evanston v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-4853 (N.D. Ill.) (action joined by the U.S. Conference of Mayors on behalf of approximately 250 cities).


3

require that States and localities assist in federal immigration efforts as

a condition of receiving Byrne JAG funds.

DOJ likewise may not use Byrne JAG funds and COPS drug-

enforcement grants as a device to force grantees’ compliance with

8 U.S.C. § 1373. That statute contravenes the Tenth Amendment’s anti-

commandeering proscriptions by directing state and local governments

to refrain from enacting rules and policies that restrict how and when

their employees may share immigration-status information with the

federal government.

Finally, DOJ may not disregard Congress’s specified eligibility

criteria for the COPS drug-enforcement grants to promote its own policy

objectives. Indeed, DOJ has acted in excess of its statutory authority by

unilaterally imposing a requirement that all COPS applicants must

certify compliance with § 1373—a statute that has nothing to do with

supporting state and local drug-enforcement efforts.


4

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program

The Byrne JAG program has its origins in the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-351, tit. I, 82 Stat.

197, which created the first block grants for States and localities to use

for law-enforcement and criminal justice programs.2 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, and for state

and local law-enforcement purposes.3

2 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 localities); 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 formula law-enforcement grant); Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthori-zation 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).

3 See S. Rep. No. 90-1097, at 2 (1968) (stating that Congress sought to encourage States and localities to adopt programs “based upon their


5

To ensure federal deference to local priorities, Congress expressly

prohibited federal agencies and executive-branch officials from using the

Byrne JAG program, and other law-enforcement grants administered by

DOJ, 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.” Pub. L. No. 90-351, § 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 effect

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

the United States Code as the Byrne JAG program. See 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a).

Congress codified the modern Byrne JAG program in 2006. See id.

§§ 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 statute creates a mandatory

formula grant and gives recipients substantial discretion to use funds for

evaluation of State and local problems of law enforcement”). (Excerpt in Addendum (Add.) to this brief at 2.)


6

eight “broad purposes,” id., including law enforcement, crime prevention

and education, and drug treatment, 34 U.S.C. § 10152(a)(1).

DOJ administers the Byrne JAG program through its Office of

Justice Programs (OJP), which is required to issue grants “in accordance

with the formula” set forth in the Byrne JAG statute. Id. The statute

provides that “[o]f the total amount appropriated” by Congress, the U.S.

Attorney General “shall allocate” fifty percent of the funds based on each

State’s population and fifty percent based on each State’s crime rate—

with certain exceptions not relevant here. Id. § 10156(a)(1). In each State,

sixty percent of funding “shall be for direct grants to States,” id.

§ 10156(b)(1), and forty percent “shall be for grants” directly to localities

within the State based on crime rate, id. § 10156(b)(2), (d). Each State is

additionally required to allocate portions of its award to localities or

community organizations within the State as subgrantees. Id. § 10156(c)(2).


7

B. The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Anti-Methamphetamine Program and Anti-Heroin Task Force Program

Congress established the COPS program to provide financial

support to assist and enhance state and local law-enforcement efforts

focused on community-oriented policing. See 34 U.S.C. § 10381 et seq.

These competitive grants are administered by DOJ’s Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services, and are intended to fund a variety of law-

enforcement purposes specified in the governing statute, subject to annual

appropriations from Congress.

In 2014, prompted by the “dramatic increase of methamphetamine

production, trafficking and sale across the Nation,” and the recognition

that “[t]he majority of the economic burden of meth falls on State and

local governments,” H.R. Rep. No. 112-463, at 59 (2013), Congress

created the COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program. These particular

COPS grants are to be disbursed “to State law enforcement agencies in

States with high seizures of precursor chemicals, finished methampheta-

mine, laboratories, and laboratory dump seizures,” Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, 66 (program

later codified at 34 U.S.C. § 10381(k)). The grant funds “shall be utilized


8

for investigative purposes to locate or investigate illicit activities, including

precursor diversion, laboratories, or methamphetamine traffickers.” 128

Stat. at 66.

A year later in 2015, Congress created the COPS Anti-Heroin Task

Force Program in order to provide “additional resources and training to

address” the challenges arising out of “the dramatic rise of heroin abuse

and related crime.” S. Rep. No. 114-66, at 90 (2015); see also S. Rep. No.

113-181, at 102 (2014) (noting “troubling trend of increases in the

numbers of heroin seizures and overdose deaths caused by heroin in

recent years”). This COPS grant was intended to be made “to statewide

law enforcement agencies in States with high rates of primary treatment

admissions for heroin and other opioids,” with funds to be used “for

investigative purposes to locate or investigate illicit activities, including

activities related to the distribution of heroin or unlawful distribution of

prescription opioids, or unlawful heroin and prescription opioid

traffickers through statewide collaboration.” Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub L. No. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130,

2196 (2014) (program later codified at 34 U.S.C. § 10381(l)).


9

C. The Immigration-Related Conditions

In July 2017, DOJ announced that it would be requiring recipients

of fiscal year (FY) 2017 Byrne JAG funds to provide federal authorities

with (1) advance notice of an offender’s date of release from state and

local custody (the “Notice requirement”), and (2) access to state and local

correctional facilities to question individuals about their right to remain

in the United States (the “Access requirement”). DOJ also announced

that it would impose additional requirements on Byrne JAG recipients

relating to 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (the “§ 1373 requirement”), which prohibits

States and localities from restricting communications between their

employees and federal immigration authorities regarding the citizenship

or immigration status of any individual. Under those requirements,

States and localities must, among other things, certify compliance with

§ 1373, and monitor the compliance of all of their subgrantees during the

duration of a Byrne JAG award.


10

Since FY 2017, DOJ has also required applicants to the COPS Anti-

Methamphetamine and Anti-Heroin Programs to certify compliance with

§ 1373 as a threshold eligibility requirement.4

ARGUMENT

THE CHALLENGED REQUIREMENTS ARE UNLAWFUL

A. The Byrne JAG Statute Does Not Permit the U.S. Attorney General to Impose New Eligibility Requirements on Byrne JAG Recipients.

As both the Third and Seventh Circuits have already recognized, no

provision of the Byrne JAG statute authorizes DOJ to impose new

eligibility requirements of its own choosing that are unrelated to federal

grantmaking or to the Byrne JAG program requirements prescribed by

Congress. See City of Philadelphia v. Attorney General of the United

States, 916 F.3d 276, 286-87 (3d Cir. 2019); City of Chicago v. Sessions,

888 F.3d 272, 283-84 (7th Cir. 2018). The statute instead provides that

“the Attorney General shall . . . allocate” grant money based on the

4 See DOJ, Office of Community Oriented Policing Servs., 2017

COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program Application Guide 2; DOJ, Office of Community Oriented Policing Servs., 2017 COPS Office Anti-Heroin Task Force Program Application Guide 1-2.


11

statutory formula. 34 U.S.C. § 10156(a)(1) (emphasis added). Consistent

with the nature of Byrne JAG as a formula grant, the statutory formula

is determinative of a grantee’s entitlement to receive grant funds. See

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

The Byrne JAG statute’s legislative history leads to the same

conclusion. When Congress created the first predecessor to the Byrne

JAG program in 1968, it also enacted a statute to ensure that grants

under that predecessor program would not become a means for federal

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

See infra at 31-34; 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a). In addition, when enacting

Byrne JAG—the latest version of the 1968 program (see supra at 4-6)—

Congress reaffirmed its aim 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.

This Court should reject DOJ’s attempt to recast the Byrne JAG

statute as a vehicle for advancing federal immigration enforcement. See

Br. for Appellants (Br.) at 1-3. The text and history of the Byrne JAG

statute demonstrate that the Byrne JAG program has nothing to do with

federal immigration laws. The eight broad purposes expressly identified


12

in the Byrne JAG statute, see 34 U.S.C. § 10152(a)(1), permit the States

to use their Byrne JAG funds for a wide array of diverse programs

unrelated to immigration policy or criminal detention. For instance, New

York has used Byrne JAG funds to combat gun violence, enhance forensic

laboratories, and support prosecution and defense services. New Jersey

has historically relied on Byrne JAG funding to purchase body worn

cameras for numerous municipal police departments, and to support its

multi-jurisdictional task force on gangs, organized crime, and narcotics.

B. The Notice and Access Requirements Are Not Authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a)(6).

DOJ is mistaken in contending (Br. at 20-21) that 34 U.S.C.

§ 10102(a)(6) permits it to impose the Notice and Access requirements as

a condition of receiving Byrne JAG grants. That provision authorizes the

Assistant Attorney General, who is the head of OJP, to “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,” 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a)(6).

This language functions to clarify that the U.S. Attorney General may


13

delegate the powers described therein to the Assistant Attorney General

for OJP, “notwithstanding” the U.S. Attorney General’s “final authority

over all functions, including any grants” made by “the Office of Justice

Programs and the component organizations of that Office,” see id. § 10110(2).

As the district court correctly observed (Excerpts of Record (ER) 28),

the reference to “special conditions” and “priority purposes” that DOJ

relies upon (Br. at 20-21) is simply an elaboration of the types of powers

that the Assistant Attorney General for OJP may exercise—not an

independent source of authority for the Notice and Access requirements.

Every other court to have consider the issue has reached the same

conclusion. See, e.g., Philadelphia, 916 F.3d at 287-88; Chicago, 888 F.3d

at 286-87; New York, 343 F. Supp. 3d at 228-29.

In any event, none of the challenged conditions are “special

conditions” within the meaning of § 10102(a)(6). “Special conditions” is a

long-established term of art in the federal grant-making context that

refers to grant conditions applying to “high-risk grantees”—as

distinguished from conditions that are generally applicable to all grants


14

under a particular grant program. Chicago, 888 F.3d at 285 n.2.5 The

federal Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) uniform administra-

tive rules governing federal grants to States and localities dating back to

the 1980s have consistently used “special conditions” in this way. See,

e.g., 53 Fed. Reg. 8,034, 8,090 (Mar. 11, 1988).

Moreover, when Congress amended § 10102(a)(6) in 2006 to add the

“special conditions” language, DOJ’s own regulations used the term to

denote a time-limited condition that addresses financial or performance

concerns specific to a particular applicant. See 28 C.F.R. § 66.12 (2006).6

5 See also, e.g., City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 579,

617 (E.D. Pa. 2017), appeal dismissed, No. 18-1103, 2018 WL 3475491 (3d Cir. July 6, 2018); Paul G. Dembling & Malcolm S. Mason, Essentials of Grant Law Practice § 11.01, at 107 (1991) (Add. 112); Malcolm S. Mason, Monitoring of Grantee Performance, in Federal Grant Law 79, 86 (Malcolm S. Mason ed., 1982) (Add. 113).

6 28 C.F.R. § 66.12 (2006) provided in relevant part that if an awarding agency determines that a grantee or subgrantee is high risk, “special conditions and/or restrictions shall correspond to the high risk condition and shall be included in the award.” Id. § 66.12(a). The regulation further provided that

[s]pecial conditions or restrictions may include: (1) Payment on a reimbursement basis; (2) Withholding authority to proceed to the next phase until receipt of evidence of acceptable performance within a given funding period; (3) Requiring additional, more detailed financial reports; (4) Additional project monitoring; (5) Requiring the grantee or subgrantee to obtain technical or


15

Such a condition might include, for example, a requirement that a

financially unstable grantee provide a more detailed financial report, or

be subject to additional monitoring. Id. § 66.12(b)(3)-(4). OJP itself has

used “special conditions” in this very way in its FY 2018 Byrne JAG

Solicitation—that is, to refer to conditions that may be applied to a “high

risk” State based on OJP’s “pre-award risk assessment” of the State’s

“financial management and internal control system.”7

Settled approaches to statutory construction warrant reading

§ 10102(a)(6) to incorporate the long-established and well-understood

regulatory definition of “special condition.” Courts “assume that when a

management assistance; or (6) Establishing additional prior approvals.

Id. § 66.12(b). In 2014, DOJ repealed § 66.12 and adopted a virtually identical

substitute promulgated by OMB in 2 C.F.R. part 200. See 79 Fed. Reg. 75,872, 76,081 (Dec. 19, 2014). That OMB regulation—which is still in effect today and governs all OJP grants including Byrne JAG—uses the phrase “specific conditions” instead of “special conditions,” but the regulations are otherwise substantively the same. See 2 C.F.R. § 200.207.

7 DOJ, OJP, Byrne JAG Program: FY 2018 State Solicitation 26 (“[A] pre-award risk assessment that indicates that [a Byrne JAG] applicant poses a higher risk to OJP [based on financial management and internal controls disclosures] may . . . result in additional reporting requirements, monitoring, special conditions, withholding of award funds, or other additional award requirements.”) (emphasis added).


16

statute uses [a term of art], Congress intended it to have its established

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

DOJ does not contest that “special conditions” is a term of art.

Instead, it contends that the DOJ regulation defining that term “did not

purport to define the term ‘special conditions’ to cover the universe of all

potential special conditions applicable to all types of grantees” and thus

the term can encompass the challenged conditions. See Br. at 26. But the

regulation made clear that permissible special conditions or restrictions

must be tailored to the specific financial or grant-performance risk posed

by a particular grantee. See 28 C.F.R. § 66.12(a)(5) (2006) (restrictions

imposed “shall correspond to the high risk condition”). Here, in contrast,

the challenged conditions impose new eligibility requirements having

nothing to do with remediating a grantee’s specific performance or

financial risk, and thus are fundamentally different in nature and kind

from the types of special conditions expressly identified as permissible

under DOJ’s regulations. See id. § 66.12(b)(1)-(6) (describing permissible

special conditions); see also 2 C.F.R. § 200.207. Requiring state and local

governments to affirmatively assist in federal immigration efforts does

not address any grant performance concerns; Congress created Byrne


17

JAG to establish a reliable funding stream that States and localities

could use in accordance with state and local—and not federal—law-

enforcement priorities.

Nor are the challenged conditions authorized as “priority purposes”

under § 10102(a)(6). The broad construction urged by DOJ (Br. at 24-

25)—under which DOJ may withhold an entire Byrne JAG grant from a

State entirely based on DOJ’s own determination of funding priorities—

is fundamentally at odds with Congress’s decision to constitute the Byrne

JAG program as a mandatory formula grant. See Chicago, 888 F.3d at

285; Philadelphia, 916 F.3d at 287-88. As DOJ’s own practices show, the

“priority purposes” language in § 10102(a)(6) is more appropriately

interpreted as authorizing DOJ to suggest that Byrne JAG recipients use

the funds in certain “areas of emphasis”: the FY 2017 Byrne JAG

Solicitation, for example, “encourages each State recipient of an FY 2017

award to join [DOJ] in addressing” certain law enforcement areas of

priority.8

8 DOJ, OJP, Byrne JAG Program: FY 2017 State Solicitation 10-11.


18

C. The New Requirements Are Not Authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10153.

Section 10153 is an administrative provision that provides, among

other things, that applicants for Byrne JAG funds must “maintain and

report such data, records, and information (programmatic and financial)

as the Attorney General may reasonably require,” 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(4),

and certify that “there has been appropriate coordination with affected

agencies,” id. § 10153(a)(5)(c). There is no basis to DOJ’s assertion

(Br. at 22-23) that these provisions in § 10153(a) authorize the Notice

and Access conditions.

Congress identified eight “broad purposes” for which States and

localities could use Byrne JAG funds. H.R. Rep. No. 109-233, at 89. None

of those statutorily identified purposes pertains to federal immigration

law. See 34 U.S.C. § 10152(a)(1). Accordingly, grantees such as amici use

Byrne JAG funds to support a variety of law-enforcement interests

tailored to local needs—consistent with the broad discretion afforded

them by Congress. For example, New York has used Byrne JAG funds to

conduct community outreach aimed at preventing gun violence, and to

combat opioid abuse. Illinois has used its Byrne JAG grant to support a

local-state-federal task force aimed at combating human trafficking and


19

providing comprehensive social services to trafficking victims. Rhode

Island has used Byrne JAG grants to fund its drug courts, and Oregon

has used Byrne JAG monies to support mental health treatment and

technology improvement programs.

Notifying federal officials about an offender’s release date from

state and local custody, and affording federal officials access to state and

local correctional facilities, in no way constitutes reasonable

“programmatic” information or “appropriate coordination with affected

agencies” (Br. at 22-23) within the meaning of § 10153(a). Nothing in the

text or history of § 10153 supports DOJ’s suggestion (Br. at 22-23) that

§ 10153’s ministerial provisions were intended to address the impacts of

state and local criminal justice activities on federal immigration

enforcement.

DOJ likewise misplaces its reliance (id. at 28-29) on 34 U.S.C.

§ 10153(a)(5)(D), which requires an applicant for Byrne JAG funds to

certify, “in a form acceptable to the Attorney General” that it “will comply

with all provisions of this part and all other applicable Federal laws.”

34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(D). Contrary to DOJ’s assertions, this provision

does not authorize its new requirement that Byrne JAG grantees certify


20

their and their subgrantees’ compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373: a statute

providing that state and local governments and officials “may not prohibit,

or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from”

communicating with federal immigration officials “regarding the

citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

8 U.S.C. § 1373(a).

DOJ’s own practices in the certification context confirm that

“applicable Federal laws” refers to the body of laws that relate to grants

and grantmaking: that is, those “federal laws . . . applicable to the

award.”9 See also Philadelphia, 916 F.3d at 289-90. Section 1373 is not

an “applicable” law because it does not reference any limits on the use of

federal funds, and is textually unconnected to the Byrne JAG program as

well as to federal grant-making in general.

Nor is § 1373 limited to information-sharing about individuals who

are in state and local “criminal custody,” as DOJ suggests (Br. at 31-32).

To the contrary, the restrictions that § 1373 impose on state and local

governments covers immigration information about any individual that

9 DOJ, Certified Standard Assurances § 3(a), at 1 (exp. May 31, 2019).


21

state and local authorities have acquired for whatever reason, regardless

of whether the individual is suspected of any crimes.10 See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1373(a), (b).

Section 10153’s legislative history further supports the reading

that it does not cover non-grantmaking statutes like § 1373. 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 (amending the 1968 block

grant legislation).11 At that time, DOJ understood the term “applicable

Federal laws” to refer to statutes that govern the provision of federal

financial assistance.12 For example, DOJ’s Law Enforcement Assistance

10 State and local officials may learn of the immigration or citizenship

status of crime victims in the course of criminal investigations. Additionally, through the routine provision of governmental services, state and local officials may come to possess citizenship or immigration status information about individuals in a variety of contexts unrelated to law enforcement, such as education and benefits administration.

11 The relevant language in the 1979 Act was codified in 42 U.S.C. § 3743. Like 34 U.S.C. § 10153, § 3743 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. at 1188 (emphasis added). (Add. 33.)

12 See, e.g., DOJ, Law Enforcement Assistance Admin., General Briefing 6 (1977) (identifying twenty-three laws “applicable” to DOJ


22

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).13 A 1978 manual lists the laws DOJ understood to be

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

statutes governing federal grantmaking.14

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 Int’l, Inc.,

498 U.S. at 342. The inference is particularly strong here because Congress

knew of DOJ’s understanding at the time. In 1977, DOJ prepared a report

identifying the laws that DOJ deemed applicable to law-enforcement

block grants: approximately twenty federal laws that, by their terms,

grants, and providing the National Environmental Protection Act and civil rights statutes as examples) (Add. 39).

13 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. 82.)

14 DOJ, LEAA, Guideline Manual: Guide for Discretionary Grant Programs (1978). (Add. 6.)


23

governed federal grantmaking.15 The report was distributed to every

Member of Congress and every governor—among others—and was

subject to public comment and hearings.16

DOJ’s construction of § 10153(a)(5)(D) also runs contrary to one of

the main goals of the 1979 Act that introduced the relevant language: to

reduce administrative burdens associated with DOJ grants.17 One of the

central concerns highlighted in DOJ’s 1977 report was that the then-body

of federal laws applicable to law-enforcement block grants—the

approximately twenty statutes scattered across the United States Code

15 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) (“Restructuring Report”).

16 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. 85, 87.)

17 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) (stating that the bill was “designed” to “simplify[] the grant process”) (Add. 91); Office of Representative Peter W. Rodino, Press Release, Committee Approves LEAA Reorganization 1 (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. 94).


24

that applied to federal grant-making—imposed excessive burdens on

grantees.18 It is 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, as DOJ is currently attempting to do.

D. Section 1373 Violates the Tenth Amendment.

The § 1373 requirement is unlawful for another reason: the

underlying statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, violates the Tenth Amendment’s

anti-commandeering proscription under the principles recognized in

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1478

(2018). In Murphy, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional

a federal statute that prohibited, among other things, “a State or any of

its subdivisions” from enacting a particular type of law. Id. at 1470, 1478.

The central holding of Murphy made clear that the anti-commandeering

principles inherent in the Tenth Amendment do not permit Congress to

18 See Restructuring Report, supra at 23 n. 15, 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.”).


25

“issue direct orders to state legislatures,” regardless of the contents of

those directives. Id. at 1478.

Section 1373(a) provides that a “State, or local government entity

or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity

or official from sending to, or receiving from” federal immigration officials

information “regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or

unlawful, of any individual.” This statutory language runs afoul of the

Tenth Amendment because it “does just what Murphy proscribes: it tells

States they may not prohibit (i.e., through legislation) the sharing of

information regarding immigration status” with the federal

government.19

Section 1373 is not limited to information sharing, as DOJ suggests

(Br. at 37). Instead, that statute broadly prohibits state and local

governments from being able to adopt any rules governing their

employees’ communications of immigration-status information to federal

19 See United States v. California, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1077, 1099 (E.D.

Cal.), aff’d in part & rev’d in part on unrelated grounds, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2018); see also New York, 343 F. Supp. 3d at 234-37; City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 309 F. Supp. 3d 289, 329-31 (E.D. Pa. 2018), aff’d in part, vacated in part on unrelated grounds, 916 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2019).


26

officials. As the Second Circuit has previously recognized, § 1373’s

“undeniable” interference with the ability of state and local governments

to control how their employees handle sensitive information acquired in

the course of official duties may impede such governments’ collection of

this information in the first place—thereby undermining “the

performance of a wide variety of state and local governmental functions.”

See City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1999).

DOJ is further mistaken in its suggestion that § 1373 “merely

prevent[s] the States from obstructing federal regulation of private

parties,” and therefore should be analyzed under preemption principles

rather than under the Tenth Amendment. See Br. at 33-34. Preemption

provisions displace conflicting state and local laws by operation of the

Supremacy Clause, but they do not override the Tenth Amendment’s

prohibitions against Congress directing the actions of state legislatures.

See Murphy, 138 S. Ct. at 1478. In any event, § 1373 is not a preemption

provision because there is no underlying federal mandate that private

actors affirmatively share immigration-related information with federal

officials to begin with. Accordingly, state and local government rules

concerning how their employees may communicate with federal officials


27

about immigration-status information do not conflict with any federal

scheme.

E. DOJ May Not Require States to Certify Compliance with § 1373 to Be Eligible for COPS Grants.

Congress established the COPS Anti-Methamphetamine and Anti-

Heroin Task Force Programs in direct response to concerns about the

growing problems that these illicit substances were causing for the

States. See S. Rep. No. 113-181, at 102; H.R. Rep. No. 112-463, at 59.

Congress recognized that the economic burdens associated with these

drug-related issues were borne primarily by state and local governments.

See H.R. Rep. No. 112-463, at 59 (making observation in context of

methamphetamines). It therefore created these grants to support state

and local law enforcement efforts to curb the trafficking and sale of

methamphetamines and heroin. See S. Rep. No. 114-66, at 90; S. Rep. No.

113-181, at 102; H.R. Rep. No. 112-463, at 59.

In the COPS statute, Congress instructed DOJ to direct COPS Anti-

Methamphetamine grants “to State law enforcement agencies with high

seizures of precursor materials, finished methamphetamine, laboratories,

and laboratory dump seizures.” 34 U.S.C. § 10381(k). Similarly, Congress


28

instructed DOJ to direct COPS Anti-Heroin Task Force Program grants

“to State law enforcement agencies in States with high per capita rates

of primary treatment admissions” for heroin and other opioids. Id.

§ 10381(l); 128 Stat. at 2196.

Both of these COPS programs are “competitive,” see 34 U.S.C.

§ 10381(k), (l), and DOJ accordingly has some discretion in selecting

amongst eligible applicants. But that discretion is not boundless and

must ultimately be guided by the programs’ goals20, which are specified

in the statute and are wholly unrelated to immigration enforcement21.

In DOJ’s own words, the discretionary decision whether to award a

competitive grant must be “‘based on the programmatic, technical, or

20 See Grants.gov, What Is a Discretionary Grant?, Community Blog

(May 17, 2016) (explaining that the ultimate funding decision for a discretionary grant “is made based on the quality of the application and how well the proposed project will fulfill the program’s mission”).

21 Congress has repeatedly rejected recent efforts to expressly condition COPS grants on assistance with immigration enforcement. See, e.g., Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3009, 114th Cong. § 3(a) (2015); Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, S. 2146, 114th Cong. § 3(a)(1)(B) (2015).


29

scientific content of an application.’”22 As noted earlier, § 1373 is not

limited to how state and local government officials handle immigration-

related information in the criminal-justice context, but broadly prohibits

State and local governments from adopting rules restricting how their

employees may communicate with federal immigration officials about the

immigration status of any individual known to the government. See

supra at 25-26. Accordingly, a certification of compliance with § 1373—a

statute that bears no textual connection to law enforcement in general or

to drug interdiction in particular—has little bearing on “the

programmatic, technical, or scientific content” of a State’s COPS Anti-

Methamphetamine or Anti-Heroin Task Force Program application.

Whatever discretion DOJ possesses to dispense COPS grants, it

may not disregard the eligibility criteria set forth by Congress in favor of

its own policy objectives. Here, Congress has made clear that state law-

enforcement agencies with high rates of methamphetamine-related

seizures, and States with high per capita rates of heroin and opioid-

22 See Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. at 4, City of Los

Angeles v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-7215 (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 54 (quoting Grants.gov, Grant Terminology, Discretionary Grant) (emphasis added).


30

related treatment admissions, are eligible to be considered for the COPS

Anti-Methamphetamine and Anti-Heroin Task Force grants. In the past,

DOJ adhered to these statutory considerations and selected applicants

by ranking them based on the seizure data and program narratives

contained in the grant applications.23 For example, when DOJ

disqualified an applicant for COPS Anti-Methamphetamine grant funds,

it did so based on the applicant’s data on methamphetamine-related

seizures—the factor Congress wrote into the statute.24

DOJ’s unilateral decision to now disqualify applicants who do not

submit a certification pertaining to how state and local government

officials communicate with federal immigration authorities—an issue

wholly unrelated to methamphetamine and heroin interdiction or

investigation—plainly contravenes the statutory framework governing

these specialized COPS programs. By departing from its own prior

practice and conditioning a state law-enforcement agency’s eligibility for

23 See DOJ, COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program, FY 2014

Award Selection Methodology 2-3 (“2014 Methodology”). 24 See 2014 Methodology at 3. DOJ followed a similar data-focused

approach to awarding grants for the Anti-Heroin Task Force Program in prior years. See DOJ, COPS Office Anti-Heroin Task Force Program, FY 2015 Selection Methodology 2-3.


31

these COPS grants “on a criterion that has nothing to do with” the

underlying programs, DOJ has also acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

See East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 909 F.3d 1219, 1248 (9th

Cir. 2018). DOJ’s discretion in administering the COPS grants does not

extend to requiring that COPS applicants certify compliance with § 1373

as a threshold eligibility requirement.

F. The Challenged Requirements Are Inconsistent with 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a).

All of the challenged requirements are also invalid under a separate

statutory provision—codified in the same chapter of the United States

Code as the Byrne JAG and the COPS statute—which 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). Section 10228(a) was

enacted in 1968, at the same time as Congress created the first law-

enforcement block grant program, to prohibit precisely the type of

executive-branch action challenged in this case: the use of federal law-


32

enforcement grants to exert “direction, supervision, or control” over state

and local police forces or law-enforcement agencies. See Pub. L. No. 90-

351, § 518(a), 82 Stat. at 208. Applied here, § 10228(a) prohibits all of the

challenged conditions.

The legislative history of § 10228(a) confirms this result. Opponents

of the 1968 block-grant legislation expressed concerns that the U.S.

Attorney General would use law-enforcement grants to coerce States and

localities into adopting federal law-enforcement priorities.25 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” be, and that § 10228(a) prevented DOJ

from imposing extra-statutory conditions on law-enforcement grants.26

25 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 90-1097, at 230 (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 John K. Hudzik et al., Federal Aid to Criminal Justice: Rhetoric, Results, Lessons 15, 23-26 (1984). (Add. 97-100.)

26 Controlling Crime Through More Effective Law Enforcement: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedure of the S.


33

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

commandeering jurisprudence makes clear that compelling state law-

enforcement officers to assist in “the administration of a federally enacted

regulatory scheme” constitutes impermissible “direction” or “control” and

violates the Constitution’s anti-commandeering prohibitions. See Printz

v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 904, 930, 935 (1997).27 And as the Third

Circuit has found, the imposition of the § 1373 requirement may further

violate § 10228(a) by authorizing DOJ “to direct, supervise, or control”

local police communications with federal immigration officials. See

Philadelphia, 916 F.3d at 291.

Further, the burdens imposed by the § 1373 requirement on Byrne

JAG grantees—both in terms of the initial certification and the

continuous monitoring of subgrantees for compliance with the statute—

are particularly onerous for amici States with large numbers of

subgrantees. For example, in 2016, New York disbursed Byrne JAG

Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong. 100, 384, 497 (1967). (Add. 105, 107, 109.)

27 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 904-05, 934.


34

funds to over 110 subgrantees, including many towns, counties, and local

law-enforcement and social services agencies. Similarly, in FY 2014,

Connecticut disbursed Byrne JAG funds to several state agencies and

twenty-eight local jurisdictions. And Delaware has historically had

between forty and fifty Byrne JAG subgrantees, including various

municipal and state law-enforcement agencies.

In sum, all of the challenged requirements are unlawful under

§ 10228(a) because they (1) require state officials to administer federal

immigration policy by mandating that those officials respond to federal

requests for information, (2) require state officials to devote staff,

resources, and real property to facilitate federal agents’ access to aliens

in correctional facilities, and to continuously monitor subgrantees for

compliance with § 1373; and (3) direct and control local law enforcement

communications with federal authorities. See Printz, 521 U.S. at 904;

Philadelphia, 916 F.3d at 291.


35

CONCLUSION

The Court should affirm the judgment of the district court.

Dated: New York, New York May 29, 2019

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General ERIC R. HAREN Special Counsel to the Solicitor General LINDA FANG Assistant Solicitor General of Counsel (Counsel listing continues on next page.)

Respectfully submitted, LETITIA JAMES Attorney General State of New York Attorney for Amici Curiae

By: . /s/ Linda Fang . LINDA FANG Assistant Solicitor General

28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 (212) 416-8656


36

PHIL WEISER Attorney General State of Colorado Ralph L. Carr Judicial Building 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor Denver, CO 80203

MAURA HEALEY Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106

WILLIAM TONG Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106

DANA NESSEL Attorney General State of Michigan P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909

KATHLEEN JENNINGS Attorney General State of Delaware Carvel State Building, 6th Floor 820 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19801

KEITH ELLISON Attorney General State of Minnesota 102 State Capitol 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155

KWAME RAOUL Attorney General State of Illinois 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60601

GURBIR S. GREWAL Attorney General State of New Jersey Hughes Justice Complex 8th Floor, West Wing Trenton, NJ 08625

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

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

(Counsel listing continues on next page.)


37

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

ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General State of Washington P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504

PETER F. NERONHA Attorney General State of Rhode Island 150 South Main Street Providence, RI 02903

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

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


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Form 8. Certificate of Compliance for BriefsInstructions for this form: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form08instructions.pdf

9th Cir. Case Number(s)

I am the attorney or self-represented party.

This brief contains words, excluding the items exempted

by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f). The brief’s type size and typeface comply with Fed. R.

App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).

I certify that this brief (select only one):

complies with the word limit of Cir. R. 32-1.is a cross-appeal brief and complies with the word limit of Cir. R. 28.1-1.

is an amicus brief and complies with the word limit of Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5), Cir. R. 29-2(c)(2), or Cir. R. 29-2(c)(3).

is for a death penalty case and complies with the word limit of Cir. R. 32-4.

complies with the longer length limit permitted by Cir. R. 32-2(b) because (select only one):

complies with the length limit designated by court order dated .

is accompanied by a motion to file a longer brief pursuant to Cir. R. 32-2(a).

it is a joint brief submitted by separately represented parties; a party or parties are filing a single brief in response to multiple briefs; ora party or parties are filing a single brief in response to a longer joint brief.

Signature Date(use “s/[typed name]” to sign electronically-filed documents)

Feedback or questions about this form? Email us at [email protected]

Form 8 Rev. 12/01/2018

18-17308, 18-17311

6,679

s/Linda Fang May 29, 2019


Addendum


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

i

Senate Report No. 90-1097 (1968) .................................................... ADD1 Dep’t of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Admin., Guideline Manual: Guide for Discretionary Grant Programs (1978) ............... ADD6 Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96-157, 93 Stat. 1167 .................................................................................... ADD31 Dep’t of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Admin., General Briefing (1977) ................................................................... ADD34 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) ............................................................................ ADD80 Restructuring the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. (1977) ........................................................... ADD84 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) ..................... ADD88 Office of Representative Peter W. Rodino, Press Release, Committee Approves LEAA Reorganization (May 10, 1979) .......... ADD94 John K. Hudzik et al., Federal Aid to Criminal Justice: Rhetoric, Results, Lessons (1984) .................................................... ADD96 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) ................................................................................... ADD104


TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)

PAGE

ii

Paul G. Dembling & Malcolm S. Mason, Essentials of Grant Law Practice (1991) ....................................................................... ADD110 Malcolm S. Mason, Monitoring Grantee Performance, in Federal Grant Law (Malcolm S. Mason ed., 1982) ....................... ADD113


Calendar No. 1080 V0·1·u CoNonEBs

2d Session } SENATE { REPORT No. 1097

OMNIBUS CRIME CONTUOJ.J AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1967

APRIL 29, 1968.-0rdered to bo printed

Mr. McCLELLAN, from t.110 Committee on the Judiciary,

REPORT Submitted the following

together with MINORITY, INDIVIDUAL, AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS

(To accompany S. 017}

Tho Committee on tho Judiciary, to which wa.s reCorred the bill (S. 917) to assist State and local go vernmen.ts in reducing the, incidence of crime, to incroaso the effectiveness, fairness, and coordination of law enforcement and criminnl justico systems at all levels of govern-ment, and for other purposes, hlwing 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 o.f ter the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof

the following: That this Act rnny be cited as the "Omnibus_ Crime Control and Safe Streets Aot of 1967". . .

TITJ,E I-LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE DECLARATIONS Al~D PURPOSE

Congress fln~i! that the high inoi~ence of crl~e in tho Unite~ States threatens tho peace security, and general wolfare of the Nation and its olt1zons. To provent crime and to l.nsure the greater safety of the people, law enforcement efforts must be better coordinated, intensified, and made more effective at all levels of govern-ment.

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

98-198-68-1

ADD1


ll Is t h<•r;ifom the rl1•ul11rod poll(!Y of t h.<i ,C~9,j1gr,~s~, to nsslst. St ntc and locill KO\'Ol'ntnento In Htrengt ho11h1g 1111d lm,>rovlng 11\w ollforcomont nt every \O\:el)>Y nutlonnl n8slHtnncc. It Is the p11rpo1m o this title to (I) enco\1rage Stnt.cs nnd II nits of ge11ornl locnl govern1nii11t to prnpnre nud adopt comprehens.1\'e pinna bns1•d upon their ov1\111nt.lon of Stnt<• nnd locnl prohlen\s or lnw onrorcement; (2) nuthorlzo gmnt.s to 8tittc11 nnd 11111t11 of locnl government In ordnr to lmpl'O\'c n11d strongt lwn lnw m1forccmeht.; nnd (:J) encourngc 1·efic11rch and dcvclopmellt directed townrci the l111pro\·eme11t. of lnw unforcnrnont nud Um development of now methods for Ute pr1?\'unt.lon nnd rcductlon of crime nnd thu detection nnd npprt!hcnsion of erlmlnnls.

P.rn1• A-J,Aw 1'~N .. onct:MJolNT ABeleTANcE AoM1N1sTn.\•r10N

fh:c. I 01. (11) 'l'hl'rc i!1 lwrnhy <?stnhllshcd ~:ithln the Dcpn1·tmo11t of Justfoe, 111ulm· thn go11erul 11utho1·lly of t.hu Attorrwy Oc!nernl1 n Lnw E11forc1•nuiilt AF~ist1111c1J Ad ml11li't l'11 t Ion· (hcm1ftur refcrrc•d f:o l!t. t.l1ls title ne 11 Aclmh1lst.rn tloh").

(h) 'I'h<! Achnl11ifitr11tio11 sh11ll lio co111pof!lld of nn Ad1l1inlstrntor of Lnw I•:nforcn-111unt A11si11tn11ce nn<l two Assoclilte Ad1i\h1lst.rntors of J,nw I~nfol'Cclll(•llt. Asi1iilt11nct•, who 11h111l he nppolnl<!d by the PrPslc.lent., by i1hd with the udvicc und consent. of the R<"nnte. No more thnn two nwmh1•n;of t.110 Admlnlstrntion slinll he of (.he i;nme polil.ic·nl pnrt.y, nnd members shnll he nppolntcd wit.h due rcgnrd to their fih1cs11, knowledgn, mul c~x,)(Jrlcnco to perform tlw functions, powers, und dutil'i! vrsted i11 I he Ad111h1i11trnt on by this title. . ·

(c) It shnll he the duty of t.lw Adml11lst1·iltio11 t.o exercise nil of the .f11nctio111;1 powl'l'11, 1111d duties C'rc•nted nml <'l'lnhlished by t..his t.ltfo, except m1 oth<•rwise proviclud. ·

P.\ll'I' B--Pt •. \NNISCI Gll.\NTS

~~:c. WI. It. is tl.1e purpose or U1is f>l\l't· to ertt101\ri\gc Htnll'S tllld llllits or gi•1wrnl locnl govem111c11t. to prnpnrn nnd ndopt. <•omp1·e 1c11slve lnw e11forccnwnt pi1111s hns<•d 011 I hoir uvnhtntion of St11t1111nd h1c1\I prohlcms of lnw enforc•oment..

1-h;c. ~O~. Thll Administrnt ion is uul horhwd to mnlw grnnls lo St11t1.•s, units of w·11or:1l lol'11l ~ovm·h11w11t .. 01• umHhhl1it.ip11s ofi;iich l:Hntes or units of Jornl goV<'rn-1111:111 for prcpnrlng, dllv1·!opi11g, .cu· rnvlsillg lnw unforccrnm1t ·plans to cnrr~· 0111. I Ill' 1111rprnm l'il!I. forth in r;nct ion ao:l: /'ro11illrd, liOl{•t;11cr, Thu t 110 unit. or g1'1ll'r:tl locn go\·er1111w111. or co11lbl1111t ion of Nt1ch 111lils slinll bn ullgihlc! for n grnnt. 1111<l1•r t l1is pnrt. 1111lt1;-;s s11ch 1111it or co111hi1111t ion hns 11 population of nut lc . .;s I h1111 fifty t hommncl pcr:;on~. .

8t:c. :!O:l. A grnnt 1111thori:wd 1!1.Hlrir sc>ctlon 202 tihnll not exceed 80 pl'r Cl!ilt 11111 of the tothl (!O~l of t.l!ll prepnrntfon, dc!velop1i19nt., or·reviKIOi"1of11 p!nh.

1-irJc, :.?04. Thu AcJministrnt.1011 11111y udv1111cn s11ch grnnts 1111t.11oriwd under sl!ot.ion :J02 11po11 n!)plicalion for tho p111•po~1~'i cl1~'1t'ribcd. Such npplicnt.ion shall:

0) ~l!t. fort.It progr11m~ 111111 nctivili<•:-; clc.'4igucd to carry out tho purposes of 1H~ct.io11 :rn2.

(2) <Jonlnin such i11formnt.io11 m1 the Adminii;t.1·ntion mny prPserllw in 11c<'ord1111c•n wit.h sect.ion 50 I. ·

fh:c. 301. It. is the purpo~o of thi~ pnrt to ~·ncourngc Stutes nnd ui1its of gcnrrnl locnl go\·criitilCnl to cmrr~· 011t progrnms nnd projects to Improve nnd strcn&fhcn In w onforcmnen t ..

f)t:c. ao~. (il) '~'he A.dri1!11i~trl\ti.011 I~ mitlwri?.cd to mn~e srnnt~ to Stntc>s, tiuits of gmiurul locnl go\'crlir'llcht.; nnd comblnntion11 of such Stnl('fl or uulte of gcmel'ul locnl gowrnmont tq iuwrovc ~n~ st1·e1igtlum 111w cnfprcemcnt: Proviclcd hbwe11er, Thnt 110 unit of genchtl lornl governmeht or combination of sudnmlts shnll he cllglhlo for n gm11L tllidor th.ls I),l},ri unlc1;1R suoh 11111~ or combi11ntlo11 lm1:1 a popula-tion of not less tl1111dl(t.y thousnnd persons.

(b) Under this 'pl\i'L grants may be mndc pun1iumt t.o nn nppllcntlon which is ll)lprovcd u11dcr section aoa for-

(1) Public protection,' Including tho de\'clopmont, dcmonstrntion, c\•ulua-tion, hiiplcmcntiitlot'1 tli1d purchn1w of 111cthods1 devices, faclllt.ics, nnd cq11lpniu11t cfoslKIH!d to imjirovc nnd &trongthen lnw enforcement. und reduce crhno hi' public itnd priv.nto pJacc?S.

(~) Tho recirultliig · of lilW cnforcmnent persormel o,nd the training of pc1'801111d 111 lnw e11forco111c•111 .•

(:1) Public ed11c11t.lon ri!liilillg to crime )>rcvcintlon n11d encouraging rl•spcet for luw 1111cl ordc~r1 l11cl11clil11( ecl11c11tlon progrnmH In a1~hools nnd pr0Krum11 to

ADD2


INDIVIDUAL VIEWS MESSRS. DIRKSEN, HRUSKA, SCOTT; AND THURMOND ON TITI~S I, II, .AND III

Since 1960, serious crime in the United States has increased an alarmin~ 88 percent. This fact is cause for the gravest national concern. · This 18 not a partisan issue. It is an .American tragedy.

In consideration of the omnibus crime bill, we have sou~ht to strengthen and improve the proposal sent to Congress. To a limited extent, these efforts have 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 suostantive provisions to perfecting technical changes. ·

ORGANIZED CRIME

The most significant Republican contributions to the bill 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 29l 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 governments. Such assistance has two purposes:

(1) To assist in tlie establishment or expansion of special prosecuting ~OU~ OD a local level ·to ferret out ana prosecute the multifarious illeg&l activities of orJanized crime.

(2) To provide special federal assistance in establishing a coordinated in~gence network among states including com_puterized data banks of 1111dicate operations and activities. ·These efforts would be 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.

llLECTRONIO SURVEILLANCE

.Another major contribution to efforts to combat organized crime is found in Title,Ip of the committee bi!l.'.['o a_great d~gre·e, th~s title reflects the proV1S,1~ns of S .. 20501 the proposf:'d Electto.mc SurvciU1:mce Act of 1967, which was mtroauced by Senat9rs Dll'ksen, Hruska Scott, Thurmond/Percy, Hansen and others in June of 1967. Included in the committee bill ~ the formula for strict impartial court author-ization and supervision 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.

(21&)

ADD3


280

INDEPEND.EN'r LAW lilNfo'OUCEMl'lNT ASSISTA~CE AD~iINIS'l'RATION

Ju pursuit of ()JIO of the SJ\ lllO obj ecti \'eS of die block grant ptovi-si<ms,· namely the preveil'li<>-ll of federal dori1inntfoi1 und control or s(at.e nnd locill 111.w enforcehieut, the Orhninul Lnws St.1bcmnmittee, u1>on f.11e ii1ltiia.th·e <?f Ohuirmun Mc(/leJlan, tad<led n pro,;i;ion to i_ts b1H for th~ estnbhshment . of Rn mdependent. Lnw E11forceme11t. Assi~li}~1co.Ad1i1inialrntion tc) ndmh1h~ter the federul uid progi·1im. The ttdpmustermg ng,_enc,v \\'us to be_ hend~d by· n t.hrce-mun board np-pomte<l by t.he rres1dcnt with t.lte ncl\'ICe nnd consent of-t.he Senate. M iruil1l ty party i'epre.'fen tfttiofr was ns~11recl hy t.he rc·q 11ire1h'erH thn t one of t.he three men would he n repre..;;cn tn the of l he pnrty 011 t. of power.

'J'he s11bcommittce hill prodded: In. t!1e ex~i·cise of H~ f\Utctions, powers, nnd duties, the

A<l1rumst.rnt10n shull he mdependent of the Attorney General _ 1rnd of.her offices nnd officers of the Depnrtment. of, Justine.

'fhis Wt\S <leetned essentil\l to insure t.frnt., l\S much i\S possible, the law en forceinen t a!:Jsii~tance program would be ndministered im par-tially nnd Cree Crom poliLieiil j>i'esstu•c:i. Also, it wns considered to be imfwrtant to refrain from placing in t.ho lurnd!i of one man the poten-tia power of granting or denying federnl tinn11cinl nssist.ance in very 11\r_ge _tunoun~ to state and city law enfi>rcement agencies. · It is regrettable that the provision for the independent status of

the .Administration was dropped from the bill._ We attempted unsuc-cessfully to reinstate the provision in the Cull rommit.tee, and will urge its adoption on the floor of the Senate .

. In shQrttwe don't wu.nt tho Attorney Geucral, the so-called "l\1r. U1g" of f ec1eral law ouforcemerit to become the dfrector of state and Jocal law enforcement as well. It is true that the Attorn~ General is chief .law enforcement officer of the federal ~0\'ernment. ~ut.he is not chief law enforcement officer of states or cities. We belie\•e America does not want him to serve iii this latter capacity.

Org111iization and ma11age1i1ent 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 ~11, is a small priee to pay to preser\'e n fu~darnental Dale.nee of ~obce ~>ower.

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

POLICE SALARY SUl•PORT

. 'fl,1_~:Admhi,i~lr~t.ion 1s <!_rigiri1al proposal. to 'Cdngress in enrly 1967

contame<l a (eat4re .~Ho\ving up to one-third of .~ch federal grant ~o be utilized, for compchsaUoh 'O( law crif orcemeilf. p~rsomiel. In the hearillg record· of both the Hotise O:nd Se11ate Judiciary Committees, t.bis_ provision proved to ·be· quite controversial. When t.he House Committee reported the bill, the provision for salary stipport was deleted. Commenting on t.his aotion, the committee report on page 6 st.ated:

The commitlee del(\~d ._11- aiithorit! to use grant 'fuhds autho~ized by the bill for the purpose ofdi_rect compehsation to ~lice and other law enforcement personnel other than for training programs or for the perfonnance of innovative

ADD4


231

functions. Deletion of authority ·to use Federal funds for local law .enforcement personnel co~p~r,isation underscores the comm1ttee1s• concern that respons1bihty for law enforce-ment not be shifted from State and local government level. It is anticipated that local goverrunents, as the cost for research, ~l;lnov.ative servfoes;"trait\ing, and new eqlliP,ment developments are shared by the Federal 00'\'ernment m the programs authorized in the bill will ·be able to devote more of their local , resources to the sohition of personnel com-pensation P,roblems. The com~1ittee recogniz~s ~hat adequate compensat10n for law enforcement personnel is. one of the most vexing problems in the fight against crime.

We wholeheartedJy'suosc:ribe to the·House coinmittee's \'iew. There is indeed a gra\"e concern tliat' responsibility for law enforcement not be shifted from the state and looal'levels.· '

The :senate Criminal I.ia,vs Subcbmihittee nlso deleted a simihfr prov}sion by an ovez:,~h~Jmirig v9te; ,but· subseq\t'~i1t~y· ·a .somewliat mod1fi~d salary prov1s1on was 'remst~~ed . ..Jn mod1fi~d fo~m,,. UJ> to one-thll'd of each grant could be mad'e· 'availablo' to pay one-half' ehe cost of salary increa'ses for law ehforcemeht 'persotlnet Even with this modification, we riiltst strorigly · oppose the provision.' This is not because we are indifferen't to the low pay of the nation's Jaw enforce:. ment officers. It is because we fear that "he who pay~ the piper c·au~ the tune" and that dependence upon the federal government for sal-aries 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 f net, most'of the nation's 400,000 police officers wowd not be eligible because under

.· t~e co~mittee~b~ll. 01ily local jurisdictions or groups of, l?cal jurisdic-t10ns w:ith pop_(Hat1ons of more than 50,000 would be eligible to apply for grant aid. Thus, those smaller jurisdictions, some :go percerit of ~he nation's tota~· with 58_Eei:'c~Iit of th~ population, would not be eligi~,le for grant assistance. Who is· to say that the officers of City A which meets the population standard could receive federal salary stipple:. ments whereas the officers of-City B, perhaps·an adjoining community whose po1)1tlation requirements do not meet the testi could not quaJify.

'fhe unfairness of the Administration proposa becomes crystftl clear when it is considered ·that 1iot all large cities and policemen will be bel}efi~iaries of f~deral law enforcement 'grants. This ik so be~ause the.re 1s simply. no~.enoug~ ~eqera! 1 money·to go ar<?t~n~ .• Thus, C1ty.C which perhaps g~t!1ts ap'pl\ctit1on m early 'or whose 'political leaders~1p was in favor with :the Department of Justice received a•grant and salary support, while Cit.y D with tho same needs, the same criiue problems ana Sa~e low par sca)es ,was left ~U~'becaUse its npplic!l-tfon Was tardy or not m compbanoe with contempgrary federal notions on what a good . application should contain. What could be more manifestly unfair? ' -

lt~inally, it should be noted t.hat once salary support!is grantea; it would be diffionlt if not impo's~ible for the f edernl government to abandon its assistance, thus leaving n permunent dependence 011 the federal treasury.

TITLE II The spectr~ of American society~th~.greatestfin the histo.ry ot'the

world-plungmg mto chaos as the nntionnl fabric unravels mto law-

ADDS


Guideline Manual

I M 4100.10 I

Distribution:

GUIDE FOR DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAMS

September 30, 1978

UNITED STATES DF.PARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

Initiated By:

ADD6


II 4.500.lG September 30. 1978

tNTIODUCTlON

1. PUl.POSI. 'ftut purpoH of till• manual le to provld• tnfonation about .. jor cateaortcal pro1r ... of the Law lnforceaent Aaalatance Adatnhtrat1on, autboriaed bJ the Crime Control and Safe Streeta Act of 1968, •• ...aded, and the Juvenile Juatic• and Delinquency Prevents.on Act of 1974, H amenclad. Tb• manual 1ncludea infonu.tion about dlacretlonal"J 1rant proar ... , 1el•cted program field teats, technical aHiataace, ud trainiq. Information about how to apply for a11tatance and who to contact for additional information 1• al10 provt.d..S.

Thia unual la co.pleMllted by additional tu1del1nea and program tnnOUl\c....ata and plan•• auch aa the Proaram flan of the Rational tn1tltut1 of Lav lnforceaent and Criminal Juatice, the Program Plan for Statiatic1 of th• National Crialnal Juetica Information and Statiatlc1 Sel"Vice, proaram auidallnea of the Office of Criminal Ju1tic• lducatton and Training, and program announcements and other doC1111Bnta ra1ardin1 Incentive Programa. In addition, supplements to thi• manual will be publ11had aa new progr811ls, such as those of the Office of Juvenile Juatice and Delinquency Prevention, are developed.

2. SCOPE. Thia manual is of interest to State and local criminal justice agenciea, institutions and organizations who work with criminal justice agencies, State Planning Agencies, regional and local planning units, and LE.AA 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 con~epts, 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 Progr8lll Development Process.

i

ADD7


If 4S00.1G September 30. 1978

5, ::: = ..:.;:::.-... ._. .... -•upp1 ' Gj • ......, of ot r I.MA proarw. 11\a. major dac:.umenta deac~ttt\ otbar Pl"Oll'W ad tile pa.enl prucllduree aovenaina them incl'llde~& f • 1 (JJ de for State Pluai Crant• (effective acUuon .~.

of l!l l • -'de• ... crlbH th• proceduru and requireaanta \ fat' ,1nntaa put• to State Crtainal Justice Planning ': ·. Atmc!ee (SPA'•) supported under Part I of the Crime Control ad We ltreeu Act of 1968. as aJNnded, and for the denlop91Dt of State ca.prehenlive criminal justice plane Nll"1nd ••r Part C and I of the CriM Control Act, and tblt JunDUe J111t1ce and Delioqueacy Prevention Act of 1974, .. _ ... ed.

(2) Proar• Plata for the National tnetitute of Law Enforcement aacTSalaal Juatic• (iiitiCJ) wbich descd.bes the research, d..,.lopMDt ad tecJmoloo tranefer activities planned for n1.1CJ.

()) Proar• Plan for Statistics FY 1977-81 which describes LEAA' s plaaDecl statistical activities.

(4) Lav lnforcment Education Program Guideline Manual (effective edition of M 5200.1) which describes the education assistance progra of the Office of Criminal Justice Bducation and Training (OCJ!T) •

(S) Graduate Research Fellowship Progra111 Guide.line (effective edition of G 5400.2) which describes the procedures and requirements for participation in the L!AA Graduate Research Fellows Program.

(6) Guideline Hanual for the CompTehensive Data Systems Program (effective edition of M6640.l) which describes the Comprehensive Data Systems ProgTam (CDS), sets foTth 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 f inaocial management of LEAA grants, including those set forth in this manual.

(8) 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

ADDS


,

September 30. 197~

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

c. In addition, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJR.S) can provide a wide range of information about apeci.fic areas of interest to the criminal justice cO'llllllUllity. lnfoT111&tion about these services is available from LEAA or directly from NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, Maryland 20850.

d. For further information or assistance in the use of this manual. contact LEA.A. offices referred to herein or the appropriate State Planning Agency.

"

a.,._,..IAA S M. H. GREGG

istant Administrator f ice of Planning and Management

ADD9

..

'


, • 4500.lG September 30, 1978

TAILI or CCMi~S

.....:WI PIOGIAllS

10. Scope of Chapter 11. Alltl-hDctoa hoar• u. Oqaind Crim Progr• U. Callpnlaeuive C&reer Crialaal: ICAP Component 14. Anoa Coatrol Test 1.S-16. ....rved 11. technical Assistance in Enforcement 18. Traintq in Enforcement 19. leaened

ADJDDICAl'IOll PROGRAMS

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

Witness Assistance Program 2S. State Judicial Information System Program (SJIS) 26. Jail Overcrowding and Pretrial Detainee

Progr.111 (Adjudication) 27. Techoical Assistance in Adjudication 28. TraiD.ing in Adjudication 29. Reserved

iv

ADD10

~. l 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

~

lO 31 3'. 3 ~ . .

\


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

I M 4500.lc ll&lte.a,•r lo, 1971

g>~lOllSf~ Scope of Cha Correcttoaa ~!:~l Correcttona P tty ltenctar.te I l Correcttonal ~;area Stendarda l=l=t•Uon Prop• Reatitutton Pro •ndarda Ac:crectttatton P t•tion Proar .. Treataent "• ar.. rograa T ou.t•rnattve reatmeat and Reha • to Street Crt• (T

Prtaonera Pt"Oar.!illt•Uon for Addicted UC) Pro1r• 37. Jail Accounting Mt (TlAP)

(JAMs) Progr.. crocot1putar SJat .. 38. Offender Baaed It

lnfonaatt ate Correc:ttona 39 • Inmate Leaa onl SSyet• (OBSCIS) ho1rn 40 ervtcea Prog • Jail Overcrovdtn r• 41-46. Reserved I and Pr.trial DetalnH Proara 47. Technical Aaiiit 48. Training in Corr::~~o!: Correcttona 49. Reserved

CHAPTERS SYSTEM SUPPORT PROGRAMS

50. Scope of Chapter 51. Comprehensive Data Systems (CDS) Program ~2. Small State Supplement Program 53. Indian Criminal Justice Program 54. Manpower Planning and Development 55-56. Reserved 57. Technical Assistance in System Support 58. Training in System Support 59. Reserved

''"k· 15 85 91 97 ta

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

ADD11

149 149 149

149 149 149


CIW'TD 6 (CoQt.}

ll 4500.lG Sepcllllber 30, 1978

66. Aaaoullc--t of OJJDP U...OU.oit.. Propo .. 1 Cycle .... ne.t

67-70. .... ne.t 71. reclmtcal AHi•tuce ta Junnil• Juatic• &1Ml

Deltnqueaq PNYetiOD 72. Traiftiq 1R Jwenil• Juatic• md Del1Dquac1

Prenntlon - ... ened

APPDDII 1. GlllllAL SPICinCArIOIS AIU> UQUIUNllft'S '°' J)llCUTl<ltM'f CIAllT8

1. Scope

SICTIOI 1. ILIGllt.I PIOJICTS AID APl'LICdTS

2. lliaible P1:oject• 3. 111&1.bl• Appli-=-nt•

SICTIOi 2. GlllDAL UQUIUlllllTS

4. Grantee Katchtna Contribution s. Aeaumption of Coats 6. Period of Support 7. Grant Assurances

SECTION 3. SPECIAL RBQUIRIMEITS

8. Special Requirements for Part ! (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 ARD RESTRICTIONS

-

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

vi

ADD12

14t

150

Ul

1

l 1

3 3 4 4

6

7

8

9

10

15 15 15


M 4500.lC September 30, 1978

APPENDIX 2. PREPARATION ARD SUIKISSlOM or APPLlCATIOllS 1. Scope

SECTION 1. Plt.BPARATIOM or APPLICATIOMS

2. Stanclard Applicat.ioo for.a 3. Preapplicationa

SECTION 2. SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS

4. Consultation and Participation with State

Paae Ro.

l

1 1

Plannina Aaend.ea 2 S. Subaiaaion and Proceaetna Procedure• 3 6. Panel Reviw Procees 4 7. Notification 4

APPENDIX 3. AWARD AND ADMINISTRATION OP GRANTS

1. Scope 2. Applicability of Financial Management

Guide 3. Award and Payment of Funds 4. Allowability of Costs 5. State Planning Agency Supervision and

Monitoring Responsibility 6. Audit Responsibilities 1. Suspension and Termination of Grants 8. Reports Required of Grant Recipients

APPENDIX 4. MEASUREMENT OF PERFORMANCE: EVALUATION AND MONITORING OF DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

1. Background 2. The Four Types of Performance Measurement 3. Self-Assessment 4. LEAA Project Monitoring 5. Evaluation Requirements 6. Program Evaluation 7. Intensive Project Evaluation

vii ADD13

1

1 1 2

3 4 5 6

1 1 2 2 3 3 6


K 4500.lC September 30, 1978

Pase lo.

APPIMDIX S. SPBCIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOil BOB-coHSTRUCTIOB f;IAll'l APPLICATIOIS

•'

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

Narrative 4. Part IV 1 Program Narrative lnatructioas

ADD14

1 1

2 4


K 4500.lG September 30 1 1978

APPl~II 1. GDERAL SPECinCAnONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR. DISCRETIORARY CIWn'S

1. ~· Thie appendix contains general requiraaente for and 11.mite on use of discretionary funde grant•. includtna eligibility rule• 1

genera.l requir-.nta. prohibition• and reatrictiona • and other techni1:al requir-.ote.

SECTICll 1. ELICIILE PROJICTS AND APPLICANTS

2. ELIGIBl.B PlllD.n:crs.

a. !!J•licatlona vill no111ally be con1idered only if they fall vil:Mo tbe ecope and coverage of prograu deecribed in Chapter11 l du~h 6 of this Manual.

b. .!211licanta ... 1ti1t1 categorical funds for projects which do not faJ.l within the acope and coverage of programs described in thie Maiiu&l abould aubait a brief pre-application or concept paper dea1cribing the objectives. att'ategiea, and reaout'ces requit'ed fo1· the propoaed project, before submitting a formal applicati.on.

c. .!PJ:ilicante are advised that categorical funds for projects not co"•ered by this Manual or by the Program Plan of the National Ins.titute of Law Enfot'cement and Criminal Justice are extremely liDdted.

3. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS.

a. Discretionary 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 or subgrantees of State Planning Agencies.

App 1 Par 1 Page 1

ADD15


""" 1G JI 4:JVV" 1978 --.. ... ,a. sept--

section 224 of the ~ cb!I' -!ct oraau or Juvenile

1!!~~!@!!9~~~~Utlll~ iiiaC1 rroar-> en be ...Se to c. I t c• ~:-' r,..a'::!atlo09 od iutitutiona. =::..-r rrfl"d ::_ _ _.....,, o~-.. taatloll• or i•titutloaa aua __. rt••'•..--;::_ oq-- h t ,..uc - ' flt ~~-· with 1011t • Prl••~ _...,ro ta .seall1l8 ...,. .... ..,.rt•c• ol'loiaation or inatttuuau

flt .,11DC1, foundation, trun, (l) , pdtecta ":"":!; cof'PGratto:;edited tnetitution of hi&het

s. ..iwell cooperative, ac 1 oriantsatioa or ioatttutt .-oclatiOO:O. di odl•f a&':/icientific, educationa1, On .. ":':°;,er.tell pfilllld!!uar public purpo•n, but which "'1 l.c daa'ltabl•• or • ton ot' cootrol, and no pan "" t ·~.r publ1C aup~: tau res or may lawfully inure !: :. .. t earotaa• of :iv:t• ahareholder or individual, to die beoef lt of aA1 P IttS to be to-exempt under the ad w1a1cb bU ,,... b•1;0~~c) (3) of the 1954 Internal prcwt.atou of Section a...- Code.

with youth meaus that the (2) (a) bpedeace ln dealS.:ganization or institution has been

acm-profit aa:nCJ;t least two years and has established 1D auten~c:: for youth -related to the program or proSr• • d is ght • project for which fun ing sou ,

(b) Under special circumstances the two year requirement 11111 be waived by tbe Administrator of the Of flee of Juvenile 3ustice and Delinquency Prevention.

d. Progr-.s contemplating action by a particular tne of law enforceaent agency, or efforts conducted for State and local government by a university OT 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 unit of general local government, or combination of such :~~~:::::!:Vb en;orcemefi nedt agencies, systems, or activities

e ene t by the grant.

App l Par 3 Page 2

ADD16


M 4500. lG September 30. 1978

SlcrtOll 2. GINBIW. UQUlUMllCTS

4. G1lAllTU KATcatJIC allTIIBUTIOll. AppUcant.e for 1raou authorized under Part• C aad ! of the Criaa Control Act (ncept Indian Tdbes. the 'l"tu•t Terrltori-. eu-. Aaerlcan Samoa ad t'ha Martanaa) muat provide at least 10 percent of the total pl'Oject cm ta. For &0111e

progr_. • larger aatch1ng caotrihution h required for second and •ub•equent yun of •ad. a. tcatcbig contrtbvUcn:ut auat be in cub rather than in-kind goods

and ••rvicH.

b. Matchlg contdbutj.op! aa7 be fund• ftca State, local or prlvate eourc .. but aay not include other Pederal fund• except where the Federal etatute governing the other fund• authorizes those funda to be u1ed to .. tch other Federal grants, e.g.~

(l) Fuada provided by the Housing and Co1111n.mity Development Act of 1974i

(2) Pund1 provided by the Appalachian Regional Develop~ent Act of 1965; and

(3) Funds pr01Tided by the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Ac.t of 1972, as amended (General Revenue Sharing Funds).

c. Projects funded under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevent1. 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.

5. 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 applicatfon how project activities will be paid for when Federal funding ceases what plans will be made during the period of Federal funding t<: arrange for that funding. This information will be used as one criterion for evaluating applications for funding.

App 1 Par 4 Page 3

ADD17


•· lsceticma to fUDd1Qa period limitations, where applicable, are ooted ta prasna d•criptioaa (Qiapters 1 through 6).

7. CJWIT ASSDIABCIS. The grant assurances contained in Part V of SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance (Appendix 6) are incorporated in ad ..cte a part of all discretionary grant awards.

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

b. Special Conditions. Frequently, LW will approve or require, as a condition of grant award and receipt of funds "special conditions" applicable only to the particular p;oject or type of program receiving grant support. These special conditions are !:S be negotiated and included in the terms of an award. Notice

S opportunity for discussion will be provided to grant applicants. pecial conditions may:

App l Par 5 Page 4

ADD18



(1) Set forth epeciflc 1rant adalaletratlon policiee;

(2) Set forth LEA.A reaul•tlon11 (e.g. I vdttea •PPl'oval of change•);

(3) Seek edditlooal project lnforaatloa or detail;

(4) S.tablieb epecial repol'ttn1 requir .. ente; and/or

(S) Provide for LIAA approval of critical project element• auch aa key ataff, evaluation deatan•, d1aaeminat1on of .. auacripte, contract•, etc.

c. All sraata are aubJect to applicable other LEA.A guidalinea and regulationa. Copiea of theae aad other araot condition reference• aay be obtained frow I.BAA. Major other guidelloea and regulatione are:

(1) M 7100.1, Financial Management for Planning and Action Grants. vhJ.ch is the basic fiscal administration manual for LEA.A grants;

(2) LEA.A regulations implementing the provisions of Title Vl of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with respect to 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 l Par 7 Page 5

ADD19


e. VilliDgneH 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;

f. Certification that, where feasible and desirable, provisions will be made tor tbe sharing of correctional institutions and facilities on a regional basis;

g. Certification that Part E funds will utilize advanced techniques in the design of institutions and facilities·

' b. Satisfactory assurances th t th

of the institutions and f a e personnel standards and progr• including designation of ~!1~~ies will reflect advanced practices programs which will be sou h llds of personnel standards and receiving Part B support; :U! in institutions and facilities

App 1 Par 8 Page 6

ADD20


K 4S00.1C September 30, 1978

1. Cert:1f1cat1on that •Ncial adainiatrativ• reguireMnt• dealing vi th Object1v• • architectural and co.t data, contractual arrang...ata, etc., will be .. de applic•ble to ccmtractora.

j. All App11catioaa for Part I fund• for purpoaea of conatruction or renovation of juvenile and adult correctional inatitution• or facilitiea MUST Bl •ubaitted in accordance with Guideline G 4063.2 (effective edition) to the national contractor to be edected by LIM for cl .. rance of the architectural plane, deaigna and conetructton drawtaaa. Appllcationa ehould ba forwarded to th• contractor at the .... time they are aubmitted to the State Plaml1na Aaency and to LB.AA. In turn, the contractor vill r .. pond to the applicant, the State Planning Agency and LEAA.

9. SPBCIAL UQUIIUIMIRTS POil CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

a. Conatructlon aranta under Part C are intended to be aupportive of and supplemental to prograu aimed at crime reduction and criminal juetice ay•t- improvement. Conetruction grants under Part B are intended to meet the need for improved correctional facilities, with prime emphasis on community-based correctional facilitiea, 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 LE~ national programs or State canprehensive plans, and how considerations of program objectives were built into the ~esign of the facili.

App 1 Par 8 Page 1

ADD21


(Z) Federal funde uy not be used for more than 50 percent of the cut of construction of a facility developed pursuant to Section Z27 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prt!'leiitt Act.

1• Application for coutruction projects must be made on Standard Pon 424 with LEAA Form 4000/4 (Application for Federal Assistance Coaatructioo Program) attached•

b. Preapplications must be submitted for construction &rants exceedillg tl00,000 :in lederal funds.

i. For more information on definitions and requirements with respect to construction programs, see the effective edition of M 7100.1.

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

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

App 1 Para 9 Page 8

ADD22


b.

c.

d.

e.

f..

g.

M 4500.lG September 30, 1978

That &11 application p::rw vlll be vrltlen Jn Federal Standard COBOL or Alts 1'0llTRAll ( re the uture of tlMi tuk requtrea a scientific progr-tag lan&\1.9p) tfhenever posalble. Prograu 111&y be written ln AllS BASIC for aicroco11p11t•r• and •lnlcomputera aubject to the follovina coadltlona: aranta•• vill require hardware vudor ... urence that the BASIC lapage facUlty Onc.ludiaa mi1 u:teuiOGll or add1Uona to the ln.tructlon Ht of AltS BASIC) vlll be nU.clated 111 the ttation1l lureau of Standard• valldatloa routine; eJttllftaion• to the ANS WlC t.nmt.ructlon will be lJ.aited to tbo8e inatnactlona •l"••d upon bJ mutual agreement after coaaultat10a with at leaat thr .. hardvard .. nufacturera; proaraa appUcationa, whether nw or traa1ferred, will run on th• hardware of at i ... t three manufacturer1.

!'!!at 1rant fund• will not be uaad for l••••· maintenance, or .a11neerin1 coat• of proprietary appllcation1 aoftvara packages without apeciflc, prior approval of LEAA.

That all CO!put•r aoftvare vrlttea under th• 1rant will be made available to LIA.A for tranaf ar to authorized users in the crillinal juetic• cotm11UP.ity without coet other than that directly aeeociated vltb the transfer and that the system will be documented in auff icien.t detail to enable a competent data processing staff to adapt the system, or portions thereof, to usage on a COtllpUter of ailllilar size and configuration, of any 11anufacturer.

To provide a complete copy of documentation, upon request, to the Systems Development Division, National Criminal Justice 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 descriptiona, report formats, program listings, and flow charts for the system and programs. Grantee agrees to produce system documentation for this grant in accordance with Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS PUB 38).

To incorporate the provisions of all applicable conditions 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.

That conversion cost in itself Will not be used to justify sole source procurement of ADP equipment.

11. SPECIAL UQUIREKENTS FOR MULTI-STATE OR MULTI-UlUTS PROJECTS. Several discretionary programs encourage mult1-State9 regional. or cooperative projects involving multiple units of State or local goveTtllllent.

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

App l Para 10 Pu.e 9

ADD23


u.

"'"" 1G If 4;JUV" 1978 --er 30 1 · sept-

oup on behalf of the othe?'a. Uftit lD the gr •

raaent (1) OD• 1°" jolotlYI or

in th• 1rouP (2) All uaftll iadon or joint venture era.

... 1 cc:mblaatiaG• ••~O:ntt• for general or grant ~ CJ) A .pee~ P of 1ov•ra11•nt•

.. , • ll'OI! -rpoe•· .,,ucatJ.Oll r- ed f will be requf.r o approval by lll ~ cl .. r evf.deDC..! ent with respect to:

"· I• all ' Udt• of aCPHl'llll parttd. .. tl.111 ill the project; and

(1) Their participation t• of the grant proposal or

(2) The tedl and comaitaell appUcetloa.

FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND RBGULAnONs. SPICW. uqut~ or ~hat all discretionary grants •eet certau LUA ta nqutnd to iDBure 1 •ents imposed by other laws and lldalniltntlv• and legal l'•ge~efore the applicant must iDSure .-1ntetrat1ve teeuances • • • that the following requir .. ents a!'e met.

Clean Air Act Violations. In accordance with the provisions of a. the Clean Air Act (42 u.s.c. 1857) as •ended by Public Law

91-604 the Federal Water Pollution Act (33 u.s.c. 1251 et seq.) as ne~ed by Public Law 92-500 and Executive Order 11738, grants, subg,rants 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 LEAA Guideline G 4061.l, Relocation Assistance and Payments):

(1) The applicant and State Planning Agency shall assure that aDJ program under which LEA.A financial assistance is to be used to pay all or part of the cost of any program or project which resu

1lts in displacement of any individual family, business

and or farm shall provide that:

(a) Wcomitbinabalreasouable period of time prior to displacement

par e decent f dwellings 111 b ' sa e, and sanitary replacement accordancewwith e a~ailable to displaced persons in Attorney General~uc regulations as issued by the

I

App l Par 11 Page 10

ADD24



(b) Pair and reasonable relocation payments and assistance shall be provided to or for displaced peraona aa are required in euch re1ulattoae aa are iaaued br the Attorney Ceueral;

(c) Relocation or eaaiatance progrmna ahall be provided for auch peraona in accordance with auch reaulationa iaaued by the Attorney Genet'ali

(d) The affected persona will be adequately informed of the available benefit• and policies and procedure• relating to the pa}111ent of monetary benefits; and

(2) Such aaeurancas shall be accompanied by an analysis of the relocation probleaut Involved and a specific plan to resolve au ch problems.

c. Environmental lapact.

(1) The National Environmental Policy Act 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 envi110nment.

App 1 Par 12 Page 11

ADD25


•

(2)

0)

(4)

(5)

(6)

H 4500.lC September 30. 1978

A detenlutioa shall thereafte-r be made by the responsible Federal official ae to whether the action 'Will have a etantllcant effect on the environaent requiring the preparation of an eariromqtal 1UUtlya1a (a draft environmental impact etat-..t) or \llletber a nqative declaration can be filed.

AD eDYiroaaental •valuation le a report of the enviroomental affect• of the proposal and ehould coneiet of questions and DArrattve anawera .. ve11 .. eupporting documentation that 9Ub•t .. tiatee cooclueiona.

AD ....iromeatal .a11•ia muat be aubtd.tted with the original application in CUUJ .. where the propoeed action would 11plff.caatlJ affect the environment. It will be utilized lD the preparatiao of a draft enviroimumtal impact statement.

A neaatlve declaraUon will be filed by LIAA if the euvircmaental evaluation does not indicate a liptflcaut 1avirom11ental impact.

tnvironmental Analysis Impact and Negative Declaration forms al'I available fro• Grants and Contracts Management Division, Law Enforcement Aaa:lltance Administration, 633 Indiana Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20531.

d. Historic Sites. Before approving grants involving construction, Tenovation, puTchasing or leasing of facilities L!AA shall consult with the State Liaison Officer for Historic Preservation to detet'lline if the undertaking may have an effect on properities listed in the National Register of Historic Places. If the undertakings may have an ef feet 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 Grant.$, in accordance with LEAA's A-95 requirements (28CFR Part 30) •

f. Flood Disaster Protectfon Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-234, 42 u.s.c. 14001, et seq. LEAA will not approve any financial assistance for construction purposes in any area that has been identified by the Secretary of BUD as an area having special flood hazards un the community in the hazardous 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 1 Para 12 Pa2e 17

ADD26


Septeaber 30. 1978

b. Safe Drinking Water Act, Pub. L. 93-523, 42 u.s.c. 1300£, et aeq. If the Adminiatt'ator of the Envlt'onmeotal P1'otection Agency detenaia- that an area bu an aquifier (a water-bearing stratum of penaeable rock, ••nd or arevel) which ie th• aole or principal aource of drinktna vater for an area, and which if contaminated would er-ta a eign1f1cant baaard to public health, he shall publish notice of that detemination in the Pedel'al legiater. After publication of such notice, no c011Dit1Dent of federal financial aaaiatance (thr~ah a arant, contract, loan or othet"Wiaa) may be entered into for an1 project which the EPA Administrator detel'lllinee may cont .. inate such an aquifiar, Atay prospective aubgrantea of Part• C and I fund• ahall aeeure that the project will have no effect on an aquifler eo dHianated by th.a EPA Adminiattator.

1. Endanaered Specie• Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-205, 16 u.s.c. 11531, et aeq. The Secretary of Interior 1hall publish in the Federal aeaiacar, and froa time to time he may by regulations revise a liat of apeciea determined by him or the Secretary of Commerce to be endangered 1pecie1 and a list of all species detel"lllined by him or the Secretary of C0111111erce to be threatened species. Each liat shall refer to the species contained therein by scientific and COllDon 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 destt'llction 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 resouraes 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 actior-specified in 16 u.s.c. l662(a) are anticipated.


ADD27


H 4SQO.lG .. ,. 1978 September ~•

Act Pub. L. 93-291, Ardleolgtcaal l'r•UY•tioll ndpitlllt of LUA funds ahaJ.t .1- aucortc:al _. . Aft7 pto11pec:tiv• ineparable lon

16 rt.s.c. l46t, t:! ::.- •cttrit:J' _, ~· archeolosical data. noUf)t LIMl U to alptffcaat butodj th: Iatart.or who ehall ot datruct oa tiflr tb• &ecrmt•IY 0 .. vbicb aay LW vl.11 dla ao ad t...,..ti,latlOCl of th• ar eoolhtet • """1 ...a. 0 pruene •ucb daU • t.e affeocN .... insCOftt

Pub L 92-583, 16 V.S.C, •• iitJr.1; Im tfuMWllt Ac:t of !:!!• actirltY which directl,y affects 14 , et'*'• lad UAA-...,,o ted 1A a mallft", which to the

tit• Cctutal Zoa llllall be coaduc iatnt with the approved State MX1- atat fe•tble, ta co• Uon at the Coastal Zone. Every .. ,_.,...., proar• for the prote: for aunt f unda supporting applli.nt eut.ftuna en a,pUcat on in th• Coaatal Zoue shall Pl'Oll"- affecUq lud or vat;:.:-:tate or local agencies attecb die •1.,. of the epprop d t.tvt- to the approved oa the relaUouMp of the propoae •c -~ ti

-t ~nm. this appli•• to •ubsrat applica ona =tted to the State pl.mud.a, qency u well aa to discrettotlat'y anat •PlltcatJ.ou. Such appUcat1ons shall be submitted in accordace vttb the provuiona of Title tv of the Interaoverm.entat Coopeuctaa Act of 1968. Pub. L. 90-517.

n. ~Welfare Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-579. 7 U.S.C. 12131, et seq. ru. act eatabliahes recordkeeping and animal treatment standards for •cbools 1 iastitutlous, organizations and peraODS that use or intend to use live animals in research, teats or experiments, ad tlaat receive Federal funds for the purpose of carrying out rMearch. teats or experiments. No &rant or contract for tftts

assures Clllllpliance with the provieions of the Animal Welfare Act of 1970.

o. Cr:Lminal Penali ties.

(lJ Whoever embez2les, willfUlly lll.uppliea, steals, or obtains by fraud or endeavors to eanbezzle Willful! is or obtain by fraud f d ' Y m apply steal the subject of a gr:: 0~n 8

' assets. or Property Which are pursuant to this title whcontract or other form of assistance from the 4dministratf~ o:th:r received directly or indirectly retains such funds • w oever receives, conceals or aucb fonds, assets• :•ets, or Property With intent to' convert such funds, assets, or P:operty to his use or gain, knowtng •1 .. PPlled, stolen: or :b::~ :;ave been El!he•zled, willfully

not more than $10 000 ~- y fraud, shall be fined or both. , or 4M1prisoned not more, .. ~-- ft

WU11J ve Years,

App 1 Par 12 Page 14

ADD28


M 4500.lG September 30, 1978

(2) Whoever knowinalJ and willfully fal•ifiee, conceals, or cover• up by trick, scheme, or device, any material fact in any application for ... tatance •ubadtted pursuant to the Act or in any record• required to be maintained pureuant to the Act ahall be subject to prosecution under th• provieiona of Section 1001 of Title 18, United States Code.

(3) Any law enforc ... nt and criminal juatica program or project underwritten. in whole or in part, by any grant or contract or other fol'll of aaalataace purauant to th• Act, whether receiv.d directly or indirectly from th• Adm1ni1tration, 1hall be aubject to the proviaiona of Section 371 of Title 18, United Stat .. Code.

SECTION 4. PllOHIBITtONS AND RESTRICTIONS

ll. Ln'HAL WEAPONS, AMMUNITION AND RELATED tTEMS. LEM Discretionary Puud• may not be ueed to purchase lethal weapons, ammunition, armored vehiclea, exploeive devices, and related items.

14. MEDICAL RBSEAilQl AND PSYCHOTllERAPY. LEAA diacTetionary 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 proceduTes generally recognized and accepted as not subjecting the patient to physical or psychological risk (e.g., methadone maintenance and certain alcoholism treatment programs), specifically appToved 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, exclusive 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.


ADD29


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAW ENFORCEMENT AS!JISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGT'ON, D.C. 20531

OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE,·uoo

...

ADD30

-T~EANDFEUPMD (~ J U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE --

JUs-436 u.uua.

SPECIAL FOURTH.CLASS RATE BOOK


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

Public Law 96-157 96th Congress

An Act To restructure the Federal U.w Enforcement Asaiatance Administration, to 11&&ist

Stat.e and local 10venunente in improving the quality of their justice system8, and for other purpoee11.

Be it enacted by the Senate and HolUle of Representatives of the United Stat.es of A~rica in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Justice Syst.em Improvement Act ofl979".

SEC. 2. Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended to read as follows:

"TITLE I-JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

"TABLE OF OONTENTS

''Declaration and purpose.

"PAllT A-LAW ENPORCDl&NT AsstsTANCB ADM1M111TRATION

"Sec. 101. F.atablishment of Law Enforcement Aasistance Administration. "Sec. 102. Duliea and f1111ctiona of Administrator. "Sec. 103. Office or C4mmwi.ity Anti.Crime Programs.

"P.un- 8-NA110NAL bnrrrruT& 01' JUSTICK

"Sec. 201. National lnltitute of J1111tice. "Sec. 202. Establishment, duties, and functions. "Sec. 203. Authority for 100 per centum grante. "Sec. 204. National lnltitute of Jllllti.ce Adviaory Board.

"P.un- C-BUUAU OP JU8TICll 5TATIBTIC8

"Sec. 301. Bureau of Jut.ice Statistiai. "Sec. 302. Eltabliahment, duties, and functions. "Sec. 303. Authority for 100 per centun;i Jnlllll. "Sec. 304. Bureau of Juat.ice Statilticl Advilory Board. "Sec. 305. U1e of data.

"PAKT D-FoUIULA GKAMTI

"Sec. 401. ~pt.ion of pnigram. "Sec. 402. Eligibilit,Y. "Sec. 403. Application& "Sec. 404. ReYiew of applications. "Sec. 406. Allocation and diltribution of rumu.

"PA&T E-NAT!ONAL PluoRlTY GRANTll

"Sec. 501. Purpose. "Sec. 502. Pereentage or appropriation for national priority grant program. "Sec. 503. Procedunt for designating national priority programs. "Sec. 504. Application requireme11ta. "Sec. 506. Criteria for award.

"PAST F-DmcarnoNA&Y GILUl'l'!I

"Sec. 601. Pu.rpoee. "Sec. 60Z. Pereentqe of appropriation for discretionary grant program.

ADD31

Dec.27, 1979 [S. 241)

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


PUBLIC LAW 96-157-DEC.1:7, 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~ No srant may be made pursuant to this part unless the eligible jurisdiction bas provided satisfactory 888urances to the Adniinistration that the applicant has-

"(l) provided citizens and neighborhood and community orga-nizatiom with adequate information concemilll( the amounts of funds available for propoaed programs or proJects under this title, the range of activities that may be undertaken, and other im~rtant program requirements;

• (2) provided citizens and ~rhood and communitf ~nizations 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 anal}'Bis and the establishment of priorities required by subaection CbXl)(A); and

"(4) provided an opportunity for all affected criminal justice agencies to consider 8Dd comment on the proposed programs to be set forth in the application or amendments.

The Administrator, in cooperation with the Office of CA>mmunity Anti-CriJne Programs. may establish such rules. regulations. and procedures as are neceseary to auure that citizens ancf neighborhood and community organizationa will be uaured an opportunity to participate in the application process.

"APPUCATIONS

"SEC. 403. (a) No grant may be made by the Administration to a State, or by a State to an eliJible recipient pursuant to part D, unless the application aets forth cnminal justice programs covering a three-year 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 J>!'08f8ID8 contained in the original application are not implemented. The application must include-

"(1) 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 ana priorities, including a speCific statement of how the programs are expected to advance the objectiVtlll of section 401 of thi8 title and meet the identified crime problems and criminal juatice needs of the jurisdiction;

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

"(8) an asaurance that following the first filcal ~ c:overed by an application and each ft8cal year thereafter, the applicant shall submit to the Administration, where the applicant is a State, and to the council where the applicant ii a State agency, the judicial coordinati!IJ committees, a nonsovernmental grantee. or a unit or combination of units of local government-

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

"(B) an 888e11Dl8llt bl the applicant of the impact of thoae activities on the objectives of this title and th8 needs and objectives identified in the applicant's lltatement;

"(4) a certification that Federal funds made available under this title will not be used to supplant Stat.a or local fwW. but will be used to increue the amount& of such funds that would, in the

ADD32

Fullcla, eli,mility.

Application procell, ru1 ...

42 USC3743.

Contenta.


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

Financial aaai.stance. 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, prose<:ution, and defense programs;

"(6) a provision for fund accounting, auditing, monitoring, and euch 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 Adminis-tration may reasonably require to administer other provisions of this title;

"(8) a certification that its programs meet all the requirements of this section, that all the information contained in the applica-tion 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 Adminis-tration and shall be executed by the chief executive officer or other officer of the applicant qualified under regulations promul-gated 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 m the aggregate was $100,000 or more, baa 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 bas continued m use during its useful life.

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

"RBVmW or APPLICATIONS

"SBC. 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-

"(l) the application or amendment thereof is consistent with the requirements ofthia title;

"(2) the ap~lication or amendment thereof was made public prior to subDllSSi.on to the Administration and an, O,,PJ>Ortunity 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 imding in writing that the program or project is likely to contribute effectively to the achievement of tile 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 sball be deemed approved, in whole or in part, by the Administration within ninety days after first received Unlesa the Administration informs the applicant of specific reasons for disapproval.

ADD33


~ B v\. -.J

...I c:J = Cz & = a: - .. - Ill l&I II. >- lu a: z !!! c -~ ::)

l&I a: a: c :I • g~ c:Jll ~ c ti

Ill

! ii a

• • • ::)

ADD34


BA

SIS

OF

LE

GIS

LAT

ION

• C

RIM

E A

LO

CA

L PR

OB

LE

M/B

EST

CO

NT

RO

LLE

D A

T

ST

AT

E A

ND

LO

CA

L LE

VE

L

• L

AW

EN

FO

RC

EM

EN

T A

UT

HO

RIT

Y T

RA

DIT

ION

ALL

Y

· ~

RE

SE

RV

ED

TO

ST

AT

ES

(CO

NC

EP

TS

OF

FE

DE

RA

LIS

M)

c ~ e

LEA

A N

OT

ES

TA

BLI

SH

ED

AS

AN

OPE

RA

TIO

NA

L L

AW

E

NFO

RC

EM

EN

T A

GE

NC

Y

• N

O L

EA

A D

IRE

CTI

ON

, SU

PE

RV

ISIO

N O

R C

ON

TR

OL

OV

ER

ST

AT

E O

R L

OC

AL

LAW

EN

FOR

CE

ME

NT

AG

EN

CIE

S -

(SE

CTI

ON

618

(a)]


LE

AA

PR

OG

RA

M P

UR

PO

SE

S

• E

NC

OU

RA

GE

ST

AT

E C

OM

PRE

HE

NSI

VE

PL

AN

NIN

G

FOR

CR

IMIN

AL

.JU

STIC

E IM

PRO

VEM

ENTS

• T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

ND

FIN

AN

CIA

L A

SS

IST

AN

CE

TO

IMPR

OV

E &

ST

RE

NG

TH

EN

LA

W E

NFO

RC

EMEN

T &

CR

IMIN

AL

JUST

ICE

l •C

ON

DU

CT

RE

SEA

RC

H &

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T T

O IM

PRO

VE

~

CR

IMIN

AL

JUST

ICE

c · ~

•DE

VE

LO

P &

TR

AN

SFE

R N

EW

TE

CH

NIQ

UE

S A

ND

M

ETH

OD

S TO

: -

RED

UC

E C

RIM

E

-D

l:IE

CT,

APP

REH

END

, AN

D

RE

HA

B/U

TA

TE

CR

IMIN

ALS


)> c c w

.....

PR

OG

RA

MS

• C

RIM

INA

L JU

STIC

E P

LA

NN

ING

, EV

ALU

ATI

ON

, A

DM

INIS

TR

AT

ION

& T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

SSIS

TA

NC

E

• C

RIM

INA

L .J

UST

ICE

SYST

EM

IMPR

OV

EM

EN

TS

(PO

UC

E, C

OU

RT

S, C

OR

RE

CT

ION

S)

e C

OR

REC

TIO

NA

L PR

OG

RA

M IM

PRO

VE

ME

NT

S

e .IU

VEN

ILE

.JU

STIC

E A

ND

DEL

INQ

UEN

CY

PR

EVEN

TIO

N -l


)> c c w

co

PR

OG

RA

MS

DI

RECT

GRA

NTS

AN

D C

ON

TRA

CTS

FOR:

•

CRIM

INA

L JU

STIC

E SY

STEM

IMPR

OV

EMEN

TS

IPO

UC

E. C

OU

RTS

. CO

RR

ECTI

O•>

•

ED

UC

ATI

ON

AL

AS

SIS

TAN

CE

•

TE

CH

NIC

ALA

aST

AN

CE

•

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

SY

STEM

S A

ND

STA

TIST

ICS

• JU

VEN

ILE

JUSI

ICE

& D

ELIN

QU

ENCY

PR

EV

EN

TIO

N

e RE

SEA

RCH

& E

VA

LUA

TIO

N

• CO

MM

UN

ITY

AN

TI-C

RIM

E PR

OG

RA

MS

I PUB

UC

SA

FE I y

Off

lCE

RS"

BEN

EAT

ACT

(PSO

B)

]


)> c c w

co

CO

LLA

TER

AL

RE

SP

ON

SIB

ILIT

IES

e PR

ISO

N/J

AIL

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

GU

IDEL

INES

•

PRIV

AC

Y A

ND

SEC

UR

ITY

OF

CR

IMIN

AL

JUST

ICE

IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N A

ND

ST

AT

IST

ICS

SYST

EM

S •

NA

TIO

NA

L EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

POLI

CY

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

•J

OIN

T F

UN

DIN

G S

IMPL

IFIC

ATI

ON

AC

T

• iN

TER

GO

veR

NM

ENTA

L C

OO

PER

ATi

ON

AC

T (A

-95i

•

SUR

PLU

S PR

OPE

RTY

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

• FR

EED

OM

OF

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

I PLU

S 2

3 O

THE

R A

PP

LIC

AB

LE A

CTS

I


)> c c ~ 0

INfE

RGOV

ERNM

ENTA

L DE

LIVE

RY S

YSTE

M

POU

CE

lEA

_A

La

lllL

AT

UllR

• . _ ... _____

__ _

Rlf

llO

UL

lt LO

CAL

PU

.mm

l ....

PllE

llDM

T

ATTO

RNEY

GEN

ERAL

HIA

DC

l.U

Alll

-

80V

lllN

OltS

AD

JUD

ICA

TIO

N I

I CO

ltREC

TIO

N8

POU

CE

STA

TE C

OU

RTS

JUD

ICIA

L PL

AN

NIN

G

COM

MIT

TEES

Sl'A

1E

ACI

EllC

IEI

AD

JUD

ICA

TIO

N I

I CO

RREC

TIO

NS

I LO

CALA

CID

ICIE

I I

I ST

ATE

AGEN

CIES

I


Q w Q z w :I er ~ 13 er I ... Q z er 13 er I ... ~ ..I • • LI. 0 z 0 U) -a: f ~

8

. _ lh ~ J imh, ~ 111 IH Whl}U . . ' . -• 11 - - IH ~ • I · 1111 '.

~ I I II ~, !111 ~ 11111

t.111 • 1111 -- ~ --• d I

hltl Ill-11111

IHI ~ • I.II 14 !I

1!11 ~ I 11 td ~ z -- -

)I :,1--... II 0.. lb ~ - 5 -~; 1111 II - -

HI IU

II ... - ~

LI bl'--

il!1 - •

1111 tll ~ u

11 • II i... • '' - 11 II • - ~ It -

lb ~ II ~ i...

1111 ~ ' -

-

1111 ' ..

I

Ill -11 II ~ ..

• . - . • - . a

I .111 Id .111 Iii 11 I Ill I

ADD41


ADD42


)> c c ~ w

PRIO

RIT

IES

• IN

CA

RC

ERA

TE S

ER

IOU

S H

AB

ITU

AL

Off

EN

DE

RS

• IM

PRO

VE

CO

UR

T M

AN

AG

EMEN

T A

ND

RED

UC

E C

OU

RT

DEL

AY

•

PREV

ENT

JUV

ENIL

E D

EUN

QU

ENC

Y

• O

BTA

IN B

E I

I ER

CR

IMIN

AL

JUST

ICE

STA

TIST

ICS

• U

PGR

AD

E JA

ILS

AN

D P

RIS

ON

S •

DIS

RU

PT C

RIM

INA

L O

PER

ATI

ON

S (e

.g. S

TIN

G)

e IN

TER

VEN

E IN

CR

IMIN

AL

CA

REE

RS

• EV

ALU

ATE

IMPA

CT

OF

FUN

DED

PR

O.J

ECTS

•

TRA

IN &

ED

UC

ATE

CR

IMIN

AL

JUST

ICE

PER

SON

NEL

•

REP

LIC

ATE

SU

CC

ESS

FUL

PR

O.J

ECTS

•

EVA

LUA

TE T

RA

Dm

ON

AL

CR

IMIN

AL

JUST

ICE

PR

AC

TIC

ES

• IM

PRO

VE

STA

TE/L

OC

AL

AN

ALY

SIS

& E

VA

LUA

TIO

N C

APA

BIL

ITY

•

PRO

VID

E T

ECH

NIC

AL

ASS

IST

AN

CE

•

EN

CO

UR

AG

E D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

OF

STA

ND

AR

DS

& G

OA

LS F

OR

C

RIM

INA

L J

Um

CE


)> c c t

.. O

RG

AN

IZE

D C

RIM

E P

RO

GR

AM

A

••U

AL

BU

DG

D'

$7.9

M

PU

RP

OS

E:

.. R

OV

E IN

VES

TIG

ATI

VE

AN

D P

RO

SEC

UTO

RIA

L EF

FOR

TS

Ta

lOU

GH

OPE

RA

TIO

NS,

. TEC

HN

ICA

L A

SSIS

TA

NC

E A

ND

'll

lAlll

lNG

.

TA

RG

ET

GR

OU

P:

OR

GA

NIZ

ED C

RIM

INA

LS A

ND

MA

JOR

CR

IMIN

AL

CO

NSP

IRA

CIE

S

KEY

FE

A1U

RE

S:

e ID

EllT

IRC

ATI

ON

OF

OR

GA

NIZ

ED C

RIM

INA

L A

C11V

ITY

TO

m

lCLU

DE

FE

NC

•G. W

H11

E C

OLL

AR

CR

mE

. CO

RR

UPT

ION

A

llD

CA

RG

O T

HEF

T

e IN

IEllG

OV

ERllM

ENTA

L C

OO

PER

ATI

ON

AM

ON

G L

OCA

L.

STA

TE A

llD

FED

ERA

L A

GEl

lCIE

S

RES

ULT

S:

e G

t M

REC

OV

ERED

IN S

TOLE

N P

RO

PER

TY -

(U M

BU

Y M

ON

EY\

e 11

% A

RR

ES

I ED

AR

E C

AR

EER

CR

IMIN

ALS

e 31

1 C

ON

VIC

TIO

NS

FRO

M 1

0 A

NTI

-FEN

CIN

G P

RO

JEC

TS

-75

% G

UIL

TY P

LEA

S


• ~ , I ! I i

w.11 ~ i I I

i ~ i ~ I '

ADD45


i t

I I N • l l I .... I •

I I • I I I I i

. ; ' I a i

ADD46


I N IO I ! I ... ... I It

II I I -I •

I I ~ 6 I & IU ; 5 a

&&I • I 8 f

=1 I i 0

g ~·

g g ~ I!; ... 0 ~

i i i i a i 0 IU

!

I i i

i I g

i It II I I I ~ I I ~ • ' ..

I ' I I I

; Ii I a i

ADD47


)>

c c ~

Cl)

PUR

POSE

:

TAR

GE

T G

RO

UP

:

KEY

FEA

TUR

ES:

CA

REE

R C

RIM

INA

L PR

OG

RA

M

TO

PR

OSE

CU

TE R

EPEA

T O

FFEN

DER

S

THE

VIO

LEN

T A

ND

REP

EAT

OFF

END

ER

e ID

EN

I IFI

CA

TIO

N:

AN

NU

AL

BU

DG

ET

.....

PRO

MPT

SEL

ECTI

ON

OF

DEF

END

AN

TS D

ESE

RV

lllG

O

F R

JLL

AN

D B

EST

APP

LIC

ATI

ON

OF

PRO

SEC

UTO

RIA

L R

ES

OU

RC

ES

.

•PR

IOR

ITY

: PR

OSE

CU

TIO

N B

Y E

XPE

RIE

NC

ED P

RO

SEC

UT

OR

S W

ITH

A

PPE

AR

AN

CE

S A

T E

VER

Y S

TAG

E O

F A

DJU

DIC

ATO

RIA

L PR

OC

ESS

, TH

RO

UG

H S

ENTE

NC

ING

e

RE

SU

LTS

: 93

.8"

CO

NV

ICTI

ON

RA

TE, 1

9.41

YEA

RS

AV

ERA

GE

SEN

TE

NC

E


CA

RE

ER

CR

IMIN

AL

PRO

GR

AM

P

RO

GR

AM

RE

SU

LTS

-A

S O

F D

EC

. 13,

197

8

e 19

DIS

CR

ETIO

NA

RY

RIN

DE

D P

RO

JEC

TS

• 3,

445

DEF

END

AN

T D

ISPO

SmO

NS

• 3,

231

DEF

END

AN

T C

ON

VIC

TIO

NS

• 13

.1%

CO

NV

ICT

ION

OF

DIS

POST

ION

l>

e

13.P

le IN

CA

RC

ERA

TIO

N R

ATE

OF

DEF

END

AN

TS C

ON

VIC

TED

c ~

e 19

.41

YEA

RS

AV

ERA

GE

SEN

TEN

CE

co

e E

DA

YS

MED

IAN

TIM

E FR

OM

AR

RES

T T

O S

ENTE

NC

E e

CO

NV

IC I E

D D

EFEN

DA

NTS

PR

IOR

CR

IMIN

AL

REC

OR

D

-n

111

PRIO

R A

RRE8

1'8

• -

AV

ERA

GE

10 P

ER D

EFEN

DA

NT

-17

, 111

PR

IOR

CO

NV

ICT

ION

S

-A

VER

AG

E L

I PER

DEF

END

AN

T

• 44

.3Y1

CO

NV

ICTE

D D

EFEN

DA

NT'

S ST

AT

US

AT

TIM

E O

F A

RR

EST

(REA

RR

EST)

i.e.

, ON

PR

OB

ATI

ON

, PA

RO

LE,

PRET

RIA

L R

ELEA

SE O

R A

N E

SCA

PEE.


l>

c c en

0

STA

ND

AR

DS

AN

D G

OA

LS

PUR

POSE

:

. TO

REC

OM

MEN

D S

TAN

DA

RDS

FOR

USE

BY

STA

TES

AN

D L

OCA

LITI

ES

IN C

ON

TRO

LUN

G C

RIM

E A

ND

IMPR

OV

ING

TH

EIR

CRIM

INA

L JU

STIC

E S

YS

TEM

S.

e RE

PORT

S _

,ED

:

e N

ATI

ON

AL

STRA

TEG

Y T

O R

EDU

CE C

RIM

E -P

OU

CE

-C

OU

R1

S

-C

ORR

ECTI

ON

S -

CO

MM

UN

nY C

RIM

E PR

EVEN

TIO

N

-C

RIM

INAL

JU

STIC

E S

YS

TEM

PHA

SE II

-O

RGAN

IZED

CR

IME

-

DIS

OR

DE

RS

AN

D

TER

RO

RIS

llll

-JU

VEN

ILE

JUST

ICE

-P

RN

AC

Y &

SE

CU

RnY

-

RE

SE

AR

CH

AN

D

DE

VE

LOP

llllE

NT

e ST

ATE

S EN

COU

RAG

ED T

O R

EVIE

W A

ND

AD

OPT

OW

N S

TAN

DA

RD

S


PUR

POSE

:

ST

AN

DA

RD

S A

ND

GO

ALS

(P

HA

SE

I)

TO

RE

CO

MM

EN

D S

TA

ND

AR

DS

FOR

USE

BY

STA

TES

AN

D L

OCA

LITI

ES IN

C

ON

TR

OW

NG

CR

IME

AN

D IM

PRO

VIN

G T

HEI

R C

RIM

INA

L .JU

STIC

E SY

STEM

S.

PHA

SE I

e N

AT

ION

AL

AD

VIS

OR

Y C

OM

MIS

SIO

N E

STA

BLI

SHED

IN 1

9n

e

NA

TIO

NA

L A

DV

ISO

RY

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

AD

OPT

S O

VER

-SP

ECIF

IC

RE

CO

MM

EN

DA

TIO

NS

SE I

I IN

G P

ERFO

RM

AN

CE

LEV

ELS

FOR

OPE

RA

TIO

N

~

OF

TH

E E

N I I

RE

CR

IMIN

AL

.JU

STIC

E SY

STEM

. c ~

e S

IX-V

OLU

ME

RE

POR

T IS

SU

ED

IN 1

973

~

-P

OU

CE

-

CO

Mll

llU

N/T

Y C

RIM

E P

RE

VE

NTI

ON

-

CO

UR

TS

-C

RIM

INAL

JU

STIC

E S

YSTE

M

-C

OR

RE

CTI

ON

S

-N

A n

ON

AL

STR

ATE

GY

TO R

EDU

CE

CRI

ME

e 30

.-0

CO

PIE

S D

ISTR

IBU

TED

OR

SO

LD (E

AC

H)

e S

TATE

S E

NC

OU

RA

GE

D T

O R

EVIE

W A

ND

AD

OP

T O

WN

STA

ND

AR

DS

e

BY

197

8 A

LL S

TATE

S H

AD

STA

ND

AR

DS

AN

D G

OA

LS R

EVIE

W E

FFO

RTS

A

ND

35

IMP

LEM

EN

TIN

G S

TAN

DA

RD

S

e EV

ALU

ATI

ON

NO

W U

ND

ERW

AY


)>

0 0 (II

N '

ST

AN

DA

RD

S A

ND

GO

ALS

(P

HA

SE

II)

e N

ATI

ON

AL

AD

VIS

OR

Y C

OM

MIT

TEE

-FO

RM

ED IN

111

&

e C

HA

IRE

D B

Y G

OV

ERN

OR

BR

END

AN

T. B

YRN

E

e ST

AN

DA

RD

S A

DO

PTED

IN:

-O

RG

AN

IZE

D C

Riii/

iE

-JU

VE

NIL

E JU

STIC

E

-D

ISO

RD

ER

S A

ND

TE

RllO

lllS

llll

-P

RIV

AC

Y S

EC

UR

nY

-R

ES

EA

RC

H A

ND

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

e O

RG

AN

IZED

CR

IME

AN

D R

ESEA

RC

H A

ND

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T V

OLU

MES

NO

W A

VA

ILA

BLE

e R

EM

AIN

ING

TH

REE

AV

AIL

AB

LE B

Y E

ND

OF

FEBR

UA

RY 1

977


)>

AN

NU

AL

BU

DG

ET

M.&

M

TRE

ATM

EN

T A

LTE

RN

ATI

VE

TO

STR

EE

TCR

IME

(T

AS

C)

PUR

POSE

: T

O R

EDU

CE

DR

UG

-REL

ATE

D C

RIM

E BY

REF

ERR

ING

O

FFEN

DER

S IN

TO T

REA

TMEN

T

8 TA

RG

ET G

RO

UP:

D

RU

G A

BU

SIN

G C

RIM

INA

L O

FFEN

DER

S CJ

'I w

KEY

FEA

TUR

ES:

e R

EDU

CES

PR

OC

ESSI

NG

BU

RD

EN

S •

IMPR

OV

ES C

OO

PER

ATI

ON

BET

WEE

N C

RIM

INA

L JU

STIC

E A

ND

TR

EATM

ENT

SYST

EM

S •

RED

UC

ES S

PRE

AD

OF

DR

UG

AB

USE

RES

ULT

S:

e 72

% O

F 28

,500

CLI

ENTS

SU

CC

ESSF

ULL

Y C

OM

PLET

ED

PRO

GR

AM

e

ON

LY 1

1% R

EAR

RES

TED

-2%

CO

NV

ICTE

D


)> c c en .,.

TR

EA

TM

EN

T A

LTER

NA

TIV

ES T

O S

I REE

T C

RIM

E (T

ASC

l PR

OG

RA

M R

ESU

LTS

AS

OF

.IAN

UA

ltY 1

, 197

7

CU

EN

TS

EN

TER

ING

TA

SC:

e 31PROJE~•

• 21

,.&GD

CL

IEN

TS

FOR

MA

LLY

REF

ERR

ED T

O A

ND

/OR

O

FF

ICIA

LLY

AD

MI 1

1 ED

TO

PR

OJE

l"TC

! e

&, 18

0 C

LIE

NTS

AC

TIV

E TO

DA

Y

e 28

% O

F C

UE

NT

S D

RO

PPE

D O

UT

OR

FA

ILED

TA

SC

RE

QU

IRE

ME

NT

S e

11%

OF

CU

EN

TS

REA

RRES

TED

WH

ILE

IN P

RO

GR

AM

, 2%

CO

NV

ICTE

D

e 4,

800

CLI

EN

TS S

UC

CE

SS

FULL

Y C

OM

PLE

TED

TA

SC

PR

OG

RA

M R

EQ

UIR

EM

EN

TS


)> c c en

en

CO

UR

T IM

PRO

VEM

ENT

INIT

IATI

VES

PUR

POSE

: T

O IM

PRO

VE

CO

UR

T M

AN

AG

EMEN

T

TAR

GET

GR

OU

PS:

STA

TE C

OU

RTS

, TR

IAL

CO

UR

TS

FY 7

7 B

UD

GET

t12

M

KE

Y F

EA

TUR

ES

: e

TEC

HN

ICA

L A

SSIS

TAN

CE

TO

.IU

DG

ES, P

RO

SEC

UTO

RS,

CO

UR

T

AD

MIN

ISIR

AT

OR

S e

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N O

F A

DV

AN

CED

PLA

NN

ING

TEC

HN

IQU

ES

e R

EDU

CE

PRE-

TRIA

L D

ELA

Y

e A

CQ

UIR

E D

ATA

ON

CA

SELO

AD

, PR

OC

ESS

ING

TIM

ES

RES

ULT

S:

e 44

STA

TES

DO

ING

LO

NG

-RA

NG

E PL

AN

NIN

G

e U

NIF

IED

CO

UR

T SY

STE

MS

DO

UB

LED

e SU

PPO

RT

FO

R:

-N

ATI

ON

AL

CEN

TER

FO

R S

TATE

CO

UR

TS

-N

A R

ON

AL

CEN

TER

FO

R D

EFEN

SE M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

-N

ATI

ON

AL

AS

SO

CIA

DO

N O

F A

rrQ

RN

EY

S G

ENER

AL

-IN

Sm

UT

E F

OR

CO

UR

T M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T


)> c c en

en

AD

JUD

ICA

TIO

N T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

SS

ISTA

NC

E

PR

OG

RA

M R

ES

ULT

S

•MM

AR

YD

AT

A

1.

TRA

ININ

G

• PR

OSE

CU

TOR

S -

1,511

1 •

DEF

ENSE

CO

UN

SEL

-1,1

111

• A

PPE

i LA

TE JU

DG

ES -

29

e

OTH

ER .I

UD

8ES

-..

..

e TR

IAL

AD

VO

CATE

S -

_,

• PR

ETRI

AL

AG

ENCY

PE

RSO

NN

EL -..

e CO

URT

AD

MIN

ISTR

ATO

RS -

22D

2.

TECH

NIC

AL

ASS

ISTA

NC

E ST

UD

IES

COM

PLET

ED

e PR

OSE

CU

TIO

N -

• •C

OU

RT

S-•

3.

OTH

ER

Rf.8

ULT

S

• PR

E-A

PPEA

L SE

TTLE

MEN

T CO

NFE

REN

CES

IN S

TATE

CO

URT

e

IMPR

OV

ED C

OU

RT M

AN

AG

EMEN

T e

SCRE

ENIN

G S

TAFF

FO

R ST

ATE

APP

ELLA

TE C

OU

RTS

• &8

JURI

SDIC

TIO

NS

USI

NG

TH

E PR

OSE

CUTO

RS

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

INFO

RMA

TIO

N S

YST

EM (P

ROM

IS)


)> c c en .....

PR

ETR

IAL

DE

LAY

RE

DU

CTI

ON

(N

EW P

RO

GR

AM

)

PUR

POSE

: R

EDU

CE

PRET

RIA

L D

ELA

Y

TA

RG

ET

GR

OU

P:

TRIA

L C

OU

RTS

KEY

FEA

TUR

ES:

1. A

CC

UR

ATE

LY A

SSE

SS S

TATE

OF

DEL

AY

TH

RO

UG

HO

UT

CO

UN

TRY

2.

AC

CU

MU

LATE

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

ON

ALL

PR

OG

RA

MS

AN

D

TEC

HN

IQU

ES U

SED

AR

OU

ND

TH

E C

OU

NTR

Y T

O R

EDU

CE

PRET

RIA

L DE

LAY

I. B

EGIN

INTE

NSI

VE

APP

LIC

ATI

ON

OF

BES

T K

NO

W M

E1H

OD

S •S

IX T

EST

JUR

ISD

ICTI

ON

S.

4. B

EGIN

JU

Rlm

CT

ION

-WID

E T

ESTS

OF

8-10

NEW

A

PPR

OA

CH

ES T

O D

EL

AY

-RE

DU

CT

ION

&.

CO

NTI

NU

OU

S PR

OG

RA

M O

VER

SIG

HT

BY L

E6.A

CO

UR

TS

WO

RK

ING

GR

OU

PS (R

ESEA

RC

H, S

TATI

STIC

S, A

CTI

ON

, M

AN

AG

EMEN

T D

IVIS

ION

REP

RES

ENTA

TIV

ES)

I. N

ATI

ON

-WID

E JU

DIC

IAL

STA

TIST

ICS

PRO

GR

AM

INIT

IATE

D

7. S

TATE

SPE

EDY

TR

IAL

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D R

ECO

MM

END

ATI

ON

S

OB

JEC

TIV

E:

TO R

EDU

CE

TIM

E FR

OM

AR

RES

T TO

TR

IAL

TO

• D

AY

S IN

18

TR

IAL

CO

UR

TS.


)> c c en

co

PR

OS

EC

UTO

R'S

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

SY

STE

M C

PRO

MIS

) A

NN

UA

L B

UD

GET

t.&

M

PUR

POSE

: T

O A

PPLY

AD

VA

NC

ED B

USI

NES

S M

AN

AG

EMEN

T T

O

PRO

SEC

UTO

R C

OU

RT

SCH

EDU

UN

G A

ND

CA

SE H

AN

DLI

NG

.

TAR

GET

GR

OU

P:

PRO

SEC

UT

OR

S A

ND

CO

UR

TS

KEY

FEA

TURE

S:

e CO

N I R

OL O

FSC

HE

DU

UN

G A

ND

ALL

OTM

ENT

OF

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

RES

OU

RC

ES

e T

IMB

.Y A

CC

ESS

TO

CA

SE S

TATU

S IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N

e A

NA

LYS

IS O

F P

RO

BLE

MS

ASS

OC

IATE

D W

ITH

PR

OSE

CU

TIO

N/C

OU

RT

AC

TIV

ITIE

S A

ND

PR

OC

EDU

RES

e

CO

LLEC

TIO

N O

F D

ATA

CO

NC

ERN

ING

AC

CU

SED

PE

RSO

NS,

C

RIM

E, A

RR

ESTS

, WIT

NES

SES

e 21

% IN

CR

EASE

IN C

ON

VIC

TIO

N R

ATE

S, T

IME

CU

T liO

%

e O

PER

ATI

ON

AL

OR

PLA

NN

ED IN

JU

RIS

DIC

TIO

NS

CO

VER

ING

21

% O

F N

ATI

ON


PRO

M IS

PR

OG

RA

M R

ESU

LTS:

•

PRO

MIS

OPE

RATI

ON

AL

OR

PLA

NN

ED IN

JUR

ISD

ICTI

ON

S C

OM

PRIS

ING

21%

OF

THE

U.S

. PO

PULA

TIO

N

• 21

1 /1 IN

CREA

SE IN

CO

NV

ICTI

ON

RA

TE IN

SER

IOU

S C

ASE

S g

• TIM

E LA

G B

EFO

RE IN

DIC

TMEN

T CU

T 50

1 /o

g; •

PRO

MPT

IDEN

TIFI

CATI

ON

OF

OFF

END

ERS

WIT

H O

THER

C

ASE

S PE

ND

ING

•

DEF

ICIE

NCI

ES IN

CA

SE D

OCU

MEN

TATI

ON

AN

D

PRO

SEC

UTI

ON

SK

ILLS

IDEN

TIFI

ED T

HRO

UG

H P

RO

MIS

•

UN

IFO

RMIT

Y O

F ST

ATI

STIC

S ES

TABL

ISH

ED A

MO

NG

PR

OM

IS U

SER

S FO

R C

RO

SS JU

RIS

DIC

TIO

NA

L A

NA

LYSI

S •

PRO

MIS

USE

R G

RO

UP:

FO

RUM

FO

R IN

FORM

ATI

ON

EX

CHA

NG

E.


)> c c O

')

0

CO

RR

EC

TIO

NS

n 77

BU

DflE

I' ., ....

PU

RP

OllE

: 'IO

PR

OV

IDE

FO

R M

OR

E E

FFEC

TIVE

CO

RR

EC

1'IO

llA

L

SYSI

EM

S

TA

RG

ET

GR

OU

P:

STA

TE

AN

D L

OC

AL

CO

RR

EC11

011A

L A

GE

NC

IES

INC

WD

ING

.M

ILS.

-ll

lUll

Oll

8.

PRO

BA

TIO

N. A

ND

PA

RO

LE

KEY

FEA

'nlll

EB:

MO

WD

IS SU

Pl'O

llT F

OR:

1. S

TATE

-WID

E C

OR

REC

TIO

NS

MA

SIE

RPU

UIN

ING

2.

CO

RllE

CTI

ON

AL

OFF

ICER

TR

AIN

ING

J.

MED

ICA

L C

AR

E/H

EALT

H S

ERV

ICES

DEU

VER

Y S

VS

IEM

S

4. E

XPE

RIM

EN

TS•

RE

8TllV

llON

I.

IM

PRO

VE

ME

NT

S• P

RO

BA

TIO

N M

ID P

AR

OLE

SER

VIC

ES

I. ~PROGRAMS C

ALT

ERN

ATI

VES

, DIV

ERSI

ON

, MID

M

EDIC

AL.

SERV

ICES

) 7.

CO

RR

ECTI

ON

AL

STA

ND

AR

DS

I. T

ECH

NIC

AL

ASS

ISTA

NC

E N

ATI

ON

WID

E


)> c c en

..Ii.

CO

RR

EC

TIO

NS

P

RO

GR

AM

RES

ULT

S FY

1m

21

PR

OJE

CTS

OPE

RATI

ON

AL

11 P

RO

JEC

TS P

LAN

NED

•T

OT

AL

PRO

JECT

S FO

R FY

1m

•All

EU

•W

I IC

ll T

.A. W

AS

PRO

VID

ED:

f. E

VA&

UAJ

'JD

IAIW

JRES

EARC

H

Z. M

OG

llA

M D

INEl

.OPM

ENT

•llE

DIC

AL

SERV

ICES

4 P

AR

TE C

O.l

'UA

llCE

REV

IEW

S BY

THE

MA1

1CM

IAL

Cl.E

Alll

llGH

OU

S FO

R C

lll•

INA

L JU

STI

CE

PLA

NN

ING

A

#D

AllC

lllJ'

EC

'IUIE

•PR

OM

UU

IA11

0ll O

F N

ATI

ON

AL

TRA

ININ

G D

ESIG

N

•SIT

E i

dll

MI

OF

MED

ICA

L SE

RV

ICES

DES

IGN

IN I

STA

TES

•PR

ISO

N IN

DU

STRI

ES

•NA

110N

AL

TECH

NIC

AL

ASS

ISTA

NCE

PRO

VID

ED IN

3 S

TA TE

S es

m TE

S11N

G O

F M

OD

EL IN

3 S

TATE

S


)> c c en

N

LAW

EN

FOR

CEM

ENT

EDU

CA

TIO

N P

RO

GR

AM

CL

EEP)

A

NN

UA

L B

UD

GE

T

UPG

RA

DE

ED

UC

ATI

ON

AL

AC

HIE

VEM

ENTS

OF

aa-•

.a1

.JU

SnC

E S

YSI

EM

PER

SON

NEL

MO

M

TA

RG

Er G

RO

UP

: PE

RSO

NN

EL

EM

PLO

YED

BY

OR

IE.E

KIN

G C

AR

EE

RS

• C

RIM

INA

L JU

srlC

E A

GEN

CIE

S

e P

RO

VID

E G

RA

NT

S A

ND

LO

AN

S T

O IN

DIV

IDU

ALS

e

EX

PA

ND

CR

IMIN

AL

JUST

ICE

EDU

CA

TIO

N

OPP

OR

TU

Nm

ES

e U

PG

RA

DE

QU

ALI

TY O

F C

UR

RIC

ULU

M


a. LU LU ..I

I 1 I! I I i ~ g I

lpl ii~ a; N 9 I

ADD63


)> c c a> ~

SY

STE

MS

AN

D S

TATI

STI

CS

lmril

iiSJ

• S

f ATE

JU

DIC

l£1.

INFO

RMA

TIO

N S

YSTE

M (

SJIS

) e

PRO

SECU

TOR .

. MA

NA

GEM

ENT

INFO

RMA

TIO

N S

YSTE

M C

PROM

IS)

e O

FI B

IDER

BA

SED

STA

TE C

ORR

ECTI

ON

AL

INFO

RMA

TIO

N S

YST

EM

(Oll

SC

IS)

e N

ATI

ON

AL

LAW

EN

FORC

EMEN

T TE

LECO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

lllA

•FC

CJM

) e

AP

CO

PR

OJE

CT

13 A

ND

13A

-C

O..

.,_

CA

TIO

llS

PLA

NN

ING

AN

D T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

8818

TAN

CE

I SiA

TISl

lC8 I

e

NA

TIO

NA

L C

RIM

E P

AN

EL

VIC

TIM

IZA

TIO

N S

URV

EY

e C

OM

PRB

tEN

SIV

E D

ATA

SY

STEM

S e

EMPL

OY

MEN

T A

ND

EXP

ENDI

TURE

SUR

VEY

e 90

UllC

E80

0K O

F C

RIM

INA

L JU

STIC

E S

TATI

SllC

S

-PA

RO

LE

-FA

CIL

ITIE

S -P

RIS

ON

ER

S -C

OU

RT

e

NA

TIO

NA

L C

RIM

INA

L JU

mC

E D

ATA

AR

CH

IVE

NET

WO

RK


> c c en

en

CO

MP

RE

HE

NS

IVE

DA

TA

SY

STE

MS

(C

DS

) FY

71

BU

DG

ET

t13

M

PUR

POSE

: T

O E

STA

BU

SH O

R E

NH

AN

CE

STA

TE

LEV

EL C

RIM

INA

L JU

STIC

E

IN--

-,.-

-oil!

-··

----

----A

-· a·

·-.....

ru

n

All

11

1 AIWU~IAI•~··~'-

rA

IU

lllC

it.

TAR

GE

T G

RO

UP:

&

I ST

AT

ES,

TH

E D

ISTR

ICT

OF

CO

LU

MB

IA A

ND

PU

ER

TO

RIC

O

KEY

FEA

TUR

ES:

• R

EQU

IRE

A S

TATE

DA

TA S

YST

EM

AC

TIO

N P

LA

N

--

• ESTABUSHSTATESTATimCALANALYSISCENTER~(SACs)

e Sl

'AT

E L

EVEL

RES

PON

SIB

ILIT

Y F

OR

UN

IFO

RM

CR

IME

REP

OR

TS (

UC

RsJ

e

CO

MPU

TER

IZED

CR

IMIN

AL

HIS

TO

RIE

S (C

CH

) •O

FFE

ND

ER

BA

SED

TR

AN

SAC

TIO

N S

TA

TIS

TIC

S (0

BT

8)

e B

EIN

G I

MPL

EMEN

TED

IN 4

9 ST

AT

ES

':idl

l"


)> c c en

en

CO

MP

RE

HE

NS

IVE

DA

TA

SY

ST

EM

S

(CD

S)

PRO

GR

AM

RE

SU

LTS

:

• e

STA

TES

ARE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G O

R PR

EPA

RIN

G T

O

IMPL

EMEN

T A

CD

S PR

OG

RAM

•

•ST

AT

ES

HAV

E ES

TABU

SHED

STA

TIST

ICA

L A

NA

LYSI

S CE

NTER

S •

IMPR

OV

ED A

NALY

TICA

L IN

PUT

TO S

TATE

CO

MPR

EHEN

SIV

E PL

AllS

lHR

OU

GH

SA

C'•

• 31

STA

TES

REPO

RTIN

G T

O F

BI'•

UN

IFO

RM C

RIM

E RE

PORT

S ~ •

OFF

EN

DE

R B

ASE

D T

RAN

SACT

ION

STA

TIST

ICS/

CO

MPU

TERI

ZED

CRI

MIN

AL

HIS

TORY

SY

STEM

S U

ND

ER

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T.


VIC

TIM

IZA

TIO

N S

UR

VEY

S P

UR

PO

SE

:

FY

77

8U

DG

ET

t8.7

M

TO

OB

TA

IN IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N C

ON

CER

NIN

G B

OTH

REP

OR

l ED

AN

D

UN

RE

POR

TE

D C

RIM

INA

L V

ICTI

MIZ

ATI

ON

.

l>

KEY

FEA

TUR

ES:

c c ~ e

SH

OW

S C

HA

NG

ES

IN R

ATE

S O

F V

ICTI

MIZ

ATI

ON

OV

ER T

IME

e C

ON

TIN

UO

US

SU

RV

EY

S IN

28

AM

ER

ICA

N C

ITIE

S IN

VO

LVIN

G

INT

ER

VIE

WS

WIT

H 8

6,00

0 H

OU

SEH

OL

DS,

135

,000

PE

RSO

NS

AN

D 1

5,00

0 B

USI

NE

SSE

S EV

ERY

SIX

MO

NT

HS.

e C

RIM

ES

ME

ASU

RE

D: R

APE

, RO

BB

ERY

, ASS

AU

LT

, BU

RG

LAR

Y, P

ERSO

NA

L A

ND

HO

USE

HO

LD

LA

RC

ENY

, MO

TOR

VEH

ICLE

TH

EFT,

CO

MM

ERC

IAL

BU

RG

LA

RY

AN

D R

OB

BER

Y.

e SU

RV

EY

OF

A 1

1 ITU

TES:

FEA

R O

F C

RIM

E; C

HA

NG

ES

IN U

FEST

YLE

AS

A

RE

SUL

T O

F V

ICTI

MIZ

ATI

ON

; OPI

NIO

NS

AB

OU

T P

OLI

CE

EFFE

CTI

VEN

ESS.


)>

c

VIC

TIM

IZA

TIO

N

PR

OG

RA

M R

ESU

LTS

• A

NN

UA

L SU

RVEY

S CO

ND

UCT

ED S

INC

E JU

LY 1

972

e. N

INE

PUB

UC

AT

ION

S O

N R

ND

ING

S W

ITH

TH

IRTY

REP

OR

TS

SCH

EDU

LED

FO

R PU

BUCA

TIO

N IN

FY

77

~

• SE

LEC

I ED

Flll

DIN

CIS

INC

LUD

E:

co

• N

O 8I

CIN

IFIC

AN

T C

HA

NG

E O

CCU

RRED

IN R

ATE

S FO

R C

RIM

ES

MEA

SUR

ED B

ETW

EEN

117

4AN

D11

11

e A

S M

AN

Y A

8ON

E-H

AL

FTO

1WO

-TH

IRD

S O

F V

ICTI

MIZ

ATI

ON

S A

RE

NO

TRE

PO

RTE

DTO

PO

UC

E

• CO

MM

ERCI

AL

CRIM

ES A

RE U

SUA

LLY

REP

ORT

ED

• FE

AR O

F C

RIM

E IS

GRE

ATE

ST A

MO

NG

PEO

PLE

WH

O H

AV

E TH

E LE

ASF

CH

AN

CE O

F BE

ING

VIC

TIM

IZED

.


)> c c en

co

RE

SE

AR

CH

N

ATI

ON

AL

INST

ITU

TE O

F LA

W E

NFO

RCEM

ENT

AN

D C

RIM

INA

L JU

STIC

E

RIN

CTI

ON

S:

• D

Ell

GN

A11

D S

PON

SOR

RES

EAR

CH

e

EVA

LUA

TE C

RIM

INA

LJU

snC

E P

RO

GR

AM

S e

PRO

MO

IE A

DO

PTIO

N O

F PR

OV

EN T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y A

ND

SU

CC

ESSF

UL

PRA

Cll

CE

S e

Dll

lSE

lllN

AT

E IN

FORM

ATI

ON

TO

CR

IMIN

AL

JUST

ICE

CO

MM

UN

ITY

MA

JOR

RES

EAR

CH

AR

EAS:

e

JUR

Y O

PER

ATI

ON

S e

SEN

TEN

CIN

G G

UID

ELIN

ES

e PO

LIC

E PE

RFO

RM

AN

CE

MEA

SUR

ES

e U

GH

TWEI

GH

T B

OD

Y A

RM

OR

e

CR

IME

PREV

ENTI

ON

TH

RO

UG

H E

NV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L D

ESIG

N

e C

RIM

INA

L IN

VES

TIG

ATI

ON

S e

POLI

CE

RE

SPO

NSE

TIM

E


)> c c ......

0

KE

Y R

ES

EA

RC

H R

ES

ULT

S

.IU

RY

OPE

RA

TIO

NS:

•

.IUllY

PO

OlS

CA

N B

E CU

T 2D

to 21

1/t W

HILE

SO

LL M

AIN

TAIN

ING

AD

EQU

ATE

TR

IAL

COV

ERA

GE

• ll

All

Oll

Wm

E. S

AV

S«IS

COU

LD T

OT

AL

a MIW

ON

ANN

UALL

Y

POU

CE

RES

PON

SE T

IME:

e

QIP

•F

AIL

10R

EPO

RTM

OSI

CRI

MES

IMM

EDIA

1ELY

e

RIP

Oll1

1llC

I DEL

AY

S D

IMIN

ISH

IMPA

CI'

OF

RA

PID

PO

UC

E R

ESPO

NSE

TIM

E e

F-.U1

·•·ll

GSc · H

AVE

IMPL

ICA

TIO

NS

FOR

MA

NPO

WER

ALL

OCA

TIO

N.

CG

llMU

MC

ATI

Olll

TECH

NOLO

GY, A

ND

CRI

ME

REPO

RTIN

G P

AT1

ERN

S.

CRIM

INA

L IN

VES

TIG

ATI

ON

S:

e V

IC11

M/W

llNE8

8 ICE

Y TO

IOLV

ING

MO

ST C

RIM

ES

e .c

Mll

lA1I

Oll

I ILO

M C

ll•E

SCEN

E M

ORE

IMPO

RTA

NTT

HA

T••L

EAD

8"

DEVE

LOPE

D LA

TER

Oii

• 8C

REE

NIM

l PllO

CED

URE

S DE

VELO

PED

TO H

ELP

POU

CE D

ECID

E W

HET

HER

CA

SE C

AN B

E PR

ODUC

TIVE

LY P

URS

UED

•

IMPR

OV

ED IN

VE81

1CIA

TIVE

PRO

CED

URE

S TO

BE

TESI

ED

IN F

IVE

JUR

•DIC

TIO

NS.


)> c c .....

. ..a

.

KEY

RE

SE

AR

CH

RE

SU

LTS

UG~IGHT B

OD

Y A

RM

OR

: N

CO

NsP

tcuo

us. C

AN

BE

WO

RN R

OU

TIN

ELY

e

FIEL

D T

ES

I ED

IN 1&

MA

JOR

CIT

IES

e CR

EDIT

ED W

ITH

SAV

ING

TH

E U

VE

S O

F 3

OFFI

CERS

AN

D

AN

D P

RE

VE

NnN

G S

ERIO

US

INJU

RY

TO

AN

OTH

ER 10

SE

NTEN

clNG

GU

IDEL

INES

: e

'>E8

IGllE

D T

O R

EDU

CE

Dl8

PA

R1n

W11

HIN

A .J

UR

ISD

IC'l1

0N

• G

UID

EU

NE

8E

NTE

NC

Es

CO

VE

R• P

ERC

ENT

OF

CA

SES

• D

BIV

ER N

OW

ua•G

GU

IDEU

NE

____

_ _

• G

UID

BJl

lES

BEI

NG

DEV

ELO

PED

IN C

HIC

AG

O. N

EWA

RK

A

llD

PH

OEN

IX

PO

UC

E P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E M

EA

SUR

ES:

e

AR

RE

ST D

ATA

AN

D R

EPO

RTE

D C

RIM

E F

IGU

RES

IN

AD

EQ

UA

TE

MEA

SUR

ES

e N

EW

8Y

81E

M U

SES

A V

ARI

ETY

Of•

•1N

DIC

ATO

RS"

TO

A8

8R

8 A

DE

PA

RTM

EN

TS P

RO

DU

CTI

VIT

Y

e SO

UN

D P

ER

FOR

MA

NC

E E

VA

LUA

TIO

N M

ETH

OD

S IN

CREA

SIN

GLY

C

RU

CIA

L IN

UG

HT

OF

BU

DG

ETA

RY

PR

ESS

UR

ES

• T

EST

ING

TO

BEG

IN S

OO

N IN

FO

UR

cmes

.


)>

c c ..... N

EV

ALU

AT

ION

RE

SU

LTS

e

EV

AW

AT

E•P

AC

JOFl

lEW

LA

W8A

ND

PRA

cnC

ESS

UC

HA

SSl'A

TE

8PE

ED

Y

TR

IAL

LE

G1m

.AT

IOll,

.llA

88A

CH

UR

TT

SGU

NL

AW

.NE

WY

OR

KD

RU

GL

AW

A

llD

CL

O•N

G O

F SE

CU

RE

FA

CIU

nE8

FOR

JUV

ENIL

E O

FFEl

lDER

8

e E

VA

WA

TE

WID

ELY

-USE

D C

RIM

INA

L JU

STIC

E PR

AC

l'IC

ES:

.... -

I C

1..,

PRO

PER

TY-M

AR

IOM

I PR

OJE

CTS

RED

UC

E BU

RGLA

RY R

ATE

S FO

R

PAR

TIC

IPA

NTS

, BU

T C

OM

MU

NIT

Y-W

IDE

RA

TES

MA

Y B

E U

NA

FFEC

TED

A

LA

RM

SY

SIW

UN

KED

DIR

ECTL

Y T

O P

OU

CE

EFF

ECl1

VE

IN R

EDU

CIN

G

CO

MM

ERC

IAL

RO

BB

ERIE

S . D

RUCI

All

U8E

R8

• T

A8C

PR

OG

RA

MS

SHO

W L

OW

REA

RR

EST

RA

TES

WH

ILE

• Pl

lOC

lllA

M. B

UT

FOLL

OW

-UP

STU

DIE

S N

EED

TO

MEA

SUR

E LO

NG

TER

M

PR

OG

RE

88

e IN

TO

TAL.

OV

ER

•PO

UC

Y R

ELEV

AN

T EV

ALU

ATI

ON

S A

ND

A88

E88

ME

NT

S H

AV

E B

EEN

CO

ND

UC

l'ED

TO

DA

TE.


~ c c ......

w

AN

NU

AL

BU

DG

ET

t75M

O

FFIC

E O

F JU

VE

NIL

E JU

STI

CE

AN

D

DE

LIN

QU

EN

CY

PR

EV

EN

TIO

N

JUV

EN

ILE

.IUSY

ICE

AN

D D

ELIN

QU

ENCY

PRE

VEN

TIO

N A

CT 19

74 I

PUB.

1. 9

3-41

5)

PR

OG

RA

M O

PE

RA

TIO

NS

FO

RM

ULA

GR

AN

TS A

lllD

TEC

HNI

CAL

ASS

IST

AN

CE

: PR

OV

IDE

FIN

AN

CIA

i.AN

D T

ECH

NIC

AL

AS

SIS

TA

NC

E T

O S

TATE

AN

D L

OC

AL

AG

EN

CIE

S

C0N

CEN

TRA

TIO

N O

F FE

DER

AL E

FFO

RT:

D

EVEL

OP

OB

.JEC

llVES

AN

D P

RIO

Rm

ES

TO

CO

OR

DIN

AT

E A

LL F

EDER

AL

POLI

CIE

S A

ND

PR

OG

RA

MS

REL

ATE

D T

O .J

UV

ENIL

E D

ELI

NQ

UE

NC

Y

NA

TIO

NA

L IN

STIT

UTE

(J

.D. R

ES

EA

RC

H)

ST

AF

IBJJ

CS

Alll

D G

AT

A B

AS

E:

ESTA

BLI

SH IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N C

LEA

RIN

GH

OU

SE

TllA

llWlll

G:

PRO

VID

E TR

AIN

ING

PR

OG

RA

MS

FOR

JUV

ENIL

E JU

STIC

E P

RO

FES8

ION

AL

S A

ND

O

TH

ER

PR

AC

1T11

0NE

RS

ST

AN

DA

RD

S:

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

OF

COM

PREH

ENSI

VE

STA

ND

AR

DS

FOR

AD

MIN

ISl'R

ATI

ON

OF

JUV

ENIL

E JU

STIC

E

RE

SEA

RC

H A

ND

EVA

LUAT

ION

: ES

TAB

LISH

CEN

TRA

LIZE

D R

ESEA

RCH

EFF

ORT

EV

ALU

ATI

ON

OF

FED

ERA

L A

ND

STA

TE

J.J.

PR

OG

RA

MS


)>

c c .....

.a:a. r ~ OFF

ICE

OF

JUV

EN

ILE

JU

STI

CE

AN

D

AN

D D

ELI

NQ

UE

NC

Y P

RE

VE

NTI

ON

PR

OG

RA

M O

PE

RA

TIO

NS

SPEC

IAi.E

MPH

ASiS

: A

WA

RD

ED

: e

DEI

NIZ

I I IU

TIO

llAI R

ATI

ON

OF

STA

TUS

Oil I

SID

ER

S-1

1 AC

1'IO

ll PR

OG

RA

MS

IVllM

llUt G

llAM

ISA

#D 1

'EC

llM

CU

AS

S18T

AM:E

:

• 'IW

O M

AJO

R C

CMIR

ACT

II FO

R FO

RMUL

A 81

1AN

TSA

llD IP

ECIA

L .. H

Am

sT.A

. PR

OG

RA

MS

CC

MN

2NIJ

IA7I

OllO

FREO

l!llA

I. B

fl/O

llT:

PUllL

l8H

ED F

llS

I' A

NA

l..Y

mSA

llD

EVAL

UATI

ON O

F ALL

FED

ERAL

JUVE

NILE

DE

UNCW

ENCY

REL

ATED

PRO

GRA

MS

NA

TIO

NA

L IN

8111

UTE

(J

.D. R

ESEA

RC

H)

TllA

llllll

lB:

e PR

EPA

RED

OFA

CE T

RAIN

ING

PLA

N

e PR

OV

IDED

TRA

ININ

G F

OR

JUV

ENIL

E C

OU

RT

.IUD

CIE8

e

lllP

l.EM

Ell

lED

AC

A P

RO

JEC

T R

EAD

IN

1RA

ININ

G S

CH

OO

LS

STA

ND

AilD

S:

e •.

JUV

EN

ILE

.IU

llll

CE

SfA

ND

AR

DS

SU

BM

ITTE

D T

O C

OllG

RE

S8

• M

l STA

ND

AR

DS

REA

DY

FO

R S

UB

M18

810N

•

U P

REV

ENTI

ON

SIR

AT

EG

IES

CO

llPL

ET

ED

RE

SE

AllC

H A

ND

EV

ALU

A7I

Oll:

•G

RA

NT

S A

WA

RDED

TO

EV

ALU

ATE

8P

EC

IAL

EM

PHA

818

PRO

GR

All

8 •

•PL

EM

Ell

l'ED

NA

TIO

NA

LA

llll

lllE

llT

PR

OG

RAM

e

GRA

NTS

AW

ARD

ED T

O IM

PLEM

ENT

A

RESE

ARC

H A

ND

DEM

Oll8

TRA

TIO

N

PRO

GRA

M O

N LE

ARNI

NG D

ISA

BIU

TIES

A

ND

JUV

ENIL

E D

EUN

QU

ENCY


~

0 0 .....,

en

MA

.IO

R M

AN

AG

EMEN

T IM

PRO

VEM

ENTS

PUR

POSE

: T

O P

RO

VID

E EF

FECT

IVE

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

DIR

ECTI

ON

AN

D

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

CO

NTR

OL

KE

Y F

AC

TO

RS

: e

MA

NA

GEM

ENT-

BY

-OB

JEC

TIV

ES

e ZE

RO

-BA

SE

D B

UD

GE

TS T

IED

TO

MB

O

e PR

OG

RA

M D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

SYST

EM

e LO

NG

RA

NG

E PL

AN

S FO

R S

YST

EMS

AN

D S

TATI

STIC

S e

LON

G R

AN

GE

EVA

LUA

TIO

N P

LAN

AN

D E

VA

LUA

TIO

N

UTI

LIZA

TIO

N S

YST

EM

e IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N S

YST

EM I

PRO

RLE

) TO

MEE

T M

AN

AG

EMEN

T IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N N

EED

S e

MO

NTH

LY M

AN

AG

EMEN

T R

EVIE

WS

e G

RA

NT/

CO

NTR

AC

T RE

VIE

W B

OA

RD

e

GR

AN

T-M

ON

ITO

RIN

G S

YST

EM

e A

CC

OU

NTI

NG

SY

STEM

APP

RO

VED

BY

GA

O


.. J! I t: a

! ~ i t: i a:

" -tr

It

I " It it t ~ t

~

i t r:: t z

l 1- " t

I

i4: t ..a: ~

ADD76


~ c c .... ....

,

THE

LEAA

DOL

LAR

Fisc

al Y

ear 1

977 -

$754

Mill

ion

1l'C.

tmcA

L AS

slsTA

llC('

t13 .

....

.

.,..

....

. 2%

cm-,,~~

41%

aOC

« (P

Mfr

CJ

~ ......

... M

TA S

YSJE

WS

AlfD

~ 2%

'\ 1

SFA1

1S1'1

CAL

ASSI

STA#

CE-..

......

.__ ~

........ _

---~

1 ••

--.w

T&

OIU

A1

1M

$

I~..

....

. ----

JUV

EN

U JU

STIC

E

-------

m ..

.. •

.. .s

..-

#AJ'

JMA

L IN

STI

TllT

E

_/

OF

LAW

Ellf

'OllC

EMEl

lT /

MD

C.m

Al J

USTI

CE

........

I ~ A

ftA

l'llO

CllA

M

.... ,..

CORR

ECTIO

WS

tpAl

rT E

J ·-

----

•n.•.

-'

------

PlAN

NlllG

f PAR

J' IJ

""" -.-.o

oo •A

lll'O

WEl

l DE

mO

l'llE

ll1

DISC

RETI

MAR

Y (P

AR1

CJ

$44,

300,

000

t&4,

fllf

1,•

• P

ropo

sed

repr

ogra

mm

ing

• fo

llow

s:

PSO

B-$

30 M

, Par

t C &

E -

$10

M.


)> c c ......

co

,,, BU

DG

ET B

Y R

JNC

TIO

N -

PO

LIC

E/A

DJU

DIC

ATI

ON

/CO

RR

EC

TIO

NS

FY

117

&

POL

ICE

AD

AID

ICA

nGll

CO

R.-

.Cll

ON

S

~ -

8TA

'n/L

OC

AL

Pil~..

..,~ai

11iiai

aillii

aillil

ili1li

illili

li1lii

~~~Mll

illlii

lliill

iM ..

81.0

CK C

lllAN

11I

---------' ~

CA

TIG

Olll

CA

L

~11

'Mt

SfA

n/LO

CA

L

·---

----

--..

.._

,...

. a

ocK

ClllA

N11

I .__

__

__

_.I 2

"'

CATl

lGO

lllCA

L

~"!ATE/LOCAL

__

_ IR

t BL

OCK

Gll

AN

T8

..-.

... -

... ...

. aaa

....

Mill

i...

.,..

..,~

~--.

.-.,

41't

lt

CATB

IORI

CAL

OTH

ER u

I ...

Sl

'ATl

/LO

CA

L IO

NLY

I

LU

A

FY 1

-• n

11'11

CC

UM

ULA

TIV

I)

~"""" P

OLI

CE

~ ~ C

OR

REC

TIO

N8


,... lE

AA

BU

DG

ET

FUN

CTIO

N B

Y YE

AR

UN

TH

OU

SA

ND

S O

F D

O L

lAR

S) A

S O

F 12

/31/

78

POU

CE

COUR

TS

BU

DG

ET

1--

19

74

CO

RREC

TIO

NS

TO

TA

L A

UT

HO

RIT

Y

BLO

CK

......

.,., N

ON

BLO

CK

•.2

1• 11

%

711.

131

31%

1,

914,

IZe

246.

az.t

31%

17

,113

14

%

301,

1•

47%

T

OT

AL

IM

,173

1.

211,

504 ..

313,

113

11%

1,

111.

m

31%

2

.11

1.-

3.21

&,3

10

.a%

191&

BL

OC

K

II 9

2'2 ..

.. ... , ......

1

-.-

..,.. 41

3,11

1 N

ON

BLO

CK

11~ ...

u.-..

11

.731

47%

1•

,41&

)>

c TO

TAL

2117

,121 ..

122.

111

18

21

11.1

• 3

"t

.. ,171

-.-·

72%

c ......

co

1978

BLO

CK

11

7,12

7 ...

D,4

15

23%

10

3,11

7 31

%

215,

311

NO

N B

LO

CK

IU

12

...

•.111

17%

12

2,34

1 14

%

zo.-

TO

TA

L 17

4,41

1 .,..

11

2,21

&

20%

22

9,33

3 46

%

I03,

m7

-... 12

%

TO

TA

L B

LOC

K

1;J:

17,M

8 4

7"

--17

%

9IZ

,l2I

31%

2.

713,

m

NO

N B

LOC

K

373,

475

36%

11

4,13

3 11

%

610,

218

41%

1,

841,

281

TO

TA

L 1.

-1.1

24

44%

11

8,12

1 11

%

1,49

2,80

4 4

8

3,712

J16'1

4 .

.. ,9

41

75%

• IN

CLU

DES

FU

ND

S FO

R .I

UV

ENIL

E .IU

BTI

CE

AN

D D

ELIN

QU

ENC

Y P

REV

ENTI

ON

AC

T.

1>0.

l-197

7--0

1


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. 12~7, 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

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

69-108 0 WASHINGTON : 1976

ADD80


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 diff crent parts~ nerhaps, of the people's cry. ~ Mr. REED. ·we 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 ~o on in jails and prisons. r 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, hopefulJy, some action along· these lines that you have described so well.

Mr. REED. ·we are trying, sir. Senator Hnus1u. So give the greetings of the subcommittf~e to·

your associates in that association. Tell them to be of good cheer .. '\Ve 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 :wt. in having read it last night and early this morning I sugge,st it would' be a good reference work to those who have any specific ideas or· criticisms to voice; because :for e_very action th~rc is a reaction,. and we know that. We had some 111 the last 2 mmutes.

·we 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.

:We welcome you here once agai~, and. w~ will print in the record' this statement that you have submitted m its entuety.

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

[The material referred to folJows :] ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. VELDE, ADMINISTRATOR, LAW E:VFORCE--

MENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTHATION, CONCERNING LEGISLATION ""HICII \\'Ol'LD 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-

ADD81


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 con-cerned 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 ls excessive "red tape" involved in the administration of the LEAA grant program. While in some cases, regrettable and unforeseen dl.1Hculties have arisen and caused delay to certain applicants, I believe the Subcommittee will fiu4 that overall th~ program has been administered ef-tfecti vely 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. Much of the material contained in guideline manuals ls informational. In-~luded are such items as reprints of the statute, OMB circulars, standard .application forms, reporting forms, fund allocation tables, and address lists. AIL this material ls 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 "Gulde for Discretionary Grant Programs." This manual, which ls 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 -contslns 15 informational appendices.

It should be noted that some of the information provided in LEAA guide-line 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 -0f 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 Polley 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 Drink-ing Water Act. Thus, It ls 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 legislation 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 bas adopted a similar ninety day rule for consideration ·of any discretionary grant appllcations. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that there l1ave 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 appllcation 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 appllcation for funds. The manuals also give guidance to grantees on their responsibilities of -applicable federal laws and regulations. Additionally specified are monitoring and evaluation pollcles 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.

ADD82


405 }'inally in this regard, Mr. Chairman, it should be pointed out that the

J,EAA program is essentially one administered by the states and by local governments. These jurisldictions 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 capa-bilities and initiate effective techniques. In fact, we have takeu such action in several instances. However, it would be inappropriate for LEAA to other--wise 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 pro-gram 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 crim-inal 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 infor-mation 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 by r,EAA 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, per-haps as a new category.

LEAA is now attempting to resolve these differences and provide a discrete 11pportlonment of all funding for courts projects under definitions acceptable to all lntere!'lted parties. A special task force of judicial leaders and tech-nicians has been commissioned to develop acceptable working definitions for <'ategorlzing projects, apply these definitions to LEAA project expenditure <l.ata, 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 which trouble me deeply. I am troubled not only because the criticisms are fl.>lt 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 statements would <'!early be shown not supported by the facts if careful investigation were under-taken. It is my hope that the Subcommittee, for the reasons I will discuss. will llOt he misled In Its clellberations with respect to the LEAA program as a re-sult of this testimony.

One issue which wai:i raii::ed in the testimony concerned certain aspects of J,EAA'F< civil rlgohts compliance effort. Because the organization which the wit-llP8S rPpresents is. ancl was at the time of the prior testimony, engagecl in litigation with LEAA on these very matters. it would be highly inappropriate for me to discuf<s the substance of those particular remarks in this forum. J,EAA Is now preparing its response to the allegations involved in the litiga-tion nnd will he most happy to provide the Subcommittee with a copy when formallv submitted to the court. Needless to say, LEAA helleves it is ver:v effectively enforcing its civil riirhts resvonsibllity, and it is felt that the results <>f 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 b:v this same witneiis. For the full Information of the Suhcommittee. I would like to 'hriefly describe LEAA's involvement in the area of criminal justice informa-tion systems.

ADD83


--

RESTRUCTURING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

HEARINGS BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE -COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS

l!'IRST AND SECOND SESSIONS

PART 1

AUGUST l; OCTOBER 3, 4, 20, 1977; AND llARCH 1, 1978

Serial No. S5-38

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judlclar7

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE W ASillNGTON : 11178

ADD84


3

l!r. CONYERS. Having said that, we now recognize and welcome .A.ssocia.te Deputy Attorney General Walter M. Fiederowicz; Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Patricia M. Waid; General Counsel tor LEAA Thomn!I Madden; the Actin~ Director of the National Institute of Law Enforcement, Blair Ewmgi Mr. James Gregg, Acting Adminis-trator of LEAA, and Paul Neje1ski, a.IBO a. member of the task force studv group.

We welcome :vou 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 II. WALD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE OFFICE OF LEGISLA· TIVE AFFAIRS; »LAIR G. EWING, ACTING DIRECTOR OF TllE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT; PAUL A. NE1EL· SKI, OFFICE OF IMPROVEMENTS m TllE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; TllOllAS l. MADDEN, GENERAL COUNSEL, LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION; AND 1AMES M'.. H. GREGG, ACTING DIRECTOR OF TllE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSIST-ANCE ADMINISTRATION Mr. FIEDF.Row1cz. 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 stt\tements of Messrs. Fiederowicz and Flaherty follow:] STATEMENT or PETER F. lrr.ABEBTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPABTMENT or

JtJSTI~

The hearings which your Committee has scheduled to discuss the Department of Justice Study Group "Report to the Attorney General" come at a most op-Portune time bf!Cause the Department Is currently evaluating the reeoinmenda-tlons contained In the Report for restructuring the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

Attorney General BP.II and I have assigned a high priority to the Improvement of the e.trectlYeness and resIY.inslveneas of tile Department of Justice's program of assistance to state and local governments tor crime control and criminal

- justice system lmprovemeu~. Among our lnlttatlves In this area was the creation of the Study Group and our charge to the Group that It present tor our consldera· 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 Attoroey General publicly released the Report and asked tor specUlc comments on the Report for a period of sixty days be-ginning on July 1, 1977.

In response to the Attorney Cfoneral's request tor public comment, the Attorney General and I have received a number of letters and reports which cogently dis-cuss the LEAA program and Its future. I ft.ad this response heartenlng .. As the Attorney General noted In releasing the report: "Crime la a problem which

ADD85


4

touchee eYP.f7 one ot us. A Federal role In this area must be shaped with the greatest pca!ble perUclpatlon ot the American people and their elected leader.i."

At waume and until the end ot the mt1·day comment period, the Attorne1 General and I will be studying the "Report to the Attorney General," ae well as the varlou document& that we receive ln responae to the Attorney General's re· quest for commentary upon the Report.

I know that tbe hearings which your CommJttee hna scheduled will enhance the quality of the dlscuaalon of the laauea raised ln the Study Groap'a "Report to the Attorney General" and will ••lat Attome1 General Bell and me to evalu-ate tbe Report and the 1-.11u which It addresses.

The Attorne1 General and I look fonvard to working closely with 100 to re-solve th088 l88U811.

STATZML"fT 01' WALT!& ll. FIEDf:llOWICZ, OFFICE OF THE A TTOR~ET G!Nl!:IUL, DEl'ABTMZNT OJ' JUSTICE

lfr. Obalrman, I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the Department of Justice and the members of the Stud)' Group to thonh: you tor thl11 opportunity to appear before your Committee to discuss Its "RePort to the Attome1 General" regarding the restructuring of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

The Att.ome1 General has made the Improvement of the Law Enforcement Assistance AdmlnlstraUon ond Its programs one of bis top priorities. In April of this year, he orranlt.ed. the Study Group and aeked It to conduct a com1>re-henslve revle\11' or the prelJent LEAA program and to undertake a basic rethink-ing of the Department of Justice's p~ram of assistance to state and locol gov· ernmenta In crime control and criminal justice BJStem Improvement. On June 23, 1977, the Study Group submitted Its Report to the Attorney 04meral and the Deputy .Attorney Generol. On June 30th, because of 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 publicly dis-tributed the Report and aollctted comments concerning the Report.

During the comment period, which extends through the end of August, tile Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General wlll be constde11ng the Study Group's recommendations and the comments they receive from public ofllclals and the general public. Only after such a process has been completed will the .\ttorney General and the Deputy Attorney General adopt a position concerning the recommenjfatlons contained In the "Report to the Attorney General". Accord-lngl7, I would like to emphasize that tbe conclusions and recommendationfol of the Study Group In Its "Report to the Attorney General" do not necessarily re-flect the official views ot the Department of Justice on tbe Issues addressed In the Report. SlmJlarly, I would like to emphasize that at these hearings my col-leagues and I can speak only on behalf ot tile Study Group and not on behalt of the Department of Justice.

Today, I would like to briefly outline the process followed by the Study Group In examining the LEA.A program and to highlight the key findings contained In the Report. In the session seheduled for Thursday It is my understanding that "'e will be asked to discuss the specific recommendations contained in the Report.

Serving with me on the Study Group were six lndlvldi;als who have had a wide range ot experience in and out ot government. Patricia M. Wald, Assistant Attorne1 General tor the Ofllce of Legislative Atlalrs, bas among numerous other activities, se"ed as a member ot the President's Com.ml8Slon on Crime In the District of Columbia, as a consultant to the President's Commission on Ln\v En-forcement and Administration of Criminal Justice and on the Executive Commit-tee ot the Juvenlle Justice Standards Project IJA-ABA.

Ronald J,. Gainer currently ser\"es as Deputy Assistant Attorney Genernl for the OfBce for Improvements In the Administration of Justice. Pr!°'· thereto, Mr. Gainer served as an attorney In the Criminal Dlv:lslon of the Department of Ju11-tlce and as Director of the Department's omce of PollCJ' and Planning. In these positions, Mr. Gainer baa bad an opportunity to work on a number of criminal justice matters on a policy-making level and to review the operations ot tbe LEA.A program tor the Department of Justice.

Paul A. Nejelskl, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Of!lce for Im· provements In the Administration of Justice, wu ~ployed by LEA.A In ita Na· tlonal Institute or I,aw Enforcelllent and Criminal Justice In 1969 and 1970. He

ADD86


9

"In 1mn1marr, then, the lessons ot the past nine years ot the LEAA program ha\·e heen ml:red. The comprehensh·e review undertaken by the Study Group led to the conclusion thnt there Is the need for n major restructuring ot the Justice Department's program ot aulstance to state an<I local governments for crime control· and criminal justice Improvements. This major restructuring must take place In the context ot both the positive a8 well tts the negative lessons of the past. I.EAA wall always viewed as an experln1ent. It Is time now to cap-lt11llze on the lessons ot nine years ot experience and design a I.lefter }'ederal response to the nation's crime problem."

Hnsed upon Its review of the LEAA program and Its findings, the Study Grou·p Identified certain major Issues pertinent to the future of LEAA, and made recom-mendations to the Attorney Oem•rnl concerning those Issues. llfr. XeJelskl con-curred only with recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 ot the Report.

Ae I mentioned at the outset, the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney Gf>neral are reviewing the Report. Over 3,000 copies of the Report ha\·e been dis-tributed for publfc comment. A lfstlng of the Individuals an<I groups who have received copies ot the Report le attached to my testimony. The Study Group will be reviewing and analyzing responses to the Report, as will the stair ot the At-torney General and the Deputy Attorney General. Your hearings come at a most OpJJortune time to assist the Departme.nt ot Justice ln Its evaluation ot I.EAA and Its future.

!lfy coleagues and I would be pleased to attempt to respond to any questions the Committee may have.

Dll!TRIBUTI0:-1 OF THE REPORT TO THE ATIOR:SEY OENEBAL

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

(a) All members otthe U.S. Congress. r 1,) All Governors. t c) All State Attorneys General. (d) All State Chiefs Justice. ( e) The l\fayors of the 120 Largest Cities. (f) All State Planning Agencies under the LEAA Program. (g) All mnjor national lntereRt groups Including:

( 1) National Governors Conference; ( ~) National Association of Criminal Justice Plann!ng Directors; (3) National A11sociatlon of Regional Councils; (4) Xntlonal Association ot t:ounties; (51 Xntlonal Conference ot Stnt-e Criminal Justke Planning Admlnlstra·

tors; Ill) National Conference of State Legislators; ( 7) National Lea1:ue of Cities/ U.S. Conference of l\layors; ( 8) Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations; (9) International Uity !lfanagemcnt Association; ( 10) National Center fur State Courts; ( 11) American Correctional Association; (12) Council ot State Governments; ( 13) American Bar Association; ( H) National Sherl1fs Association; ( 15) International Association of Chiefs ot Pollce; (16) National Legal Aid and Defender Association; ( 17) National Association of Attorueye General; ( 18) National District Attorneys Association; (10) Xatlonat Urban LE'ague; (20) National Association of Neighborhoods; ( 21) National Peoples Action; (2'..!) National Center for Community Actlon; (23) National Council ot La Raza; and (24) .National Congress for Community Economic Development.

( h) All !llajor Newspapers. < l) The General PulJHc upon request. ~fr. FIEDEROWICZ. Thank you.

ADD87


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES

HEARING BEFORE THE

Y SUBCOMl\IITI'EE ON

• ..... t

CRIMINAL LA 'vs AND PROCEDURES 01' THE

COMMI1TEE 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

At:GUST 16 A:SD 23, 19i8

l'rlnted tor the use ot the Committee on the Judiciary

u.a. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1818

:55::i. 1-1 '7

ADD88


6

the State role should be stren.rthened. We will bear from t.he cities about how the city role sbould'De strengqiened. We have tried to de-velop 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 makes clear that if we had a $6 billion authorization for this year, 've might do a lot mo1-e. But we do not ha.ve that.

One of the principles of this administration has been trying to target limited resources tlirough leveragin~. We are not going to be able to do everything, but we cam make this a reswnsible pro~m. We can make tlie Federal Government's limited participation with Jocal com-munities, States, and counties an important instrument to help meet one of the ~t concerns of the citizcms of this Nation.

So I look forward to working with the chairman of this subcom-mittee and the other members. I 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 'vorking with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator BmEN. Without objection, Senator Kennedy, your state-

ment shall become a part of this hearing record s.t this point. [Material follows:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD ll. KENNEDY AT OPEN HEARINGS ON THE REAUTROIUZATION OP THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADUINIBTBATION

Today, the Subcommittee on Criminal J,nws and 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>f the cunent J,EAA program, which Is subject to re-autl\orlzatlon next year. In a broader sense, these hearings provide us with an opportunity to eJ:Bmlne the federal government's role In aiding local crlme-ftghtlng el!orts.

The development of just, workable proposals for combating crime Is an urgent concern of nil of us. It Is an Intolerable situation In thl11 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 eliminating crime from our society, It Is clear that certain measures can nnd m11st he taken to make our 11treets 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. J,EAA Is both the symbol and the reality of the federal government's modest commitment to assist localities In this continuing struggle. We need J,EAA.

The major legislative vehicle for reornnlzlng and restructuring the LEAA program Is S. 8270, the "J11stlce System Jmprovement Act of 1978," which I In· troduced, with strong administration and bipartisan support last month. This hill Is designed to make the J,EAA program more emclent and etrecttve. It has been personally endorsed by both President. Carter and Attorney General Bell and 11hould go a tonr: way In eliminating the defects and faults which have plagued the LEAA program during the past decade.

These current detects are many: poor priorities; excessive red tape: lack of clearly delineated federal, state, and local crlme-ftgbtfng roles; excessive state control of the program at the expense of the cities and counties; poor Internal J,EAA structural organlzaUon; absence of el!ecUve research and evaluation com· ponents; lack of clearly understandable purposes and goals; poor targeting of block grant funds and the failure of comprehensive planning.

ADD89

'

·~ I


7 But be1ond these apecUlc detects, there remain troublesome general questions

concernhlr LEAA-wb7 does LEAA remain the ateoehlld of the federal grant prorrama? Did LEAA get off on the wrong foot In 1068 with Its extensive hard· ware and antlrlot purcbases1 Is the lirogram still perceived In Ideological terma, as "law and order" oriented?

During the paat rear I have been engaged In lengthf dlacuaalona with the De· partment of Justice In an effort to make the program more effective. These dis· cuBSlons have been most cooperaUve and constructive. But the basic roots ot S. 8270 go all the war back to the early 1970's, when I ftrat proposed steps to Im· prove the functioning of 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, eapeclall;r In 1976. varloua amendments were made to the program In an effort to Improve It: but these amendments, although Important and constructive, were largel1 band·ald reforms, aimed at particular LE.AA weak· nesses. l\laJor surgery was left tor another day.

I continue to question, not the concept ot federal assistance to aid localities In the war on crime, but, ri.ther, the nature and administration of that aBSlstance. Since 1968 LEAA bas authorized e:r:pendltures totaling over $6 billion, and ;et many, Including myself, quesUon how this money bas been spent. I am, of course, aware that crime Is primarily a local problem and that LEAA's role Is. by neces· slty, limited. But the Issue Is not whether LEAA can cure the nation's crime prob-lem-It cannot-but whether J,EAA can be altered and restructured In order to make a more meaningful contribution. I believe It can. s. 8270 attempts to provide the type of comprehensive reform which has not taken place during the last decade. I believe this bill and these hearings will go a long way In making J,EAA the type ot federal agencf contemplated by Congress . when It enacted the LEAA program In 1968.

The Justlct'! System Improvement Act la not ll palliative; It conatltutes a major break with the existing program. All of the major concepts found In the current statute-block grant assistance, discretionary funding, the National Institute of Justice, criminal Justice planning-are substantially reatructured and reorga. nlzed to meet the constructl\"e crltlclRlns raised during recent years. Thus, the blU: (1) creates n separate National Institute of Justice and Bureau ot Justl~ Statistics within the Justice Department-and outside ot J,EAA-and places botb ot them, In addition to f,EAA under a new umbrella office-the Office ot Justlce-,\sslstance, Researcb and Statistics: (2) eliminates the annual comprebenslve-plan requirement and Its attendant red tape; (8) repl1tce11 state planning agen-cies; (4) prohibits the expenditure of LJo~AA funds tor equipment and hardware· unless such expenditures are a necessary part of a larger Innovative program;. (Ii) gh·es special emphasis to Judicial needs and programs; (OJ provides dlreet ftnanclal assistance to larger cities and counties: (7) provides greater com~ munlty and neighborhood Involvement In choosing local priorities and (8) crE>ntes new criminal Justice formulas to target funds to local areas of greatest•need.

I look tonvard to the upcoming testimony on 8.-8270 and other J,EAA bills, ns we attempt to fashion a ftnal leglslath·e product which will 111lve LEA.\ an opportunity-long overdue-to mnke a more meaningful contribution to the local war on crime. The provisions ot theaP bllla are not etched In stone; I believe we can do an even better job. The hearln111s, beginning today and cont.Inning Into next year, will give u11 an extended opportunity to examine thP strengths and weak· nessea ot the pending legl11latlon. What Is needed during the- months ahead Is the mluable Input ot those manning the front lines In the battle against crime-the llOllce, Judges, corrections omcers, district attorneys and the defense bar. These hearings will al110 al!ord an opportunity for us to hPar from the governors. tnayors, county oftlclnls, criminal Justice planners and all those who have a \•ery real, dl'fllt'ated lntert'st In seeing the LEAA program work. The hearlnp are designed to assure thnt the Amerlcnn taxpayer wlll receive a better return on hl11 or her ln\'E>stment ln thP. "'llr on <'rime than on the $6 billion spent so tar. We owe It to the public to put thla agency In order and to restore the confidence of the Pf'Ople that we are making progress In dealing with the problem of crime In America.

Senator DtoEN. Senator Thurmoncl f Senator TnURHOND. Mr. Chairman, today the C1·iminal J .. aws Sub-

committee lx>gins its o\·ersigl1t nn<l t't'ntttliorizntion process for the

ADD90


)

>

)

Hon. WALTER F. l\lo:SDALE, Vice President of t'lle U11itcd States The Whtte House, ' Washington, D.O.

383

0FFIC'E OF THE ATTORNEY GENERA!., ll'a.,hinoton, n.r., .fuly 10, 1978.

DEAR MR. VICE PREBlDE:'l"T: Enclosed for your conslderRtlon Is R leglslaliw proposal entitled the "Justice System Im11rovement Act of 1978'' which amends In Its entirety Title I of the Omnibus Crlme Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. This proposal restructures the }'edernl Law Enforcement Assistance Ad-ministration and Is Intended to assist state and local governments In Improving the qualltv of their justice systems.

The Ju~tlce System Improvement Act provides a four-year authorization for Justice assistance, research and statlstks progrnms. The Act ls slgn!Hcantl:I' dlft'erent thRn the current LEAA statute and makeR major strncturnl and sub-stantive changes In tbe financial assi~tnnce. research nud statistical programs now being administered by LEAA.

The Act Is designed to correct the major criticisms directed at the r,EAA pro-gram by simplifying the grant process Rnd eliminating necdless red tape, by the targeting of funds, by strengthening the role of local governments in the pro-gram, by eliminating wasteful use of LEAA funds, by lncreRslng community participation In the LEAA program, and by lmpro\·lng justice research, demon-stration, and statistics programs.

More specifically, the bill can be described as follows:

(1) STATE AND LoCAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

The bill replaces the current LEAA block and discretionary grant programs with a formula grant program, a priority grant program, nnd a dis~retlonnry grant program. Seventy percent of such funds must he set nslde for formula grants, twenty percent for priority grants and ten percent for discretionary grants. These grants are to be administered hy J,J<:AA and I,EAA Is to be under the direct authority of the Attorney General. l:ndPr the bill. lht Administrator of LEAA has final sign-off authority on nil grants and contracts and reports to thE" head of au Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics established by the bill.

FORMULA GRANTS

The bill contemplates the submission to LEAA of a very simple three-year appllcutlon which would not contain much of the verbiage that hn~ led to lnr1wr paper submission requirements under current law. The application must be based on an analysis of the crime problems In the state and must Include priori-ties for addressing tlie~e crime problems.

Under the new bill, the state Is authorized to prepare those parts of the appli-cation which relate to stat!.' agencies Rnd to cities umler 100,000 population 1md counties under 250,000 population. The state courts through .TudlclRl Coordinat-ing CommUtees are authorized to p~pnre n single ap11Jlcat1011 for state court Rcth•ltles. Each major dty and county is authorized to prepare n single apr,llca-tlon for their own actlvltle~. The State would then Integrate these applications Into a single application to be submitted to LEAA.

The state review of the application from major cities and <'ountles under the bill Is limited. AppllcRtlons can only be reviewed tor compllancl' with FederRl requirements ancl state law, for duplication of other project8, and for lncon-slsten<'ies with priorities. Any d!sagrel'mcmts hctween state and largl' unlti< of local go,·ernment must be rcsolverl through arbitration.

Formula grant funds are to be d\str\butecl on the hRsls of R national formula "1th a hold hnrmle~s provision which assures that no state recPlves less than a population share of the funds as undl'r current law. The bill also contain11 pro\'l-slons under which some states wlth partic11l11rly severe crime 11rohlems recein• additional funds based on n formula thRt takes into account crime. population, tax eft'ort, and criminal justice expenditures. ·

Major cities and counties receh·e n llxl'rl allotment of funds from the Mate i<hnre. The amount of funds received Is determined by 11 formula bas~d on crimlnRI jus-tice expenditures.

ADD91


384

An annual performance report must be submitted to LEAA each year by each state. LEAA must review thla performance report and, lf based on this perform-ance report or on LEAA's Independent evaluation lt ls determined that the funds were not being used elfectl\"ely, LEAA must either suspend all funds going to a jurisdiction or suspend only those funds which would be otherwise used tor an Ineffective program or project.

The annual state comprehenslv~ plt.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 and annual performance reports, could be cut by 711 percent.

NATIONAL PIUOBITY GRANTS

Under the priority grants provisions of the blll, the OiDce of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics ls directed, after consultation with the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, state and !()('al government~. and others to establish programs for priority grant funding which have been shown through re~earC"b, demonstration or e\·aluatlon, to he particularly elfectlve In llnprOl'lng the criminal justice s~·11tem nod reducing crime.

In order to receive a priority grant, a sta<te or local government must provide tor 50 percent of the cost of the program or project. In providing such a matching share, a recipient can use the to1mula grant, general revenue sharing funds, state and local appropriations, or any other source of funds available for that juris-diction.

DISC&ETIONABY GRANTS

The blll also authorizes LEAA to award discretionary grants. Under the blll, these grants are to be used to fund programs tor Improving the criminal justice system which might not be otherwise undertaken ur1er the formula or priority grant programs.

(2) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

The blll create11 a National Institute of Justice wltbln the Justice Department that replaces two eslstlng 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 blll author-Ir.es the National Instttute of Justice to undertake basic and applied research in the areas of civil and criminal justice and to conduct evaluations and sponsor demonstrations in these areas. To Insure the independence and integrity of the research operation, the blll glftB the Director ot the National Institute of Justice slgn-olf authority tor all grants and contracts to be awarded by the National In-stitute of Justice. To Insure administrative responslblllty, the Director of the National Institute of Justice reports to the Director of the Ofllce of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics: The blll establishes a National Insti-tute 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 practitioners, state and lO<'al omclals, ofllclals of neighborhood and com-muntly organizations, and citizens. The board would have authority to de'l"elop, ln conjunction with the Director, policies and priorities for the National Institute of Justice.

(8) BUREAU 01' JUSTICE STATISTICS

The bill also creates a Bureau of Justice Statistics within the Department of Justice under the direct authority of the Attomey General. Under the bill, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports to tbe Director of the Ofllce of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics and has final slgn-otr authority tor all grants and contracts to be awarded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics Is authorized to collect, analyze and disseminate statistics on criminal and civil Justice matters.

The blll establishes a Bureau of Justice Statl11tlcs advisory board to be ap-pointed by the Attomey General and to ronsl11t of a broadly based group of re-searchers, statisticians, Justice practitioners, state and local ofllclals and cltlzene.

(

The hoard would ha'l"e authority to recommend to the Director polleles and prior- ( ltles for the.Bureau of Justice. Statistics.

Prompt and favorable consideration of the proposed "Justice Syl!ltem Improve-ment Act of 1978" ls recommended. In addition to the bill, there la enclosed a

ADD92


)

3S5

section-by-section analysis. The Office of lifanagement and Budget has advl11ed that there fs no objection to the sul:imlSBion of this legislative proposal to the Congress and that Its enactment would be In accord with the program of the President.

Yours sincerely, GBIFnN B. BELL, Attorney General.

Enclosure. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALfSIS

Section 2-Title I ot the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, is amended In Its entirety as follows:

The Declaration and Purpose Clause sets out justice system Improvement aa the overall purpose of the new title. The clause provides that the policy of Con-gress is (1) to provide financial and technical assistance with maximum cer-tainty and minimum delay; (2) to support community anti-crime efforts; (3) to encourage development of basic and applied research In the civil, criminal, and juvenile justice systems; and ( 4) encourage the collection and analysts of statistical Information concerning crime and the operation ot justice systems.

PA.BT .&-LAW ENFOBCEMl':NT .&SSIST.&NCl!l .&DMINlSTBATION

Section 101-Sectlon 101 of Part A retains within the Department of Justice, under the direct authority of the Attorney General, a Law Enforcement ABBlst· 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--Sectlon 102 sets out the duties and functions of the Admin-istrator.

Section 103-Sectlon 108 i·etalns within the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration the Office of Community Anti-Crime Programs. This office ls au-thorized to encourage community and citizen participation In crime prevention, to coordinate Its &ctlvtles with ACTION and other Federal programs designed to lncrea~e citizen participation, and to provide grants and technical assistance for such purposes.

PART B-N.&TIOllfAL llUTJ"l'tlTl!l OF Jt7STJCI':

Sections 201 and 203-These sections establish within the Department of Jus-tice, under the direct authority of the Attorney General, a National Institute of Justice. The Institute ls to be headed by a Director who will report to the Direc-tor of the Oftlce of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics.

Section 202(c)-Sectlon 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 spl'Clal projects; (2) con-ducting or authorizing multi-year and short term research In civil, criminal, and juvenile Justice systems; (3) conducting evaluations; (4) providing research fellowships and Internships; (15) serving as a national and International clear-inghouse; (6) serving In a consulting capacity to Federal, State, and local Justice systems .

. Section 202(d)-Sectlon 202(d) sets out the functions and authority of the Director of the Institute.

Section 203-Sectlon 203 provides that grants under Part B may be up to 100 per ceratum of the total ~ost of each project.

Section 204-Sectlon 204 establlshes a 21 member National Institute of 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 tor the National Institute of Justice.

) PART C--BUllEAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS

Sections 801 and 802-Sectlons 801 and 802 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 will report to

l the Director of the Oftlce of Justice Assistance. Research and Statistics. Section 302(c)-Sectlon 302(c) sets out the authority of the Bureau. This au·

tborlty Includes: ( 1) making grants and entering Into cooperative agreements and contracts for the purpose of gathering justice statistics; (2) collecting and

ADD93


NEWS RELEASE ---....

Qlflli IU APfllWU LIM llmGMllATD

PETER W. RODINO ·--·--°""""" CanldNI"' lhl Judldlrt u.s. .... a1 ..... -·--

'PIMI .. I. C. - .. -- ..........., a.ltttt, W a 2' to I ftto 1 lppHvt4 Mtlr I MU ....... ldat tilt._ ldlm:1111t Alllll- *lnl1tntte11 ... lalli tlllDll ......... --la • •tl..U. P"tlla local Wltlll •

... ~ ......... ··-., • oomlttff .... tlll '111 11

prlWJ .,..., • ..W It""'""" a 1l .. lft..-t tllprow-t In U!AA'• ttneture ........ 1t1 •• ""'* "'il ... It ... 1ff9ctlw la ........ local IOftr~C• ~ aim."

llt tal4 1M MU ......... • ~ HJ.:1 In ti.. lll'IU of .... _ ,... .......... ,.tt .... lfllCial ..... , ......... ""1cls llavl ........ _ .. - • .,., •••• , • C-.lt'I Mtl.CJUa PfOlll9."

"If • .. ewr to Mkt ... 1 Pf01ft11 lD ncluciq m.a, "' _, ••=• •flWU '1 local Cllttaw •an wt fmU.ar wttll tta. dlnpn 111111 - -ef Cl'UI,'" ........

n. t.tU ..Sd nquln 10\ of 111 Ll!AA funds to IO for tb• c-lt7 ..U-ot. ~Illich Jll'090tU cri• pnmrtl1111 actlvitln by DOR• ae•c I Ill Witf •WJPS.

1be bill also prori.cles a Dinlam of 20\ of Ll!AA fads for juvenile •1-..111r ,...._ ldth l'l'iMIY lllphuis oa seriOUI Juvenile offeaden.

lodlllo said ''tM bill is desiped to dr1&Stlcally reduce the red upe "'1m IMul plqaecl the pncess of aettin1 fedenl u1l1taDCe to states end local IO'WIIWlltS,"

ly requlrtn, state and local SoVemments to submit one application nny tllfte ,_an instead of mnually, the bill is npected to reduce papenurk by 60\.

'Die bill also would aet up new ''priority P'lftts" which would provide e:rtn money to prosrms that have proven especially effective in c:Gllbattlq en..

A aure.a of Justice Statistics also would be establlsW to collect llld .. 1yze information concemlng cri•, juvenile delinquency ud tbe operatloa of the crillinal justice systa at various lcmtls of aoniment.

Rodino said lie would "Push W1'Y stronily for this bill'• 11pproval by the House bee.use crille is a probl• whldl CGDCer.·s all of us -· and LEM ls the oaly inst1'Wleat that the federal government has to assist states ad localities to ftaltt c:rt.e."

- 30.

ADD94


POR RELEASE SUNDAY NAY 6, 1979, AND AFl'ER CONTACf: JOHN RUSSC*ELLO 202-225-3436

.aDIJIO LEMJS PIQIT TO SAYE I.BM

llASHJ1'GTON. D. c. -- Peter w. todlno. Oa.alnan of th• House JucUctary Comittff. ls le.st.as a ftaht to MW tM .._ l!lnforcment A11lttace Adalniltratlon from drastic budpt c:uu la lHO.

Rodino U. .. t a letter to al I ltauM ..-.n uklna thea to vote qatut all -•lll11ats to the Fiscal 1980 Waet Resolution which would ellllinate 01' ~ the -t Coqnss ca IU'tlliorln for LEM In IHO.

"I • corthcM that naw ts not t.M tl• to ablftdon I.BAA, which 11 our lut ..-lalq fHenl ~'-t to the flaht qa1n1t 1tnet cri•," Rodino said.

"I think tUt tlae l'9C8t ell•t• to cut expenditun1 acro11•the-board cm be lnelPOft•lble .._ JOU an C0111iderln1 vital proarau," he ldded.

Ht po111ted out that the $546 •lllion propo1ed by the 19&0 bud1et nsolutloa ts a •dest ..,.., to spend for crillinal justice usistance •• sub1tatlally be law that approprlatecl for fiscal 1979."

Ht also ld4ed, "Cri• continues to rank very hish aon1 the concems of Mericaa, particularly those in our cities; yet less than one percent of the federal asabtence that will be awarded to state and local govenments next year will be allocated to LEAA under the 1980 budget resolution."

lie proatsed to ''aalce an all-out effort to save this program because I know bow hlportant it is to our states and localities. There 1aist be a national ~tmllt to fight crime, and lf we abaondon LEM we will be tuming our backs on the probl•."

11'e House will be considering the 1980 budget resolution on Monday and 1'aesday next veek.

Rodino also announced that the House Judiciary COllllittee would begin on Tuesday urlting up legislation to reorganize and restructure the LEM.

''The committee's goal will be to allow the successful projects under LEM to continue, while eliminating the less productive aspects of the prograa," Rodino said.

He noted that 0 the costs of more than 65\ of the projects initially flmded by LE.AA are now financed by the participating cOlllDWlities or states."

Rodino is the principal sponsor of an LEAA nauthorhation proposal in bis c~ttee, which he introduced for President Carter this year.

He said that the Judiciary COmDittee ''must complete consideration of LEM by May 15th according to the time limits established by the House budget process.

"If the House cuts the Budget authority for LEAA, it will tie the hands of the comiuee to decide the aost constructive proposal to reorganize the agency.

"CriM is a national problem and LEM ls the only instl'Ullent that the federal aowmment has to assist states and localities to fight cri•."

- 30 -

ADD95


r )>

t; c

:1 c

1: co

· I

0)

i ! h \ i i \

... · ..

:-:::-:7'.-:

:.::

:=.:

::=~

====

--..

:..:

:: . .::

::::-::-.:::=::=:-:--=-.--:-;.-:::-:::-:-=~"""·-=--=-.:..:..-:~· =

"---

.

'?.f'Y

J'.(;

Fede

ral Ai~ to

.. ·C

rimin

al Ju

stice

Rh

etoric

, Re~s, L

esso

ns

John

K. R

udzi

k Pr

inci

pal A

utho

r

with

cont

ribu

tions

by

Thom

as J.

Mad

den

and

Erne

st E

. Alle

n C

orne

lius J

. Beh

an

Geo

ff G

alla

s R

ober

t M. M

orge

ntha

u R

ober

t L. S

i;nith

1984

The

Nat

iona

l Crim

inal

Just

ice

Ass

ocia

tion

Was

hing

ton,

D.C

.

I I

\ \

' '

.,

·--

""'


:'-

-1

)lo c c U

) ......

\ ·'·

14

"Fed

eral

Aid

to C

rimin

al Ju

stice

"

the

findi

ngs

and

reco

mm

enda

tions

wer

e ba

sed

on t

he m

ost

com

pre-

hens

ive

revi

ew e

ver u

nder

take

n of

the

natu

re a

nd c

ause

s of

crim

e, o

f th

e pe

rfor

man

ce a

nd c

apab

ility

of t

he c

rimin

al ju

stic

e sy

stem

, and

of

the

prob

lem

s co

nfro

nted

by

that

syste

m. C

ritic

ism

was

leve

lled

not s

o m

uch

agai

nst

the

Com

mis

sion

's fin

ding

s an

d co

nclu

sion

s as

aga

inst

its

failu

re to

offe

r con

cret

e sug

gest

ions

for m

eani

ngfu

lly a

ffect

ing

crim

e in

the

near

term

. 34 Th

is to

o w

ould

be

addr

esse

d if

not

reso

lved

in t

he

deba

tes

surr

ound

ing

pass

age

of th

e Sa

fe S

treet

s A

ct in

196

8.

Safe

Str

eets

: Th

e Pa

nopl

y of

Con

flict

ing

Vie

ws

By 1

967

repo

rts o

f crim

e co

ntin

ued

to p

aint

an

incr

easin

gly

gloo

my

pict

ure.

Civ

il di

sord

ers

of m

assiv

e pr

opor

tions

eng

ulfe

d se

vera

l Am

er-

ican

citi

es d

urin

g th

e su

mm

ers

of 1

965,

196

6, a

nd 1

967.

Pub

lic i

re

and

conc

ern

requ

ired

a fe

dera

l res

pons

e gr

eate

r tha

n th

at m

ade

unde

r pr

ovisi

ons

of th

e 19

65 L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent A

ssis

tanc

e A

ct. I

n re

spon

se,

Pres

iden

t Joh

nson

sen

t C

ongr

ess

a le

gisla

tive

mes

sage

on

crim

e (h

is th

ird)

that

inc

lude

d a

prop

osed

bill

ent

itled

, "T

he S

afe

Stre

ets

and

Crim

e C

ontro

l A

ct o

f 19

67."

The

Pres

iden

t's m

essa

ge w

as d

eliv

ered

on

Feb

ruar

y 6,

1967

, and

thirt

een

days

late

r the

Pre

side

nt's

Com

mis-

sion

issue

d its

long

aw

aite

d re

port.

The

tim

ing

of th

e tw

o ev

ents

was

no

t acc

iden

tal,

and

the

title

of t

he P

resi

dent

's bi

ll w

as c

alcu

late

d to

el

icit

max

imum

pos

itive

pol

itica

l res

pons

e.

The

Safe

Stre

ets B

ill re

cogn

ized

the

prim

acy

of st

ate

and

loca

l pol

ice

pow

ers;

all o

f its

pro

visio

ns w

ere

aim

ed a

t ass

istin

g th

e st

ates

in p

er-

form

ing

thei

r fun

ctio

ns r

athe

r th

an a

t ta

king

ove

r tho

se f

unct

ions

or

undu

ly i

nter

ferin

g in

the

per

form

ance

of

them

. Sp

ecifi

c pr

ovisi

ons

incl

uded

pro

posa

ls o

f ass

ista

nce t

o m

oder

nize

equ

ipm

ent,

to re

orga

nize

la

w en

forc

emen

t age

ncie

s, to

recr

uit a

nd tr

ain

law

enf

orce

men

t offi

cers

, to

mod

erni

ze th

e co

urt 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. Ev

en

thou

gh se

vera

l por

tions

of t

he b

ill o

ffere

d as

sist

ance

to c

orre

ctio

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 t

he p

ublic

that

the

assi

stan

ce w

as p

rimar

ily, i

f no

t exc

lusiv

ely,

aim

ed t

owar

d la

w e

nfor

cem

ent.

Bot

h th

e Pr

esid

ent's

pr

opos

ed le

gisl

atio

n an

d th

e su

bseq

uent

repo

rt of

his

Com

miss

ion

gave

fo

rthrig

ht r

ecog

nitio

n to

the

conc

ept o

f a c

rimin

al ju

stic

e sy

stem

-an

inte

rrel

ated

and

int

erde

pend

ent

grou

p of

"cr

ime-

fight

ing"

age

ncie

s.

The

Orig

ins

of L

EAA

15

Yet

, du

ring

deba

te a

nd p

assa

ge o

f the

leg

islat

ion

ther

e w

as l

ittle

to

indi

cate

tha

t thi

s co

ncep

t rec

eive

d m

arke

d re

cogn

ition

or t

reat

men

t. Th

e Pr

esid

ent's

Saf

e St

reet

s pr

opos

als

wer

e cl

osel

y fa

shio

ned

afte

r th

e ap

proa

ch u

nder

take

n in

the

196

5 La

w E

nfor

cem

ent

Ass

ista

nce

Act

. The

gra

nts

wou

ld f

und

inno

vatio

n an

d im

prov

emen

t in

a va

riety

of

cate

gorie

s. G

rant

adm

inis

tratio

n w

ould

be f

eder

ally

con

trolle

d un

der

the

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

. The

re w

as m

uch

mor

e m

oney

invo

lved

in t

he

1967

pro

posa

ls, b

ut th

e int

ent o

f gra

nts-

in-a

id, a

s in

the

1965

legi

slatio

n,

wou

ld b

e to

mak

e di

rect

"c-

.ateg

oric

al"

gran

ts. C

ities

with

a p

opul

atio

n of

fifty

thou

sand

or m

ore

(follo

win

g th

e co

urse

laid

out

by

othe

r gre

at-

soci

ety

fund

ing

vent

ures

) wou

ld b

e elig

ible

for a

ctio

n fu

nds,

but f

undi

ng

leve

ls pr

opos

ed w

ere

far

smal

ler

than

thos

e pr

opos

ed f

or o

ther

gre

at-

soci

ety

prog

ram

effo

rts s

uch

as O

EO

." T

his m

ay h

ave b

een

a co

nsci

ous

effo

rt to

shi

eld

the

crim

e pr

opos

als

from

the

typ

e of

crit

icis

m t

hen

bein

g le

velle

d by

Con

gres

s aga

inst

OE

O-n

amel

y, th

at O

EO h

ad g

one

in t

oo f

ast

with

too

muc

h an

d ha

d pr

oduc

ed m

assiv

e w

aste

bec

ause

th

e in

fras

truct

ure

was

not

ava

ilabl

e to

man

age

the

fund

s ef

fect

ivel

y.'6

·Alth

ough

the

Pres

iden

t's fu

ndin

g an

d pr

ogra

m p

ropo

sals

wer

e lim

-ite

d to

inno

vatio

n an

d im

prov

emen

t tha

t w

ere

likel

y to

hav

e a

signi

-fic

ant

effe

ct o

n th

e cr

ime

prob

lem

onl

y in

the

lon

g ru

n, t

he p

ublic

an

d C

ongr

ess w

ere f

or q

uick

er fi

xes.

Part

of t

his d

ispa

rity

can

be tr

aced

to

Pre

side

nt J

ohns

on h

imse

lf: i

n 19

65 h

e ch

arge

d hi

s C

rime

Com

-m

issio

n to

find

the

way

s no

t onl

y to

redu

ce c

rime

but t

o ''b

anis

h" it

.37

Late

r at

tem

pts

by t

he P

resi

dent

to

retre

at f

rom

thi

s ex

cess

ive

goal

w

ere t

oo la

te-t

he pu

blic

was

fixe

d on

the n

otio

n of

quic

kly

min

imiz

ing

if no

t elim

inat

ing

crim

e. T

he P

resi

dent

's C

omm

issi

on in

its f

inal

rep

ort

did

not h

elp

in s

ettin

g ex

pect

atio

ns s

traig

ht:

at o

ne p

oint

it a

sser

ted,

"A

mer

ica

can

cont

rol c

rime.

"38 Th

e C

omm

issio

n no

ted

that

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, t

he n

atio

n w

as m

ovin

g th

roug

h a

perio

d of

unbr

idle

d fa

ith i

n th

e po

wer

of

mon

ey a

nd e

spec

ially

in

the

pow

er o

f fed

eral

ex

pend

iture

s to

sol

ve p

robl

ems.

Cha

pter

2 w

ill t

reat

the

legi

slativ

e de

bate

s an

d fin

al f

eatu

res

of th

e Sa

fe S

treet

s A

ct in

gre

ater

det

ail.

How

ever

, th

ere

are

aspe

cts

to t

hat

deba

te a

nd to

the

chan

ges

subs

eque

ntly

mad

e to

the

Pres

iden

t's p

ro-

posa

l th

at r

efle

ct t

he s

ever

al c

ompe

ting

soci

al a

nd p

oliti

cal

forc

es

disc

usse

d ab

ove.

Cle

arly

, the

stat

e's p

rero

gativ

es in

exer

cisin

g th

e pol

ice

pow

er w

ere

hotly

at i

ssue

. So

, too

, th

e ge

t-tou

gh p

refe

renc

es o

f con

-se

rvat

ives

, lar

gely

igno

red

in P

resi

dent

John

son'

s leg

islat

ive

prop

osal

s,

".1"


r )> c c co

co

\

The

Orig

ins

of L

EAA

21

26.

Ric

hard

Har

ris,

The

Fea

r o

f Cri

me,

(N

ew Y

odc,

Fre

deri

ck A

. Pr

acge

r, 19

68),

p. 1

0. A

lso

see

Wal

ker,

op. c

iL, p

. 23

1.

27.

Lyn

don

John

son,

The

Cho

ices

We

Foce

(N

ew Y

ork:

Ban

tam

Boo

ks,

1969

), p.

125

. 28

. Se

e C

apla

n, o

p. c

it., p

. 58

6.

29.

Wal

ter B

. Mill

er, "

Ideo

logy

and

Cri

min

al Ju

stic

e Po

licy:

Som

e C

urre

nt Is

sues

," J

ourn

al o

f C

rim

inal

Law

and

Crim

inol

ogy

64,

no.

2 (J

une,

197

J), p

. 14

1.

30.

Cap

lan,

op.

cit.

, p.

590

. JI

. H

eari

ngs

on S

. 17

92 a

nd S

. 18

25 b

efor

e a

Subc

omm

ittee

of t

he S

enat

e C

omm

ittee

on

the

· Ju

dici

ary,

89t

h C

ongr

ess,

1st

sess

ion

{196

5), p

. 7.

J2.

Cap

lan,

op.

cit.

, pp

. 59

J-59

4.

JJ.

The

Pre

side

nt's

Com

mis

sion

on

Law

Enf

orce

men

t an

d A

dmin

istr

atio

n of

Just

ice

Rep

ort,

op. c

it., p

. I 5

. J4

. Se

e, f

or e

JUllD

ple, J

ames

Q. W

ilaon

, "A

Rea

der's

Gui

de to

the

Cri

me

Com

mis

sion

Rep

orts

,"

The

Publ

ic In

teres

t, Fa

ll, 1

967,

p. 6

5. A

lso

see,

Hen

ry R

uth,

''T

o D

ust S

ball

Ye

Ret

urn?

", N

otre

D

ame

La..,

..r 43

(19

68),

p. 8

11.

JS.

11re

Budg

et in

Brie

f, Ex

ecut

ive

Otfl

ce o

f the

Presiden~ B

urea

u of

the

Bud

get,

U.S

. G

ov-

ernm

ent P

rint

ing

Offi

ce. S

ee th

ese

for

the

year

s 19

65-1

969.

36

. Th

omas

E. C

roni

n, T

ania

Z. C

roni

n, a

nd M

icha

el E

. Mila

kovi

cb, U

.S.

v. C

rim

e in

the S

tree

ts

{Blo

omin

gton

: Ind

iana

Uni

vers

ity P

ress

, 19

81),

p. 3

2.

J7.

Publ

ic P

aper

s of

the

Pres

iden

ts o

f the

Uni

ted

Slat

es,

Lynd

on B

. Joh

nson

, 19

6S {

1966

) pp

. 98

2-8J

. 38

. Th

e Pr

esid

ent's

Com

miss

ion

on L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent a

nd A

dmin

istra

tion

of Ju

stice

, The

Cha

i· len

ge o

f Cri

me

in a

Fre

e So

c/tty

(N

ew Y

ork,

Avo

n Bo

oks,

1968

), p.

621

. J9

. C

roni

n, C

roni

n, a

nd M

ilako

vicb

, op.

cit.

, PP:

SO

-SJ.

40.

law

Enf

orce

men

t A

ssist

ance

Adm

inist

ratio

n, O

ffice

of

Gen

eral

Coun

sel,

"Ind

ex t

o th

e Le

gisl

ativ

e H

isto

ry o

f the

Om

nibu

s C

rim

e C

ontr

ol a

nd S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

of 1

968,

" Ja

nuar

y 2J

, 19

7J, p

. 11

7.

41.

Cro

nin

et a

l, o

p. c

it., p

. SI

. 42

. LE

AA

, om

ce o

f Gen

eral

Coonse~ o

p. c

it., p

. 24

0. 4J

. Ib

id,

p. 2

38.

44.

Wal

ker,

op.

cit.,

p.

2J7.

I ..

Cha

pter

2

·LA

WS

AN

D R

EG

UL

AT

ION

S G

OV

ER

NIN

G T

HE

LE

AA

PR

OG

RA

M

Thom

as J

. Mad

den

In t

he 1

960s

, C

ongr

ess

bega

n to

use

the

con

stitu

tiona

l sp

endi

ng

pow

er to

exer

t sub

stan

tial p

olic

y co

ntro

ls o

ver s

tate

and

loca

l fun

ctio

ns

and

to c

reat

e a

host

of n

ew g

rant

pro

gram

s. In

196

2, t

here

wer

e on

ly

160

fede

ral g

rant

pro

gram

s au

thor

ized

by

the

Con

gres

s.' B

y Ja

nuar

y of

196

7, 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 in

terg

over

nmen

tal

gran

t pr

ogra

ms

had

grow

n to

379

with

som

e 10

9 ne

w g

rant

pro

gram

s be

ing

enac

ted

in

1965

alo

ne.'

Fede

ral

assi

stan

ce i

n do

llar

term

s m

ore

than

dou

bled

be

twee

n 19

63 a

nd 1

967,

risi

ng f

rom

7.7

per

cent

to 1

1 pe

rcen

t of a

ll

fede

ral b

udge

t out

lays

and

from

1.5

per

cent

to 2

.2 p

erce

nt o

f the

gro

ss

natio

nal p

rodu

ct. 3

By 1

967,

it w

as al

so cl

ear t

hat t

he n

ew p

rogr

ams a

nd la

ws c

ontro

lling

th

e ex

pend

iture

of t

he n

ew g

rant

s• h

ad s

ubst

antia

lly a

ltere

d th

e re

la-

tions

hips

bet

wee

n st

ate,

loc

al,

and

fede

ral

gove

rnm

ent

rela

tions

hips

w

ithou

t es

tabl

ishi

ng a

n es

sent

ial

ratio

nale

for

assig

ning

int

ergo

vern

-m

enta

l fun

ctio

ns o

ther

than

tha

t of p

ragm

atic

pol

itics

.• Th

e Sa

fe S

treet

s A

ct fo

llow

ed th

e pa

ttern

lead

ing

to th

e cr

eatio

n of

m

any

of th

ese

new

pro

gram

s. Th

e ris

e in

crim

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

Pres

iden

t Joh

nson

in a

crim

e m

essa

ge i

n 19

65 c

allin

g fo

r a

natio

nal

resp

onse

to th

e crim

e pro

blem

.• Th

is m

essa

ge w

as fo

llow

ed b

y C

ongr

es-

sion

al e

nact

men

t of

a s

mal

l cr

imin

al ju

stic

e as

sista

nce

prog

ram

and

th

e ap

poin

tmen

t of t

he P

resi

dent

's C

omm

issi

on o

n La

w E

nfor

cem

ent

and

the

Adm

inis

tratio

n of

Just

ice.

7 T

he C

omm

issi

on d

ocum

ente

d th

e ne

ed f

or. a

maj

or f

eder

al r

espo

nse

to s

tate

and

loca

l crim

e pr

oble

ms,

and

Con

gres

s re

spon

ded

with

the

Om

nibu

s C

rime

Con

trol

and

Safe

St

reet

s A

ct.

Whe

n C

ongr

ess

took

up

the

deba

te o

n Pr

esid

ent J

ohns

on's

prop

osal

in

196

7 to

cre

ate

a m

ajor

new

crim

inal

just

ice

assi

stan

ce p

rogr

am,

it qu

ickl

y be

cam

e cl

ear t

hat t

here

wer

e tw

o iss

ues

of ov

errid

ing

conc

ern

to t

he c

onse

rvat

ive

mem

bers

who

wer

e in

a p

ositi

on t

o co

ntro

l th

e

Preced

inl pag

e lllan

k 23

" .

..


)> c c co

co

'

24

"Fed

eral

Aid

to C

rimin

al J

ustic

e"

deba

te. T

he fi

rst

was

a c

once

rn t

hat b

y ve

sting

the

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

w

ith th

e au

thor

ity to

pro

vide

gra

nts

to s

tate

s, th

e Co

ngre

ss w

ould

also

be

giv

ing

the

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

the

pow

er to

con

trol s

tate

and

loc

al

law

enf

orce

men

t ag

enci

es a

nd w

ould

the

reby

be

natio

naliz

ing

stat

e an

d lo

cal l

aw e

nfor

cem

ent f

unct

ions

. The

sec

ond

and

rela

ted

conc

ern

was

that

the

John

son

prop

osal

byp

asse

d st

ate

gove

rnm

ent a

nd a

llow

ed

the

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

to d

eal d

irect

ly w

ith c

ities

in m

akin

g gr

ants

. In

the

view

of t

hen

Hou

se M

inor

ity L

eade

r G

eral

d R

. Fo

rd, a

"di

rect

" fe

dera

lism

app

roac

h w

ould

ena

ble

the

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

to "

arbi

trar-

ily"

deci

de w

hich

loca

l law

enf

orce

men

t age

ncie

s w

ould

rece

ive

fund

s an

d w

hat t

hese

age

ncie

s co

uld

do w

ith th

e fu

nds.'

Th

e Se

nate

Jud

icia

ry C

omm

ittee

was

the

initi

al f

ocus

of m

uch

of

the

conc

ern

over

the

crea

tion

of th

e na

tiona

l pol

ice f

orce

. The

min

ority

re

port

of th

e co

mm

ittee

, for

exa

mpl

e, i

n co

mm

entin

g on

the

disc

re-

tiona

ry a

utho

rity

give

n to

the

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

to m

ake

gran

ts st

ated

:

[W]e

don

't w

ant t

he A

ttorn

ey G

ener

al,

the

so-c

alle

d "M

r. B

ig"

of F

eder

al la

w e

nfor

cem

ent t

o be

com

e th

e di

rect

or o

f Sta

te a

nd

loca

l law

enf

orce

men

t as w

ell.

It is

true

that

the

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

is

the

chie

f law

enf

orce

men

t offi

cer

of th

e Fe

dera

l go

vern

men

t. B

ut h

e is

not c

hief

law

enf

orce

men

t offi

cer

of S

tate

s an

d ci

ties.

We

belie

ve A

mer

ica

does

not

wan

t him

to

serv

e in

tha

t cap

ac-

ity ..

.. W

e do

n't

wan

t th

is b

ill t

o be

com

e th

e ve

hicl

e fo

r th

e im

posi

tion

of F

eder

al g

uide

lines

, con

trols

, and

dom

inat

ion.

• Th

e H

ouse

of

Rep

rese

ntat

ives

, w

hich

act

ed f

irst

on t

he J

ohns

on

prop

osal

, ha

d ac

cept

ed t

he v

iew t

hat

the

stat

es s

houl

d ha

ve c

ontro

l ov

er e

xpen

ditu

res

by l

ocal

gov

ernm

ent.10

Th

is v

iew w

as r

ejec

ted

by

the

Sena

te J

udic

iary

Com

mitt

ee"

and

the

Sena

te f

loor

bec

ame

the

foru

m f

or t

he k

ey d

ebat

e on

this

issue

. Th

e co

ntes

t was

bet

wee

n th

e su

ppor

ters

of d

irect

fede

ralis

m-l

arge

city

may

ors

and

thei

r Con

gres

-si

onal

sup

port

ers-

and

the

supp

orte

rs o

f st

ate

cont

rol

thro

ugh

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

ublic

an s

enat

ors

and

sout

hern

Dem

ocra

tic s

enat

ors.

Am

endm

ents

to

conv

ert

the

Sena

te C

omm

ittee

bill

fro

m a

dire

ct

loca

l aid

pro

gram

to a

sta

te b

lock

gra

nt p

rogr

am w

ere

intro

duce

d by

Se

nate

Min

ority

Lea

der

Ever

ett

M.

Dirk

sen.

Sen

ator

Dirk

sen

con-

tend

ed th

at g

uber

nato

rial s

uper

visio

n ov

er st

ate p

lann

ing

was

nec

essa

ry

to a

void

dup

licat

ion

or co

nflic

t bet

wee

n lo

cal a

nd st

ate c

rime

redu

ctio

n pl

ans

and

prog

ram

s. In

the

deba

te h

e st

ated

tha

t:

- '· \ & . t, I I I l ! l

I I l \

I

,, tt ~ 11 ii ii lj

l I lj

ll II

I

!I· ·

I' (

I ,, tl

1

ll' (

-r

Law

s an

d R

egul

atio

ns G

over

ning

the

LE

AA

Pro

gram

We

are

neve

r goi

ng to

do

a job

in th

is fi

eld u

ntil

we

have

a c

apta

in

at th

e to

p, i

n th

e fo

rm o

f the

Gov

erno

r, an

d th

ose

he a

ppoi

nts,

to c

oord

inat

e th

e m

atte

r fo

r a

Stat

e be

caus

e cr

ime

may

be

com

-m

itted

in a

spo

t, bu

t be

fore

it g

ets

thro

ugh

its r

amifi

catio

ns,

it m

ay s

prea

d ov

er a

ver

y co

nsid

erab

le a

rea.

12

25

The

view

sta

ted

by S

enat

or D

irkse

n ha

d ro

ots

not

only

in

the

Sena

tor's

tra

ditio

nal

conc

ern

for

stat

e in

tere

sts b

ut a

lso i

n th

e 19

67

repo

rt of

the

Pres

iden

t's C

omm

issio

n on

Law

Enf

orce

men

t an

d th

e A

dmin

istra

tion

of Ju

stice

, whi

ch r

ecom

men

ded

that

:

In e

very

Sta

te a

nd e

very

city

, an

agen

cy, o

r one

or m

ore

offic

ials,

sh

ould

be

spec

ifica

lly 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."

The

reco

mm

enda

tion

of th

e Pr

esid

ent's

Crim

e C

omm

issio

n re

flect

ed

a co

ncer

n fo

r sy

stem

-wid

e pl

anni

ng. T

his

mea

nt a

t th

e ve

ry l

east

ad

hoc

coor

dina

tion

amon

g po

lice,

cour

ts,

and

corr

ectio

ns a

genc

ies

so

that

pol

icie

s im

plem

ente

d in

one

par

t of t

he s

yste

m w

ould

not

hav

e an

adv

erse

effe

ct o

n ot

her

com

pone

nts.

The

Dirk

sen

amen

dmen

ts re

quire

d ea

ch s

tate

to c

reat

e a

stat

e cr

im-

inal

just

ice

plan

ning

age

ncy

(SPA

) and

to d

evel

op a

n an

nual

com

pre-

hens

ive

plan

. Th

ese

amen

dmen

ts w

ere

inte

nded

, in

par

t, to

add

ress

th

e co

ncer

ns o

f the

Pre

side

nt's

Crim

e Co

mm

issio

n. 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 app

roac

h to

crim

e co

ntro

l in

each

sta

te.

The

bloc

k gr

ant w

as a

lso s

een

by it

s su

ppor

ters

as

a w

ay o

f min

i-m

izin

g su

bsta

ntiv

e fed

eral

con

trol o

ver s

tate

and

loca

l law

enfo

rcem

ent.

In th

e Se

nate

Jud

icia

ry C

omm

ittee

repo

rt on

the

Safe

Stre

ets

Act

, the

su

ppor

ters

of b

lock

gra

nts

stat

ed th

at th

e pu

rpos

e of

the

bloc

k gr

ant

was

"to

insu

re th

at fe

dera

l ass

istan

ce to

stat

e and

loca

l law

enf

orce

men

t do

es n

ot b

ring

with

it fe

dera

l dom

inat

ion

and

cont

rol n

or p

rovi

de th

e m

achi

nery

or p

oten

tial f

or th

e est

ablis

hmen

t of a

fede

ral p

olic

e for

ce."

14

The

Uni

ted

Stat

es C

ourt

of A

ppea

ls fo

r th

e Fo

urth

Circ

uit i

n 19

71

had

an o

ppor

tuni

ty t

o co

mm

ent

on t

his

latte

r co

ncer

n of

the

bloc

k gr

ant p

ropo

nent

s. In

a la

w su

it ch

alle

ngin

g th

e la

ck o

f con

trols

exe

rted

over

blo

ck g

rant

exp

endi

ture

s, th

e co

urt s

tate

d:

"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

"'

.j


\

)>

c c ..Ii.

0 0

\

26

"Fed

eral

Aid

to C

rim

inal

Just

ice"

law

enf

orce

men

t age

ncie

s. Su

ch a

res

ult,

it w

as fe

lt, w

ould

be

less

ef

ficie

nt th

an a

llow

ing

loca

l law

enf

orce

men

t off

icia

ls t

o co

ordi

-na

te t

heir

sta

te's

over

all

effo

rts t

o m

eet

uniq

ue l

ocal

pro

blem

s an

d co

nditi

ons.

Eve

n m

ote

impo

rtan

t tha

n C

ongr

ess's

sea

rch

for

effic

ienc

y an

d ex

perti

se w

as it

s fea

r tha

t ove

r-br

oad

fede

ral c

ontr

ol

of s

tate

law

enf

orce

men

t w

ould

res

ult

in t

he c

reat

ion

of a

n O

r-w

ellia

n 'fe

dera

l pol

ice

forc

e.""

'

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

ithou

t cha

nge

the

Sena

te v

ersi

on.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,

like

man

y of

the

hun

dred

s 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

, th

e m

ore

fund

s th

at a

re a

vaila

ble,

the

gre

ater

the

pos

sibi

lity

of re

duci

ng

crim

e."

Whi

le th

e fed

eral

gov

ernm

ent h

ad b

een

exte

ndin

g no

nfin

anci

al c

rim

-in

al ju

stic

e ass

ista

nce

to s

tate

and

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

at t

he o

pera

tiona

l le

vel f

or s

ever

al y

ears

pri

or to

the

ena

ctm

ent o

f the

Saf

e St

reet

s A

ct,

the

Act

was

the

firs

t 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

The

Saf

e St

reet

s Act

had

thre

e ba

sic

purp

oses

:

o th

e st

imul

atio

n of

effo

rts t

o im

prov

e th

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of st

ate

and

loca

l crim

inal

just

ice

agen

cies

; o

the

coor

dinn

tion

of th

e ac

tiviti

es o

f st

ate

and

loca

l cr

imin

al

just

ice

syst

ems;

o

the

upgr

adin

g of

the

capa

bilit

ies

of s

tate

and

loca

l cr

imin

al

just

ice

agen

cies

to

deal

with

crim

e. l<>

The

Saf

e St

reet

s A

ct a

lso

gave

the

fede

ral

gove

rnm

ent n

ew p

ower

s to

en

forc

e co

ntro

l ov

er t

he s

ale

and

poss

essi

on o

f ha

ndgu

ns.21

It

mad

e po

sses

sion

of

firea

rms

by c

onvi

cted

fel

ons

a fe

dera

l cr

ime.

22 It

als

o m

ade

unau

thor

ized

wir

etap

ping

a f

eder

al c

rime.

23 Ti

tle I

of th

e Sa

fe S

treet

s 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 L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent

Ass

ista

nce

Adm

inis

trat

ion

(LE

AA

) w

as e

stab

lishe

d w

ithin

the

Dep

artm

ent

of J

ustic

e. I

n do

ing

so, C

ongr

ess

seve

rely

lim

ited

the

auth

ority

of t

he A

ttorn

ey

Law

s an

d R

egul

atio

ns G

over

ning

the

LBA

A P

rogr

am

Gen

eral

ove

r L

EA

A b

y es

tabl

ishi

ng L

EA

A w

ithin

the

Dep

art-

men

t of

Jus

tice

unde

r th

e "g

ener

al a

utho

rity

of

the

Atto

rney

G

ener

al."

In

ess

ence

, th

is m

eant

tha

t L

EA

A w

as t

o be

fre

e of

th

e da

y-to

-day

sup

ervi

sion

of t

he A

ttorn

ey G

ener

al to

ope

rate

as

an in

depe

nden

t age

ncy.

LE

AA

was

sub

ject

to th

e A

ttorn

ey G

en-

eral

's co

ntro

l onl

y w

hen

the

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

est

ablis

hed

polic

ies

of g

ener

al a

pplic

abili

ty t

o th

e en

tire

Just

ice

Dep

artm

ent.

The

A

ttorn

ey G

ener

al d

id h

ave

final

aut

hori

ty t

o re

com

men

d to

the

Pr

esid

ent a

nd th

e O

ffic

e of

Man

agem

ent a

nd B

udge

t the

am

ount

of

fund

s th

at s

houl

d be

app

ropr

iate

d ea

ch y

ear

for

the

LE

AA

pr

ogra

ms.

27

The

LE

AA

was

put

und

er t

he d

irec

tion

of a

''tr

oika

" -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 jo

intly

to

carr

y ou

t, th

e fu

nctio

ns,

pow

ers

and

dutie

s of

th

e L

EA

A.

Bloc

k G

rant

s. B

lock

gra

nts

wer

e au

thor

ized

tind

er P

art B

of t

he

Act

to c

over

up

to 9

0 pe

rcen

t of t

he to

tal

cost

of t

he o

pera

tion

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

ustic

e pl

ans.

The

SP A

was

to

have

a r

epre

sent

ativ

e ch

arac

ter

incl

udin

g re

pres

enta

tives

of l

aw

enfo

rcem

ent a

nd u

nits

of l

ocal

gov

ernm

ent.

Eac

h st

ate

was

to b

e al

loca

ted

each

yea

r a fl

at a

mou

nt o

f $10

0,00

0, w

ith th

e re

mai

nder

of

pla

nnin

g fu

nds

to b

e di

stri

bute

d on

a p

opul

atio

n ba

sis.

Fort

y pe

rcen

t of t

he p

lann

ing

gran

t fun

ds w

ere

to b

e m

ade

avai

labl

e to

lo

cal j

uris

dict

ions

. U

nder

Par

t C

of

the

Act

, ei

ghcy

-fiv

e pe

rcen

t of

the

so-

calle

d "a

ctio

n gr

ant"

fun

ds w

ere

to b

e al

loca

ted

to t

he s

tate

s on

a

popu

latio

n ba

sis

as b

lock

gra

nts,

wit

h se

vent

y-fiv

e pe

rcen

t of t

he

fund

s to

be

pass

ed t

hrou

gh t

o lo

cal

gove

rnm

ents

. In

ord

er to

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

that

met

cer

tain

requ

irem

ents

, inc

ludi

ng s

peci

al e

m-

phas

is o

n or

gani

zed

crim

e and

civi

l dis

orde

r pro

gram

s. T

he fe

dera

l go

vern

men

t was

aut

hori

zed

to p

ay u

p to

sev

enty

-fiv

e pe

rcen

t of

the

tota

l cos

t for

org

aniz

ed-c

rim

e an

d ri

ot-c

ontr

ol p

roje

cts,

fift

y pe

rcen

t for

con

stru

ctio

n pr

ojec

ts, a

nd s

ixty

per

cent

for

othe

r ac

-tio

n pu

rpos

es.

One

sig

nific

ant

limita

tion,

add

ed b

y th

ose

con-

cern

ed a

bout

fed

eral

con

trol

of s

tate

and

loca

l la

w e

nfor

cem

ent

.,,


:- )>

c c ..a.

0 ..a.

\

44

"Fed

eral

Aid

to C

rimin

al J

ustic

e"

LEA

A c

oncl

uded

tha

t its

blo

ck g

rant

s w

ere

not

gove

rned

by

thes

e la

ws.

In 1

971

the

cour

ts h

eld

othe

rwis

e an

d by

197

3 th

e ad

vers

e ef

fect

s of

the

land

mar

k de

cisi

on i

n El

y v.

Veld

e,48

the

first

cas

e to

tes

t th

e ap

plic

atio

n of

the

bloc

k-gr

ant c

once

pt to

Fed

eral

stri

ngs,

wer

e be

ing

felt

by s

tate

s. El

y v.

Ve/d

e ar

ose

out

of a

blo

ck g

rant

tha

t L

EA

A m

ade

to t

he

Stat

e of

Virg

inia

. In

mak

ing

the

bloc

k gr

ant,

LE

AA

app

rove

d th

e c;

impr

ehen

sive

pla

n pr

epar

ed b

y th

e St

ate

of V

irgin

ia i

n ac

cord

ance

w

ith t

he O

mni

bus

Crim

e C

ontro

l an

d Sa

fe S

treet

s A

ct.

The

plan

in

dica

ted

that

Virg

inia

inte

nded

to s

pend

app

roxi

mat

ely

$500

,000

for

a co

rrec

tiona

l fac

ility

. Th

e ex

pend

iture

of t

hese

fun

ds w

as c

onsi

sten

t w

ith t

he S

afe

Stre

ets

Act

. Th

e pl

an d

id n

ot s

peci

fy w

here

Virg

inia

pl

anne

d to

bui

ld th

e fa

cilit

y.

At t

he ti

me

the

Virg

inia

pla

n w

as a

ppro

ved

by L

EAA

, Virg

inia

had

no

t ye

t se

lect

ed a

fin

al s

ite.

Aft

er t

he p

lan

was

app

rove

d, V

irgin

ia

anno

unce

d in

a lo

cal n

ewsp

aper

that

it in

tend

ed to

bui

ld a

new

pen

al

faci

lity

in G

reen

Spr

ings

, V

irgin

ia.

Virg

inia

did

not

not

ify L

EA

A o

f th

e sel

ectio

n of

this

site

bec

ause

it w

as n

ot re

quire

d by

LE

AA

guid

elin

es

to d

o so

. Sh

ortly

afte

r th

e an

noun

cem

ent,

a la

wsu

it w

as f

iled

agai

nst

the

Adm

inis

trat

or o

f LE

AA

and

the

Hea

d of

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Cor

rec-

tions

in V

irgin

ia. T

he la

wsu

it al

lege

d th

at V

irgin

ia h

ad fa

iled

to co

mpl

y w

ith th

e N

atio

nal H

isto

ric P

rese

rvat

ion

Act

(NH

P A) a

nd th

e re

cent

ly-

enac

ted

Nat

iona

l Env

ironm

enta

l Pol

icy

Act

(NEP

A) i

n se

lect

ing

a sit

e fo

r th

e pr

ison

faci

lity

and

that

the

Adm

inis

trat

or o

f LE

AA

had

faile

d to

enf

orce

NH

P A a

nd N

EPA

. In

the

ir de

fens

e, L

EA

A a

nd t

he S

tate

of

Virg

inia

con

tend

ed t

hat

the

LE

AA

pro

gram

was

a b

lock

-gra

nt p

rogr

am a

nd, u

nder

the

LEA

A

law

, the

loca

tion

fcir

the

pena

l fac

ility

was

a s

tate

con

cern

and

not

a

Fede

ral c

once

rn. L

EAA

con

tend

ed th

at th

e St

ate

in e

xpen

ding

LEA

A

fund

s di

d no

t hav

e to

com

ply

with

NE

PA si

nce

the

deci

sion

on

whe

re

to b

uild

a p

enal

faci

lity

was

the

stat

e's

deci

sion

and

not s

ubje

ct to

the

revi

ew o

r di

sapp

rova

l of

the

Fede

ral

gove

rnm

ent.

The

dis

trict

cou

rt

agre

ed w

ith th

is rat

io~a

le a

nd r

uled

aga

inst

the

pla

intif

fs.

The

cour

t of

~pp

eals

di

sagr

eed

and

over

rule

d th

e di

stric

t co

urt,

mak

ing

the

follo

win

g ob

serv

atio

n:

The.

LE

AA

ins

ists

tha

t it

is no

t ob

liged

to

com

ply-

inde

ed i

t m

ay n

ot c

ompl

y-w

ith

NH

PA a

nd N

EPA

bec

ause

it h

as b

een

disa

bled

, w

hen

appr

ovin

g bl

ock

gran

ts, f

rom

im

posi

ng a

ny c

on-

J I I I I I II l I /: 11 [I I \ ti

Law

s an

d Re

gulat

ions

Gov

erni

ng th

e L

EA

A P

rogr

am

ditio

ns n

ot f

ound

in

the

Safe

Stre

ets

Act

itse

lf. S

uppo

rt f

or t

his

prop

ositi

on is

cla

imed

in th

e la

ngua

ge a

nd th

e po

licy

inhe

rent

in

the

Safe

Stre

ets

Act

.

* *

*

45

Rel

ianc

e in

the

pres

ent c

ase

is m

ispl

aced

, for

it i

s pl

ain

that

the

LE

AA

has

ove

rdra

wn

the

'han

ds o

ff p

olic

y of

the

Safe

Stre

ets

Act

. Pr

oper

ly r

ead,

nei

ther

the

Act

's la

ngua

ge n

or i

ts p

olic

y pr

ohib

its o

r ex

cuse

s co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith. N

HPA

and

NEP

A.49

In 1

975

ther

e w

ere

19 d

iffer

ent "

cros

s-cu

tting

" la

ws w

hich

gov

erne

d th

e ex

pend

iture

of f

eder

al g

rant

s w

hich

, un

der

the

ratio

nale

of -

the

rulin

g in

Ely

v. V

e/de,

neith

er p

rohi

bite

d no

r exc

used

com

plia

nce

with

th

ese

stat

utes

. (A

ppen

dix

II.)

In 1

973,

LE

AA

had

und

ergo

ne a

noth

er r

eorg

aniz

atio

n w

hich

di-

vide

d th

e st

ate

and

loca

l gra

nt p

rogr

am a

mon

g se

vera

l offi

ces

with

in

LEA

A. (

See

Figu

re 6

.)

The

Juv

enile

Jus

tice

and

Del

inqu

ency

Pre

vent

ion

Act

of

1974

By

197

4, C

ongr

essi

onal

dis

satis

fact

ion

with

the

low

em

phas

is p

lace

d by

LE

AA

on

juve

nile

just

ice

peak

ed.

Con

gres

sion

al c

ritic

s ch

arge

d th

at L

EAA

's ap

proa

ch h

ad b

een

to se

e th

e ju

veni

le o

ffen

der i

n te

rms

of c

rime

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, pa

rticu

larly

pre

-ve

ntio

n, a

nd h

ad n

ot su

ccee

ded

in b

ringi

ng a

bout

effe

ctiv

e co

ordi

natio

n of

Fed

eral

juve

nile

del

inqu

ency

pro

gram

s.

Ulti

mat

ely

Con

gres

s pa

ssed

the

Juv

enile

Jus

tice

and

Del

inqu

ency

Pr

even

tion

Act

of

1974

and

est

ablis

hed

an O

ffice

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 f

ollo

ws:

The

Com

mitt

ee b

ill, a

s am

ende

d, p

rovi

des

for

Fede

ral l

eade

r-sh

ip a

nd c

oord

inat

ion

of th

e re

sour

ces

nece

ssar

y to

dev

elop

and

im

plem

ent a

t the

Sta

te a

nd lo

cal c

omm

unity

leve

l effe

ctiv

e pr

o-gr

ams

for

the

prev

entio

n an

d tr

eatm

ent o

f juv

enile

del

inqu

ency

. To

war

ds th

is e

nd, i

t es

tabl

ishe

s a

new

Juv

enile

Jus

tice

and

De-

linqu

ency

Pre

vent

ion

prog

ram

with

in th

e D

epar

tmen

t of J

ustic

e,

Law

Enf

orce

men

t A

ssis

tanc

e A

dmin

istra

tion,

to

prov

ide

com

-pr

ehen

sive

nat

iona

l le

ader

ship

for

atta

ckin

g th

e pr

oble

ms

of ju

-ve

nile

del

inqu

ency

and

to in

sure

coo

rdin

atio

n of

all d

elin

quen

cy

activ

ities

of t

he F

eder

al g

over

nmen

t.'°


- 1 )> c c ..a

. 0 N

\

66

"Fed

eral

Aid

to

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e"

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tre

asur

y C

ircul

ars

Trea

sury

Circ

ular

10

75

Trea

sury

Circ

ular

10

82

Exec

utive

Ord

ers

E.O

. 112

46

E.0

.117

64

E.O

. 119

14

With

draw

al o

f Cas

h fro

m th

e Tr

easu

ry fo

r Ad

vanc

es

Und

er F

eder

al G

rant

and

Oth

er P

rogr

ams

Not

iftca

tion

to S

tate

s of

Gra

nt-lh

-Aid

Inf

orm

atio

n

Non

disc

rimin

atio

n in

Empl

oym

ent i

n Fe

dera

lly A

ssis

ted

Con

stru

ctio

n Pr

ojec

ts

Non

disc

rimin

atio

n in

Fed

eral

ly A

ssis

ted

Prog

ram

s N

ondi

scrim

inat

ion

with

Res

pect

to

Han

dica

pped

in

Fede

rally

Ass

iste

d Pr

ogra

ms

APPE

ND

IX II

ST

ATU

TES

CO

NTR

OLL

ING

EXP

END

ITU

RES

OF

GR

ANT

FUN

DS

ENVI

RO

NM

ENTA

L LA

WS

1. N

atio

nal E

nviro

nmen

tal P

olic

y A

ct o

f 196

9, 4

2 U.

S.C.

§ 4

321,

et s

eq.

(197

0) [

NEP

A).

NEP

A re

quire

s Fe

dera

l gr

anto

r ag

enci

es t

o co

nsid

er

the

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

of

maj

or F

eder

al a

ctio

ns fu

nded

by

Fede

ral

gran

ts a

nd t

o pr

epar

e en

viro

nmen

tal i

mpa

ct s

tate

men

ts o

n th

ese

ac-

tions

. 2.

Nat

iona

l H

isto

ric P

rese

rvat

ion

Act

of 1

966,

16

U.S

.C.

§ 4 7

0, e

t seq

. (1

970)

[NH

PA].

NH

PA re

quire

s Fe

dera

l gra

ntor

age

ncie

s an

d gr

ante

es

to c

onsi

der t

he e

ffect

of F

eder

ally

ass

iste

d pr

ojec

ts o

n hi

stor

ical

pro

p-er

ties

liste

d In

the

Nat

iona

l Reg

iste

r of H

isto

ric P

lace

s.

3. F

lood

Dis

aste

r Pro

tect

ion

Act

of 1

973,

42

U.S.

C. §

400

1, e

t seq

. (Su

pp.

Ill,

1973

) [F

DPA

]. FD

PA p

rohi

bits

the

use

of

Fede

ral

gran

t fu

nds

to

supp

ort c

onst

ruct

ion

In a

ny a

rea

iden

tifie

d by

the

Secr

etar

y of

Hou

sing

and

Urb

an D

evel

opm

ent

as h

avin

g sp

ecia

l flo

od h

azar

ds u

nles

s th

e bu

ildin

g an

d an

y rel

ated

per

sona

l pro

perty

is co

vere

d by

flood

insu

ranc

e.

This

Is th

e on

ly s

tatu

te In

thi

s lis

ting

whi

ch e

xem

pts

bloc

k gr

ants

from

its

cov

erag

e.

4. C

lean

Air

Act

of 1

970,

42

U.S

.C. §

740

1, e

t seq

. (Su

pp.

II, 1

972)

. The

C

lean

Air

Act

and

Exe

cutiv

e O

rder

117

38 p

rohi

bit f

undi

ng th

roug

h gr

ants

of

act

iviti

es w

ith a

n or

gani

zatio

n th

at p

ropo

ses

to u

se a

faci

lity

whi

ch

viol

ates

the

air

pollu

tion

stan

dard

s of

the

Cle

an A

ir Ac

t. 5.

Fed

eral

Wat

er P

ollu

tion

Con

trol A

ct o

f 19

48,

as a

men

ded,

33

U.S.

C.

§ 12

51, e

l seq

. (Su

pp.

II, 1

972)

[FW

PCA]

. The

FW

PCA

and

Exec

utiv

e O

rder

117

38 p

rohi

bit f

undi

ng th

roug

h gr

ants

of a

ctiv

ities

with

an

orga

-ni

zatio

n th

at p

ropo

ses

to u

se a

faclH

ty w

hich

vio

late

s th

e w

ater

pol

lutio

n st

anda

rds

of th

e FW

PC

A

6. s

ate

Drin

klng

Wat

er A

ct of

197

4, 4

2 U

.S.C

. § 3

00!,

et se

q. (S

upp.

IV,

19

74)

[SO

WA]

. SO

WA

prov

ides

tha

t no

gran

t m

ay b

e us

ed t

o fu

nd a

pr

ojec

t whi

ch m

ay c

onta

min

ate

an a

quife

r whi

ch Is

the

prin

cipa

l drin

king

w

ater

sou

rce

for a

com

mun

ity.

7. E

ndan

gere

d Sp

ecie

s Ac

t of 1

973,

16

U.S.

C. §

153

1, e

l seq

. (Su

pp.

Ill,

1973

) [ES

A]. E

SA re

quire

s Fe

dera

l gra

nt()!

age

ncie

s to

ass

ure

that

gra

nt

I ! I f ! I I

Law

s an

d R

egul

atio

ns G

over

ning

the

LE

AA

Pro

gram

fund

are

not

used

In a

man

ner t

hat j

eopa

rdl7

es th

e co

ntin

ued

exis

tenc

e of

a th

reat

ened

or e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s.

8. W

ild a

nd S

ceni

c R

ivers

Act

of 1

968,

as

amen

ded,

16

U.S

.C. §

127

1, e

t se

q. (1

976)

[WSR

A). W

SRA

requ

ires

Fede

ral g

rant

or a

genc

ies

to a

ssur

e th

at g

rant

fund

s ar

e no

t use

d in

a m

anne

r th

at je

opar

dize

s th

e cl

ear

and

free-

flow

ing

cond

ition

of

certa

in w

ild a

nd s

ceni

c riv

ers.

9. H

isto

rical

an

d Ar

cheo

logl

cal

Dat

a Pr

eser

vatlc

n A

ct

of

1960

, as

am

ende

d, 1

6 U.

S.C.

§ 4

69 e

t seq

. (Su

pp.

IV,

1974

) [H

ADPA

). H

ADPA

pl

aces

Qm

itatlc

ns o

n th

e us

e of

Fed

eral

fund

s to

sup

port

an a

ctiv

ity th

at

may

cau

se ir

repa

rabl

e lo

ss to

sig

nific

ant h

isto

rical

or a

rche

olog

lcal

dat

a.

10.

Coas

tal Z

one

Man

agem

ent A

ct o

f 197

2, 1

6U.S

.C.§

1451

, et s

eq. (

Supp

. II,

197

2) [C

ZMA]

. CZM

A sp

ecifi

es th

at g

rant

-sup

porte

d ac

tiviti

es m

ust

be c

onsi

sten

t with

Sta

te la

nd-m

anag

emen

t pro

gram

s fo

r the

pro

tect

ion

of c

oast

al z

ones

, Inc

ludi

ng G

reat

Lak

e w

ater

s.

CIV

IL R

IGH

TS L

AWS

67

11.

Tiiie

VI o

f the

Givi

l Rig

hts

Act o

f 196

4, 4

2 U.

S.C.

§ 2

000d

(19

70).

Title

VI

pro

vide

s th

at n

o pe

rson

on

the

grou

nd o

f re

ce,

colo

r, or

nat

iona

l or

igin

can

be

excl

uded

from

par

ticip

atio

n in

, be

deni

ed th

e be

nefit

s of

, or

be

subj

ecte

d to

dis

crim

inat

ion

unde

r any

pro

gram

or

activ

ity fu

nded

w

ith F

eder

al g

rant

s.

12.

Reh

abilit

atio

n Ac

t of

197

3, 2

9 U

.S.C

. § 7

01,

et se

q. (

Supp

. Ill

. 19

73).

The

Reh

abilit

atio

n Ac

t ext

ends

the

Tiiie

VI t

ype

prot

ectio

ns to

the

hand

-ic

appe

d.

13.

Tiiie

IX o

f the

Edu

catio

n Am

endm

ents

of 1

972,

20U

.S.C

.§16

81 (

Supp

. II,

197

2). T

itle

IX p

rovi

des

that

no

pers

on c

an o

n th

e ba

sis

of s

ex b

e ex

clud

ed fr

om p

artic

ipat

ion

In, b

e de

nied

the

bene

fits

of, o

r be

subj

ecte

d to

dis

crim

inat

ion

unde

r any

edu

catio

n pr

ogra

m o

r pr

ojec

t fun

ded

with

Fe

dera

l gra

nts.

OTH

ER

14.

Indi

an S

elf-D

eter

min

atio

n Ac

t, 25

U.S

.C. §

450

! (Su

pp.

V, 1

975)

. The

Se

lf-D

eter

min

atio

n A

ct re

quire

s Fe

dera

l gra

ntor

age

ncie

s to

give

pre

f-er

ence

s to

tra

inin

g an

d em

ploy

men

t of

Indi

ans

and

use

of In

dian

en-

terp

rises

for a

dmin

istra

tive

func

tions

und

er g

rant

pro

gram

s w

hich

ben

efit

Indi

ans.

In

terg

over

nmen

tal C

oope

ratio

n A

ct o

f 196

8, 4

2 U

.S.C

. § 4

201,

et s

eq.

(197

0). T

he In

terg

over

nmen

tal C

oope

ratio

n Ac

t aut

horiz

es th

e cr

eatio

n of

clea

ringh

ouse

s at

the

Stat

e an

d lo

cal l

evel

s to

coo

rdin

ate

and

revi

ew

gran

t pro

gram

s an

d pr

ojec

ts. U

se o

f the

cle

arin

ghou

se b

y Fe

dera

l gra

n-to

r age

ncie

s an

d St

ate

and

loca

l gra

ntee

s Is

man

date

d by

OM

B C

ircul

ar

A-95

. 16

. U

nifo

rm R

eloc

atio

n As

sist

ance

and

Rea

l Pro

perty

Acq

uisi

tion

Polic

ies

Act

of

1970

, 42

U.S

.C.

§460

1, e

t se

q. (

1970

). Th

e R

eloc

atio

n Ac

t re

quire

s gr

ante

es to

pay

the

cos

ts o

f rel

ocat

ing

indi

vidu

als

disp

lace

d by

con

stru

ctio

n an

d le

asin

g un

derta

ken

with

Fed

eral

gra

nt fu

nds.

It a

lso

requ

ires

gran

tees

to a

ssur

e th

at d

ispl

aced

per

sons

find

ade

quat

e ho

us-

ing.

_ _[ !

.,,


)> c c ..a

. 0 w

\

68

"Fed

eral

Aid

to C

rimin

al Ju

stice

"

17.

Hat

ch P

oliti

cal A

ctiv

ity A

ct o

f 19

40,

as a

men

ded,

5 U

.S.C

. § 1

501,

et

seq.

(Su

pp.

IV,

1974

). Th

e H

atch

Act

pro

hibi

ts S

tate

and

loca

l gov

ern-

men

t offi

cial

s w

hose

sal

arie

s ar

e pa

id in

par

t with

Fed

eral

gra

nt fu

nds

from

runn

ing

for p

oliti

cal o

ffice

oth

er th

an th

e of

fice

they

cur

rent

ly h

old.

It

also

pro

hibi

ts c

oerc

ion

of p

oliti

cal

cont

ribut

ions

fro

m g

over

nmen

t em

ploy

ees

who

se s

alar

ies

are

paid

with

gra

nt fu

nds.

18

. An

imal

Wel

fare

Act

of

1970

, 7 U

.S.C

. § 2

131,

et s

eq. (

1970

). Th

is A

ct

requ

ires

rese

arch

fac

ilitie

s to

com

ply

with

hum

ane

stan

dard

s fo

r th

e ca

re a

nd h

andl

ing

of a

nim

als

whi

ch a

re u

sed

in F

eder

ally

-ass

iste

d pr

oj-

ects

or e

xper

imen

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).

This

Act

req

uire

s gr

ante

es t

o su

bmit

prop

osed

met

ropo

litan

con

stru

ctio

n pr

ojec

ts t

o an

are

awid

e pl

anni

ng

agen

cy fo

r com

men

ts a

nd re

com

men

datio

ns p

rior t

o su

bmitt

ing

a gr

ant

appl

icat

ion

to th

e Fe

dera

l gov

ernm

ent.

Trtle

18

of t

he U

nite

d S

tate

s C

ode

cont

ains

a n

umbe

r of

crim

inal

san

ctio

ns

appl

icab

le t

o gr

ants

. Th

ese

Incl

ude

proh

ibiti

ons

agai

nst

fals

e st

atem

ents

, 18

U

.S.C

. § 1

001

(197

0); p

rohi

bitio

ns a

gain

st u

sing

gra

nts

for p

oliti

cal p

urpo

ses,

18

U.S

.C. §

§ 60

0-60

7 (1

970)

; and

pro

hibi

tions

aga

inst

the

expe

ncrrt

ure

of g

rant

fund

s fo

r pur

pose

s ot

her t

han

for

whi

ch t

he fu

nds

wer

e ap

prop

riate

d.

The

listin

g do

es n

ot in

clud

e le

gisl

ativ

e rid

ers

atta

ched

to

appr

opria

tion

bills

. It

does

not

incl

ude

acts

suc

h as

the

Dav

is B

acon

Act

, 40

U.S

.C.

§ 27

69 (

1970

), w

hich

are

inco

rpor

ated

by

spec

ific

stat

utor

y re

fere

nce

into

the

enab

ling

stat

ute

of s

elec

ted

gran

t pro

gram

s.

1 ·

Cha

pter

3

LEA

A I

N T

HE

STA

TES:

196

8-19

80

This

cha

pter

foc

uses

on

wha

t ha

ppen

ed t

o th

e L

EA

A p

rogr

am a

t th

e st

ate

leve

l and

par

ticul

arly

on

the

role

pla

yed

by th

e st

ate

plan

ning

ag

enci

es (

SPA

s). T

he le

sson

s to

be g

aine

d 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 t

o gu

ide

futu

re c

rimin

al

just

ice d

evel

opm

ent.

The

chap

ter b

egin

s with

a fe

w re

mar

ks c

once

rnin

g ou

r ap

proa

ch t

o as

sess

men

t, an

d th

en e

xam

ines

the

LB

AA

pro

gram

in

the

stat

es b

y fo

llow

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

r-go

vern

men

tal r

elat

ions

, the

cha

pter

ends

with

a p

relim

inar

y as

sess

men

t an

d an

alys

is o

f th

e in

itial

des

ign

and

subs

eque

nt e

volu

tion

of t

he

prog

ram

.

LE

AA

Pro

gram

Obj

ectiv

es a

nd a

n A

ppro

ach

to

Ass

essm

ent

The c

entra

l obj

ectiv

e of

the

Safe

Stre

ets A

ct w

as to

bui

ld th

e cap

acity

of

stat

e an

d lo

cal c

rimin

al ju

stic

e ag

enci

es to

com

bat c

rime.

Whi

le th

e pr

ogra

m e

nact

ed to

ach

ieve

this

eff

ort w

as m

ultif

acet

ed, t

he ly

nchp

in

was

a g

roup

of p

rogr

amm

atic

and

fun

d'.ng

prio

ritie

s di

rect

ed t

owar

d th

ree

capa

city

-bui

ldin

g in

itiat

ives

at t

he st

ate-

leve

l: (1

) com

preh

ensi

ve

syst

em p

lann

ing

and

coor

dina

tion,

(2)

pro

gram

inn

ovat

ion,

and

(3)

de

velo

pmen

t of n

ew c

rime-

fight

ing

tech

nolo

gy. S

tate

pla

nnin

g ag

enci

es

wer

e cr

eate

d to

sup

ply

esse

ntia

l dire

ctio

n to

thes

e ef

forts

. A

com

mon

ass

umpt

ion

amon

g pr

opon

ents

of t

he L

EA

A p

rogr

am

had

been

that

stat

e an

d lo

cal u

nits

of g

over

nmen

t lac

ked

both

suff

icie

nt

finan

cial

res

ourc

es a

nd p

olic

y co

mm

itmen

t to

supp

ort c

hang

e in

the

cr

imin

al ju

stic

e sy

stem

. 1 Th

e bl

ock

gran

ts w

ere

inte

nded

not

onl

y to

of

fer

the

nece

ssar

y fin

anci

al s

uppo

rt f

or i

nnov

atio

n bu

t w

ere

also

in

tend

ed t

o al

ter

crim

inal

just

ice

agen

cy t

ask

envi

ronm

ents

(th

at is

, w

hom

and

wha

t cr

imin

al ju

stic

e ag

enci

es r

espo

nded

to,

or

mor

e fo

r-m

ally

, the

sou

rce

and

kind

of i

nput

s and

the

dem

and

for o

utpu

ts m

ade

by th

e cr

imin

al ju

stic

e age

ncy'

s rel

evan

t env

ironm

ent).

2 To

alte

r age

ncy

task

env

ironm

ents

, ne

w a

genc

ies,

supp

orte

d la

rgel

y th

roug

h LB

AA

fu

nds,

wer

e to

adv

ance

com

preh

ensi

ve p

lann

ing,

inn

ovat

ion,

and

CO

·

69

~;


CONTROLLING CRIME THROUGH MORE EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT

1/33---1 HEARINGS

BJU'ORB THIJ

MAROH T1 .8, AND 9; APRIL 18, 19, AND 20;. UA.Y 9; JULY 10, 1L AND l.21 19GT

Printed for the 1111& of the Committee on the 1U<Uclarr

U.B. OOVJDBNIUIN'l' PBINTINO Ol'l'JCll WA8B11IOTOH ·1 i:HT

------~·~-...,... -~---------For .&le bt tb..• r~uperlntmdent ol D°°'Ullmtli 1)'.d. Omnunent PrlnunS Ol!Lce ·

Wubfncton~ D.O. 20t02 • frlce '3.&0

ADD104


100 CONTROLLING CRIME

eral department. or. agency engaged· In. admlnleterlnli proaraw.a .rel.llted- to i Jaw enforcement and criminal Justice .B)Jall_, t(>, the maximum e:rtent practicable, consult with and seek advice from tlie Attorney General to Insure fully coordl· natecl e1r0l'ts. . . . . ..

SEO. 40-i. Tbe.Attot1197.General.may. arrange with and:. reimburse the·beads ot other Federal departments aJ1d agencies.for. the. pertorJUnhce·of!aDJ .of hie functions under1 this A.ct. and,. as necesaary or appropriate; dtlegate any. or hie powers under this Act with respect to any part thereof; anclJautborlie the redele· gatlon of such powers. . .

SEo. 405. Tbe Attorney. Geperal Is authorized- ~ · . (a). to. conduct. re.search nod. evaluation, studies: with, respect· to· matters

related to this Act; and (b) to collect, eyaluate, pubUsb, and· disseminate stat1stlcs .and ·other In·

formaUon on, .the ·condltton and, progress of law enforcement and :criminal Juatlce tn ! tbe. several Sta tee. .

Szo. 406. Payments under this Act may be made In Installments. aud-ln·advnnce or by way of•. reimbursement, aa may be determtned,by·tbe·Attorney General.

Szo. 407. Wbenever·the Attorney General, after reasonable; notice and·opPor-tunlty for hearing, to·& grantee under this Act, ftnda: that, with respect· to any payments made::under thlB!Act, tbere ls a subatantlal fallure•to. comply wlth-

(a) the provisions of. this Act; , (b) regutatlons·promulgated b1 tbe·Attorne;v.Qeneral under this Act; or ( c) the law, enforcement and crlmln.al Justice plan submitted ln; accord·

ance with the p.-ovtslons of thla Act; the Attorney, General shall notify such grantee that further:payments shall not· be.made (or ln1bls discretion· that further pqrments shall not be made for activities In Which there •Is such failure), until there Is no longer such failure. ·

Sm 408. Nothlng contalned·ln thls·Act.shall·beiconstrued to authorize any department, agenc1• ofBcer;. or. etnployee of the· Unlted ·States to exercise. any direction,, slJPeJvlllon.; ·or controliover ao1· Police force. or other agency of. any State or local law ~ntorcement and crlDilllal Ju1Uce;s1stem.

SEO. 409. Ubless- otberwlse:specltled~ In :thl.,Act; the:.Attorne1 General shall carry.out.the •. pro1muna:,provlded1for m.thll· Act during the· ftscal:;rear ending June so, 1~: ud·th&. fou., s~.flsclal·1eara.,;

S1e1.·410. Not ntore tbtn·llS1per._centum:of the .. sums approprlatedior allocated for ao7 flscal 7ear,to carry.out the purpose.of this: Act shall be used wlthln any one State. . . , . . .

Szo. 411. The Attorney. General•. after, approJrlate consultation with· repre· sentath-es of State and local governments, ls authorized to precsrlbe such regu-lations as may be oecessar1. to Implement the: purpos& of this Act, Including regulations whl~h-

(a)· pro'tldi t~at a•graotee·wlll ft()Di ttDie to ftme, but not less often· than annua111, submit a·re119rt·evaluaUng accomplishments and coat-etrectlveness of actlvltletff11bded under thle Act; ·

(b) pro'fid6 for fiscal control; &Ound accountlog:procedures and periodic rePorts to the Attorney General regarding the application of funds· paid uuder thte Act; and

(c) establish criteria to achieve an equitable' distribution among tile States of· asslatance·. uttder th la A:ct · ·

Sze. 4:12, Ob or: before August· 81,· 1968; and eacti J~ar thereafter; the··Attor11ey General shall reoort to tlie· Prestd~t and to the Congress on actlVttl~s ·p_ursuant to tli& pro~dodil o~ .t~s A~t dtil'ID$ the p~ecedltir·flscal r~~r .. . _ .' · .'.

SBC. 418. Por the" PU~ of: carrso1111 · ouMhl~ Act, there·la: beteb:t autliorlzed to be approprlat~rwe sum'of f®,OOO;ooo for the ftreijl ·y~r e~dlug Jtine SI), :ioos; and for each· auec6edlng fl'"'at!7ear· attch sums as tbe Congress may hereafter ap~roprtrtteJ Mdlf app~prl~t~ for .tlie; p~r~se of ·catrjlng: out tbJs :Act llhall remain. avallabl& untll• expended.- · ' · · · " · · ..

~ . ' . . . . . ·· • · . ; TITLE v-DEFlN1irt6Ns ·· ·

. l \ . • t ~ ' ,. • j; ' ~. • . . • ,. ~ • ' ' ' : .

S~o. rot •. Aa1ua.ed:IP.ltbl1.Ao~_ · . ._ · ': • : · :. · 1 . , .• , : • ·

(a) ''!;am Qforcemeqt-iu.d! crhnlnal, j1J1tlc~~' m~ana. all· aotl'rltles ipertalnlng to trb:Dl:P~TeDtiQU.Qf the •DfOl'ffDleDt·aDd adm.ln1atnttlon of.the criminal law, tncludlQC l>ut POtillJntted to ·actl'fltles.1nvolt1111 poUCti prosecution' or defense of crlmlQ~c...,.: cour~ piobaUon, correctlona and patole1, · · -. . ',, " , : ·

ADD105


:;-·

CONTJlOLLINO CRIME 383 course, the Govemors often play n. vital role in these functions. The nttomeY.• general of the States have general supervision of nll mafor criminal P.rosecutions and the trinJs. There is a nr,Y. close support.fng relationslijp between States and cities. For example, how can it b8 said that New York Cit1 Is free and clear of Stnfe govemment nnd does not have any close ties or relationship in Jaw enfo~ment. I can-not follow that reasoning.

Would you have a comment 011 thief .Jt is not limited to New York, but, ~nerally, I cannot seo nny dift'erence between t.his fteld and nny other fields.

AttomeY. Geneml CLARK. I guess thnt f.01ic6 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 annual bud~t. of the New York City Police Department exceeds the budget of the U.S. Department of Justice by $400 million. As far RB I k'.now the Stnte does not provide any funds for police protection. in. New York. Qity. They supply no advice. Only lut yenr they estabhshed im office m the State govemment involving one man and one staft' assistant. WJ1at can they. contribute to the mighty police department of New York City, whioh has protected the people for generations. ·

Ae far a8 the powers of the State attomeys generals are concemed, the average attorney genenll of a State exercises no si~iftcant crlm· inal powers. Many. have no 191 authority in· this Rren. Tboee that do have common law pqwers find it difttcult to use them. A· rare exception is the State of Califomla where there Is a department of justlee but its functions, too, are limited. It tends to be on the· prosecution side, rather than to 'lrivolve police protection.· And it exercises no control over the local. district attorn.eya ln their handling of prosecutions.

Senator HnusxA. Your bill emphasizes that we nre ·prosecutors of cases. . . ·. ·•· i · ,

AttomeI General-CLARK. Yes. •. . · : · · . . Senator HRUSKA. Those claiming. to be in the ln.w enforcement part

off uetlce make.up a very small percentage.· . . · Attonie1 General CLARK. Y~ very_ amall. . · · · · ~nator 11'.au&KA. In ma~ of tbe Middle Westem Stat~ the Attor·

ney General prosecutes all appeals from trial courts nnd m many·in· stances partioipat~ in the pro.,u~ion of cases nu~ trials in St.etite dis-trl~ ooui'bl. .. : . . . .. . . . . . . · · . . .

AttomeY. General CLARK. There would· be no need for n Governor veto there because he would be directlt ihtblved, presumably.

Senator HRUSKA. Of course, when we exeerienco breakdowndn a city .police .. fo~!due to either1civil.commot1on or massive civil dis-obid1en0f, th& Governor stePf! ;n, does he not t ... , , : · · · · ~ ; .. At~rneI General CLARK. He has,to BODJeti~es, unforiun~tely. ·· ,, · , S,nator Havsu •. Jn.thinking of ·the'CJ6ven1or, I wonder.if the fear

ohf \bypassing the StatAdn• A program,:of· this kb~d :w9uld! hdt ar~t> tlie eart 88 much. 88 other programs wlucb tliey-l~ave dasoussed so:vago~

Oualy' . · ' ··" . . ,. Ati~bi$)..~~e~1 c~ng,·i{y j~d .. ~ent:~·ihu it~o~tct'~oi:~~8' police.departm!n? are old·li!le n•n:~alll with which-the.G~vem~rs have hRd tl ve17_ mm1mal experience, connection, and. ·telat1onah1p .. ·; ·; · · · · . :Se~a~r 1 HRUSKA. I do not· know. lf .r.ou .have convinced. me.· I: just wanted 16 ascertain from yo\a.wl,ether that. had.~iv~ Rny thought.

ADD106


384 CONTltOLLJNO CR.DR

Such questioning Js going to be l'l\ised on tho Sonnto ftoor because t.here 1uo mR11y Oove1·n01'8 who sny yon <'nnnot. bo pnrtners with tha lt"oderal Government.

Tho Feclernl Government is donlin~ out this money nnd Riter it ho· comes I\ substnntinl nmount tho munic11>nlity is hooked. If munlolpall· ties do not suhstant.iRlly c.~Qmt>ly wltli the t>lan, thnt money cnn be withdrawn nn<l thoy hn\'o no nlternntlvo. They must. runt.hat dep1ut. ment the way tho Attorney Genornl says t.hoY. must., t>Ul'Sllt\nt to tlmt plan. Control then slips nwny from the municipn1lty nnd goos into the Attorney Oenornl's Offioo.

le that not nbout tho slzo of it t Attomey General Cr .. \RK. No. Not nt nn. That would bo both R

violntion of tho mnndato nncl spirit of section 408. I t.hink ns a prnctical matter tho Attorney Gcmarnl wlll not run tho police dep1ntment. because thoy wlll not Jet. hlm nnd hocanse ho does not want fo. He would not oven if be could do so.

And the amount of money conh•il.mtod by tho Federal Government will bo n small frnction of tho totnl in\'ostmont 1md it could hnrdly be tho controlllng pl\rt.

Setll\tor HRUSKA. You cnn go ns high RS 60 _percent of thaso budgets for ndmlnistrntlvo hn1>ro\•ement. The oxpondltnre of 60 percent is a big percentap. .

Altorney General . Cr.ARK. Sixty percent. of the increase nbove ton 1>0reent the first year 110 )>ercont t.he next yonr, tus percent-

Senator HnuaxA. ~tis only to nn Improvement component whfoh this 60 percent appliest

Attome,1-General CLAnx. TJ1atjs nll. Sonator HnvsxA. Will It not in due tlane be a. sizable nmountt Attorney Gonernl Cr.ARK. It will becomo I\ lnrgo sum ·in some cases

in due time. · · Senator HnuaxA. Now you rofe1• to soction 408 which states that

nothing contained In this net ehntl be construed ·to nut.horize any de· partment, ngenoy, ofttcer, or employee of the United Sta~ to ex6rclse any dlreotlonl 8UP.Orvlslon1 or control over nny police force or·ngenC)y of any Stato or 1ocnl law enrorcement nnd criminal justice s_yetem.

Tht\t ls a most noble statement innde in good fnltn. Yet the procedlng section says: ·

Whenever tho Attoriie1 Oeneral, after N410nablo notlre and OPPortunlt.J for heartus to a 1ranteo under this Act, finds that, wtth respect to ahj pa7ment1 made under thla Act. there I• a 1ub1tantlal fallu'ro to complJ with-<•> the proYIBIODI ot thll Act-

And (b) and (o). Considering tho vnst dlsoretlonary power invested tn··the Attorney

Genernl in this net nnd its overwhelming dlsoretion 1 In connection with this p~m, any ~~t of tho plan ~hat hns bee.n eubm.f ttod nnd npproved:muet he OK'd:by the Attorney,General; Thu11t 1f ho Mia it is being maladmlnistered and not aubetn1ttil\lly compiled with, he will say "Sorry· boys; the show ls over. No more money.''

Would t£at.con~ltute control and au~rvlslon in your )udlJl!entt It la well intended and ftlled with· the spirit of wnntln« improved law enforcement aenlco and an of·. ita p~ but le Tt. not a· pretty compulsive eltuatlonl ·: · · ·

· :Attomey. General CLA~x. No. ·I thin Ir lb fa ~~ry to the ln~lty of: the act that Its provisions be com,Plled with· and· lte regulntlort& be

ADD107


496 CONTROLLllrO CRIME

A~tomey Gen·eral CLAaK. It can apply to any need of a police de-partment or& corrections ~ncy or a court ..

Senat'dr 'l;'HVRHOND. You· have got a bill here then· in which any ~lice department of any city btthlri Nation can· ask Washinaron, our Govemm~nt~ to·· help to ·supply uniforms and clothing to tbefr police-men; is that right f . ·

Attornel' General· CLARK. Well, that is a.peculiar way of thinkli:ig about it= But they. could come. out that way. We req~ire, ~o~e~er, that they have spent 105 percent before thel are entltfed to anything from the Federal Govemment. We would look Rt t.he w~ole bu~t to .. ther. Why in !h! world they would take .out of all their budget uniforms and v.ut 1t m the Federal part 9 Whether they could get the. funds when th'ey actually &ought tlieill for 1iuch a. limited purpose or not i& anoth~r' question~ 'But these :fUn~ would ~ available for any need of a ~bee departmenUhat met the qu6H.flcat1ons.

SenatorTHuRHOND. Would that includethoe&, toot Attorney Gen6ral Cl.ARK. ·It could include shoes;_yes. Senator .TiiuRxoNo. W6ll now, ·suppose the Federal Government

said to th6 ~lice d~partmenta over· the c~untt'l, ~up~ youl' ditector says, "Now, I thirut·the'~licemen will look liandsotner, better· and appear more diseipl~e~ if t~ey .all u~d .b~ue uni~o~ms and •tlac~ shoes, and we are golJlg to w1tl\hold funds unleM you buy blmr Uh.1-fonns and black shoes." · · · ·

Would yourdirecfor have that authority t~doihit J ' Attomey:General ~:Well, 1·thihk we would st'&rt ldoking·for

a new dl~tor about that til'Ji"· ·' · ' Senator Tatml'ioliti>. 'I know, but that' is "not the· question.· I am

visualizing some Attorney General othel" .th•n ·Mr. Qla~k ·now; soine-one .. who ·Diigh~ ·au~ce:ecl .'you· i(oin~ .dat an~ ~ .. at-bltra!)'. Would y~u~ di~r have the light' to· withhold fundifif the pgli~ · depattmenta did'not·use the 'oolor·uJilfo~"he 1

want~cl';or the eolor shoes 'or· the quality of ttniform or shoe8 that he wanted them to uscst .

AttOh;iey Oen~ral Cl.ARK. He bas to have broad diseretiOn, ·and in theory he would probably bate' that diaoretion under the bilJ. . . i\& a p~tlca~ ~atter, th~ oeportunlty _to· exe~~· it '!~~1.d be ve~ .

hm1te!l. Th~ P.O'l~ are an. l~dependent ·ty~· of person, and I ju~ do not tbihk that 1a a real poss1b1Uty. · · · · . ·se~-t~~ ~xo"° ... B~tl'.oµ thiilk he would have· ihat·aut~orltyt A:tWrne1-Gett~tal CLARK. Y ~sir. · ·send.tOr TB'DibtoJn>; Well; tlien· wotiJd~your director alsc>have tlia

authc)rii)" ~ saY. that, ·"we· ~6n't .tHihk a ~It' is ~ ·very~'ood P.l~,. It d9e&ll't ~results, andz.!.herefo~·we •re not goina to ve anv·fU:nds tinless!oubuy'Smtth& wesson 'istOle;" . . , " "

Would you,.- 'director have :tife authorltv·to Withhold'tunds u~ess the . used Smith & Wesson . utols t. . ' ., . . I .. · . . •

J..~~~.~~~1:'tV::S:t;.tt..~ imrellabla or otherwise defectiv": that we wo\ild~&v6·a dutv t.6'with· hold fund&. · · · · : · · · . " .

Senator TBuaxoNi>. ~the Dlrector· .. wc;llld'have tJie authonty·to Withhold 'fund8~u t6'th''ldnd 'of :W"1~n ;or the .. qulllt.y· of tweaJ)on thatthe·ctt_y police department ot'th~ Btate'la.w enforcement··agenoy would purchase t . . ··

t

ADD108


CONTRO~LING CRIME 497 Attorney General CLARK. The probability of an exercise of discre-

tion like tliat is very, very slight. It depends, unless · . Senator THURHOND. I am not sayi~ how he would use this dis-

cretion, Mr. AttorneY. General. I ~m just aJJking, I am tryh1g to get at the authority- the tiill gives.J. whether he would nave the autliority.

Attorne)'_General CLARK. The bill 2!ves broad discretion. SenatorTHuaHoND. It gives broaadiscretion. Attorne1- General CLARK. Yes. . .

. Senator TutmHOND. So your director would have the right to with-hold funds if he $&W flt· unless a policeman used the kind of. weapons that he said they must use or use the kind of uniforms that he says they must use or use the kind of shoes thit he said they must use.

Attorney (Jeqeral CLARK. No. I think that reall:y~ is ve~ remote. It is necessary under the bill to· give broad discretion. But if it came tO the s~ificity 1ou ·are talking abou~ such an exerciae of discretion would probabiy·vtol~te seetiOn 40~ its:elt. It. is so -~real. .. . . , . Senator Tuua~ol(D, It is not~nte~plated, but is it·po~ble t

:Attorney General Cr.ARK. I would 8ay when it reaclies the level that you lit\. ye· now re~hed with ~ho_es and ~if~rms an.d P.~S ~n~ all ~hese o~~-~ t~ngs. thei:e. w:ould be& t() b_e c:ontl'Ql ~f ~' pobce d~~~rtment, ~nd th:~re w.out~. lie.!' v~~l~t~n. of·section 4-08 of the act, and, therefore, it woUld be 1ll v1olat1on of thcract. . . ,~epator ~tm~oND. :We1J, i '°Q~ up· t;ach orie separ~tely,. aJ!d y.ou

said he wowd have the autliority, ·al)d then I. $Ummarlzed ~t and .lumped_ ii ~~t.~~r,_and h:o\\r you sat Y'?~ ~o ~ot. Wli~t is you~ ~ltiont : : 4~tney. ije~el'f'l ~RK. My • pos1t1on is as stated . that ~h~ case

you.pose would be clearl1 ar~itrary, when yoU_:,d~ "them lip 'tlie :w,ay yoµ d<?;-7µi .f'9t,. ~y -~~e.by)~lf would seem highly arbitt'ary tO me and so ttnreah$tlo as tcrnot lie.' ~lbility; . . . . . , .. . , . . Se~ator,~~ND. WJio ls going~ .control whether })e is arbitrary

or :\lOt 9 He maJ[es the ftnat decl~on ijoes he nott . · . 1 ~ttorn'.ey <nn~J;&J. CLA~K. We]J, !here are lobj o~ ~eeks and 'balances

:~~tA>w:;;i>Tlt~?~;o:Sdo°t~:-:c:1~-~~1,?1i~i;=:l~:l~?; you ind1cat,ed, I thfuk the act would break down. . · , . Se~~tor T~c>~. 'l'~at ie not the question. I asked you·w1to would

can bill ha~<:I if :h~ be9&me arbltrag. : . , • , . , , , . . . Attorney General CLARK. Well perhaps with y9u Senato~ .UP" )lere,

you would· help and there would be an Attorney Ge~eral and other

• ~~~~~~ Tmnmoiio~ T~t is no~ it. ~- m~n in the e~ecuti~e.b~p'*-· Suppo!36,YO\l liad- director under you or sorne other Attorney General who was arbitrary, ·and he was trying to b~lng abOut C()nforniity in even :wav,· ebape· ~d forni, J'ust ~mpletely arbitl'Bry •. Now, wlio is above hbn to co~t him! . ' : .. ' A,ttorney.General .euax. We \fOrked for these 19 month$ under

·the _LjLw · Enfo~ment. :A8.9istance 4~. T4\'re is con\pl~te .~i!!Oreti~n in . , ~~e .d•~r. tli~re .. ~e can pnt or _no~:gr~t •. T)l~~ ~~ n~,~rlwria or standards set w~atever, ana we.have not,had any compla~ts 9f any

ty~U.:~1~:Q~P~ I~ oih~~, ~QJ'4s, ·h~ 4~ Jiave tJie· <Uscreiio~ but you do not t!i1r;i~-li~_woul':l b8 ar~Jtra'1;.ist~titt. .. . ·: .. . ., ·

ADD109


ADD110


ADD111


ADD112


ADD113


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Form 15. Certificate of Service for Electronic FilingInstructions for this form: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form15instructions.pdf

9th Cir. Case Number(s)

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing/attached document(s) on this date with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit using the Appellate Electronic Filing system.

Service on Case Participants Who Are Registered for Electronic Filing:I certify that I served the foregoing/attached document(s) via email to all registered case participants on this date because it is a sealed filing or is submitted as an original petition or other original proceeding and therefore cannot be served via the Appellate Electronic Filing system.

Service on Case Participants Who Are NOT Registered for Electronic Filing:I certify that I served the foregoing/attached document(s) on this date by hand delivery, mail, third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days, or, having obtained prior consent, by email to the following unregistered case participants (list each name and mailing/email address):

Description of Document(s) (required for all documents):

Signature Date(use “s/[typed name]” to sign electronically-filed documents)

Feedback or questions about this form? Email us at [email protected]

Form 15 Rev. 12/01/2018

18-17308, 18-17311

Brief and Addendum for Amici Curiae States of New York et al.

s/Linda Fang May 29, 2019


united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit...18-17308, 18-17311 united states court of...

Documents