Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
18-2648
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellant.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE STATES OF NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO,
OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, AND WASHINGTON, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE
ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General LINDA FANG Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. HAREN Special Counsel and Assistant Solicitor General of Counsel
(Counsel listing continues on signature pages.)
BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Attorney General State of New York 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 (212) 416-8656 Dated: October 11, 2018
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI .................................... 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................... 3
A. The Byrne JAG Formula Grant ................................................ 3
B. The Immigration-Related Conditions ....................................... 6
ARGUMENT
THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE CHALLENGED CONDITIONS ARE UNLAWFUL .................................................................. 9
A. The Byrne JAG Statute Does Not Permit the U.S. Attorney General to Impose New Eligibility Requirements on Byrne JAG Grant Recipients. ...................... 9
B. The Challenged Conditions Are Not Authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a)(6). .......................................................... 14
C. The § 1373 Requirement Is Not Authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(D). ...................................................................... 20
D. Section 1373 Violates the Tenth Amendment. ....................... 25
E. The Challenged Conditions Are Inconsistent with 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a) Because They Seek to Direct and Control the Actions of State and Local Law Enforcement. ........................................................................... 28
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 32
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008) ............................................................................. 29
City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-4642, 2018 WL 4859528 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2018) ...... passim
City of Chicago v. Sessions, 264 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2017) ........................................... passim
City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2018) ................................... 8, 20, 26, 28
City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018) ....................................................... passim
City of Los Angeles v. McLaughlin, 865 F.2d 1084 (9th Cir. 1989) .......................................................... 9-10
City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 579 (E.D. Pa. 2017) ........................................... passim
Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913 (2015) ........................................................................... 10
Ely v. Velde, 451 F.2d 1130 (4th Cir. 1971) ............................................................. 30
Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) ............................................................................. 13
Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564 (1982) ............................................................................. 24
Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986) ............................................................................... 9
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
iii
Cases Page(s) McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Wilander,
498 U.S. 337 (1991) ....................................................................... 17, 23
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018) ....................................................... 25, 26, 27, 28
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) ....................................................................... 30, 31
United States v. California, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (E.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................... 26
Laws
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181 ....................................................................................................... 4
Justice Assistance Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837 .................................................................................................... 3-4
Justice System Improvement Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96-157, 93 Stat. 1167 ........................................................................... 3, 22
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 ......................................................... 3, 4, 29
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 ................................................................................................ 14 §§ 10151-58 ..................................................................................... 5, 11 § 10151 et seq. ....................................................................................... 1 § 10152 ........................................................................................ 5, 6, 19 § 10153 .......................................................................................... 19, 21 § 10156 ........................................................................................ 6, 9, 19
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
iv
Laws Page(s) 34 U.S.C. (cont’d) § 10157 ................................................................................................ 10
§§ 10171-91 ......................................................................................... 11 § 10228 ...................................................................................... 5, 12, 28 § 10410 .................................................................................................. 1 § 20927 ................................................................................................ 11 § 30307 ................................................................................................ 11
42 U.S.C. § 2000d ................................................................................................ 21 § 3756 (2000) ....................................................................................... 11
2 C.F.R. § 200.207 ............................................................................. 17, 18
28 C.F.R. § 66.12 (2006) .............................................................. 16, 17, 18
53 Fed. Reg. 8,034 (Mar. 11, 1988) ......................................................... 15
79 Fed. Reg. 75,872 (Dec. 19, 2014) ........................................................ 16
Legislative History
H.R. Rep. No. 103-694 (1994) (Conf. Report) .......................................... 12
H.R. Rep. No. 109-233 (2005) .............................................................. 5, 12
S. Rep. No. 90-1097 (1968) .................................................................. 4, 29
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) ................................................................................ 23
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) ................................................................................................... 30
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
v
Legislative History Page(s) Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3009, 114th
Cong. (2015) ........................................................................................ 12
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) ........................................................................................ 24
Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3002, 114th Cong. (2015) ........................................................................................ 12
Restructuring the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 95th Cong. (1977) ........................ 24
Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 5654, 114th Cong. (2016) ........................................................................................ 12
Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 3100, 114th Cong. (2016) ..... 12
Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 1814, 114th Cong. (2015) ........................ 13
Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, S. 2146, 114th Cong. (2015) ......................................................................... 12-13
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 H.R. 3355, 103d Cong. (version dated Nov. 19, 1993) ........................ 12
Miscellaneous Authorities
Dep’t of Justice, Certified Standard Assurances (exp. May 31, 2019), at https://ojp.gov/funding/Apply/Resources/ StandardAssurances.pdf ..................................................................... 21
Dep’t of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Admin., General Briefing (1977)....................................................................... 22
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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 ................................ 8, 19
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, 25
John K. Hudzik et al., Federal Aid to Criminal Justice: Rhetoric, Results, Lessons (1984)........................................................ 29
Malcolm S. Mason, Monitoring of Grantee Performance, in Federal Grant Law (Malcolm S. Mason ed., 1982)............................. 15
Office of Representative Peter W. Rodino, Press Release, Committee Approves LEAA Reorganization (May 10, 1979) .............. 24
Paul G. Dembling & Malcom S. Mason, Essentials of Grant Law Practice (1991) ........................................................................ 9, 15
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI
The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne
JAG) program is a formula grant program that Congress designed to
ensure that States and localities have a reliable stream of funding to
support local law-enforcement programs tailored to local needs. See 34
U.S.C. § 10151 et seq. The amici States of New York, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and
the District of Columbia have received law-enforcement grants under the
Byrne JAG program and its predecessors for decades.1 Amici have used
the funds to support a diverse array of law-enforcement programs
tailored to local needs. For example, New York has used Byrne JAG
funding to support a multicounty program to combat gun violence,
improve criminal records systems, and enhance forensic laboratories.
Connecticut plans to use fiscal year (FY) 2017 Byrne JAG funds to reduce
recidivism, prevent gun violence, provide training to mentally ill
offenders, and provide treatment for offenders addicted to opioids and
1 The District of Columbia is considered a “state” for purposes of the
Byrne JAG program. See 34 U.S.C. § 10410(3).
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
2
heroin. New Jersey has historically used Byrne JAG funding to support
multi-jurisdictional gang, gun, and narcotics task forces and law-
enforcement information-sharing projects. And the District of Columbia
will use its FY 2017 Byrne JAG grant to fund efforts by community-based
organizations to provide re-entry services to help individuals transition
from jail or prison back into the community, and to address juvenile
delinquency. Without Byrne JAG funds, the amici States may be forced
to cut these critical programs.
The U.S. Attorney General now wrongly claims authority to withhold
Byrne JAG funding from States and localities that have chosen to limit
their voluntary involvement with enforcing federal immigration policy
because they have concluded that fostering a relationship of trust
between their law-enforcement officials and their immigrant communities
will promote public safety. The U.S. Attorney General’s position is
contrary to the text, structure, and history of the Byrne JAG statute and
to federal law generally prohibiting federal officials from using grants as
a means to direct or control local law-enforcement activities.
The amici States have adopted a variety of different approaches to
cooperating with the federal government in immigration matters. While
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
3
they may not all have chosen precisely the same approach as the City of
Philadelphia, they share a strong interest in the principle that
Philadelphia, like all State and local governments, is permitted by the
Byrne JAG statute to adopt law-enforcement policies suited to local needs
without financial penalty.2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Byrne JAG Formula Grant
The Byrne JAG program has its origins in the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-351, Title I, 82 Stat.
197, which created the first block grants for States and localities to use
for law-enforcement and criminal justice programs.3 Recognizing that
2 Several of the amici States and a number of localities have filed
their own lawsuits challenging the Byrne JAG conditions. See Amended Compl., New York v. DOJ, No. 18-cv-6471 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2018), ECF No. 32 (joined by Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington); Compl., Illinois v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-4791 (N.D. Ill. July 12, 2018), ECF No. 1; Compl., City of Evanston v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-4853 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2018), ECF No. 1 (joined by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, representing approximately 1,400 cities); Compl., City of New York v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-6474 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2018), ECF No. 1.
3 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
4
“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.4
To ensure federal deference to local priorities, Congress expressly
prohibited federal agencies and executive-branch officials from using the
Byrne JAG grant—and other law-enforcement grants administered by
the U.S. Department of Justice (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
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).
4 See S. Rep. No. 90-1097, at 2 (1968) (stating that Congress sought to encourage States and localities to adopt programs “based upon their evaluation of State and local problems of law enforcement”). (Excerpt in Addendum (Add.) to this brief at 2.)
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
5
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 Byrne JAG. See
34 U.S.C. § 10228(a).5
The modern Byrne JAG program was codified 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 eight “broad purposes,” id., including law enforcement,
crime prevention and education, and drug treatment, 34 U.S.C.
§ 10152(a)(1).
5 The full text of § 10228(a) reads:
Nothing in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over any police force or any other criminal justice agency of any State or any political subdivision thereof.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
6
The Byrne JAG program is administered by DOJ 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.
Specifically, “[o]f the total amount appropriated” by Congress, the U.S.
Attorney General “shall, except as provided in paragraph (2), allocate”
fifty percent of the funds based on each State’s population and fifty
percent based on each State’s crime rate. Id. § 10156(a)(1). The exception
in paragraph (2) provides that each State must receive at least one-
quarter of one percent of the funds appropriated by Congress for a given
year, regardless of what the formula would otherwise dictate. Id.
§ 10156(a)(2). 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 (compared within a State based on crime rate), id.
§ 10156(b)(2), (d).
B. The Immigration-Related Conditions
In July 2017, DOJ announced that it was imposing three
immigration-related conditions on FY 2017 Byrne JAG funds. The first
two conditions require grant recipients, upon a request from federal
authorities, to provide federal authorities with advance notice of a
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 13 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
7
particular alien’s scheduled date of release from state and local custody
(the “Notice condition”), and to give federal authorities access to state and
local correctional facilities to question suspected aliens about their right
to remain in the United States (the “Access condition”). The third
condition imposes a number of requirements relating to 8 U.S.C. § 1373,
which prohibits States and localities from restricting communications
between their officials and federal immigration authorities regarding the
citizenship or immigration status of any individual. Among other things,
the § 1373 condition provides that States and localities must certify their
compliance with § 1373, and monitor the compliance of all of their
subgrantees with § 1373 during the duration of a Byrne JAG award.
On September 15, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois entered a preliminary injunction restraining DOJ from
imposing the Notice and Access conditions on any grant applicant. See
City of Chicago v. Sessions, 264 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2017), aff’d, 888
F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018). On June 26, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit issued a partial stay of the preliminary injunction,
limiting its effect to Chicago. See Order, City of Chicago v. Sessions, No.
17-2991 (7th Cir. June 26, 2018), ECF No. 134. Within hours of that
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 14 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
8
decision, DOJ issued Byrne JAG award letters containing the three
immigration-related conditions to over 800 jurisdictions nationwide,
including some but not all of the amici States.6
On July 20, 2018, DOJ released solicitations for FY 2018 Byrne
JAG funding.7 In addition to imposing the Notice, Access, and § 1373
requirements, DOJ is now requiring grantees to execute certifications
pertaining to six additional federal immigration laws in order to receive
FY 2018 grants.
6 On August 15, 2018, the Chicago district court entered a permanent
nationwide injunction prohibiting DOJ from enforcing any of the three challenged conditions against any Byrne JAG grantee, but partly stayed the permanent injunction to limit its effect to Chicago. See City of Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-5720 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2018), ECF No. 211; City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855, 882 (N.D. Ill. 2018). Subsequently, the district court in the Northern District of California in City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions and California v. Sessions entered a similar nationwide permanent injunction against the challenged conditions, and likewise partly stayed the injunction pending appellate review, limiting the injunction’s effect to San Francisco and California. See Nos. 17-cv-4642 and 17-cv-4701, 2018 WL 4859528 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2018) (“California Actions”).
7 See DOJ, Office of Justice Programs, Byrne JAG Program: FY 2018 State Solicitation.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 15 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
9
ARGUMENT
THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE CHALLENGED CONDITIONS ARE UNLAWFUL
A. The Byrne JAG Statute Does Not Permit the U.S. Attorney General to Impose New Eligibility Requirements on Byrne JAG Grant Recipients.
Under basic separation-of-powers principles, an executive “agency
literally has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power
upon it.” Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986).
Here, the Byrne JAG statute contains no express provision authorizing
DOJ to impose new eligibility requirements that are unrelated to federal
grant-making or to the Byrne JAG program requirements prescribed by
Congress. The statute instead provides that “the Attorney General shall
. . . allocate” grant money based on the statutory formula. 34 U.S.C.
§ 10156(a)(1). Consistent with the nature of Byrne JAG as a formula
grant, the statutory formula is determinative of a grantee’s eligibility to
receive grant funds.8 See City of Los Angeles v. McLaughlin, 865 F.2d
8 See Paul G. Dembling & Malcom S. Mason, Essentials of Grant
Law Practice § 5.03(c), at 34-35 (1991) (the General Accounting Office defines “formula grant” as “grants in which a structured mathematical statement and data elements, such a statistical data, are used to (1)
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 16 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
10
1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989).
Other provisions of Byrne JAG confirm that Congress intended to
constrain DOJ’s ability to deviate from the statutory formula when
disbursing grants. For example, 34 U.S.C. § 10157(b) permits DOJ to
reserve up to five percent of appropriated funds and reallocate them to a
State or locality if DOJ determines that reallocation is necessary to
combat “extraordinary increases in crime” or to “mitigate significant
programmatic harm resulting from” the formula. By expressly restricting
DOJ’s authority to redirect Byrne JAG funds to very limited and
specifically enumerated instances—none of which are implicated here—
Congress made clear that DOJ must otherwise abide by the statutory
formula in distributing grant monies. See, e.g., Department of Homeland
Sec. v. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913, 919 (2015) (provision of express authority
in one statutory section implies intent to exclude such authority elsewhere).
The structure of title 34, chapter 101 of the United States Code
underscores these limits on DOJ’s authority. Byrne JAG is located in part
A of subchapter V of Chapter 101, which is entitled “Edward Byrne
allocate funds to eligible recipients, or (2) determine a potential grant recipient’s eligibility to receive funds, or both.”) (Add. 110-111.)
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 17 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
11
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.” See 34 U.S.C. §§ 10151-58.
In contrast, Part B, entitled “Discretionary Grants,” authorizes DOJ to
issue grants to support projects similar to those supported by Byrne JAG
but at DOJ’s discretion. See id. §§ 10171-91.
Where Congress has sought to condition Byrne JAG funds upon
compliance with other legislative aims, it has done so explicitly by
statute—and in such cases has authorized only modest withholdings. For
example, a State that fails to “substantially implement” relevant
provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act “shall
not receive 10 percent of the funds” it would otherwise receive under
Byrne JAG. See id. § 20927(a).9 The amici States are unaware of
Congress ever imposing a condition on Byrne JAG that would withhold
all funding as DOJ now seeks to do.
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
9 See also 34 U.S.C. § 30307(e)(2) (providing a five-percent penalty
for noncompliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act); 42 U.S.C. § 3756(f) (2000) (providing a ten-percent penalty for not testing sex offenders for HIV at victims’ request).
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 18 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
12
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 28-30; 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a). In addition, when enacting
Byrne JAG—the latest version of the 1968 program (see supra at 3-5)—
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.
Since the 1990s, Congress has repeatedly considered and rejected
legislation that would withhold grant funding as a penalty for
noncooperation with federal immigration law. For example, the Senate
version of the 1994 Crime Bill included such a provision, but it was
eliminated in conference. See Violent Crime Control and Law Enforce-
ment Act of 1994 H.R. 3355, 103d Cong. § 5119 (version dated Nov. 19,
1993); H.R. Rep. No. 103-694, at 424 (1994) (Conf. Report). More recent
attempts to impose similar restrictions have uniformly failed.10 In light
10 See, e.g., Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 5654, 114th
Cong. § 4 (2016); Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 3100, 114th Cong. § 4 (2016); Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3009, 114th Cong. § 3 (2015); Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 3002, 114th Cong. § 2 (2015); Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 19 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
13
of Congress’s repeated failure to enact legislation imposing similar
immigration-related conditions on grants, DOJ’s current attempt to do so
is suspect. See Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159-60 (2000).
As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, nothing in the Byrne JAG
statute “grant[s] the Attorney General the authority to impose conditions
that require states or local governments to assist in immigration
enforcement, nor to deny funds to states or local governments for the
failure to comply with those conditions.” Chicago, 888 F.3d at 284; see
also California Actions, 2018 WL 4859528, at *11-13. The district court
here correctly reached this same conclusion. See City of Philadelphia v.
Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 579, 593-94 (E.D. Pa. 2017), appeal dismissed,
2018 WL 347591 (3d Cir. July 6, 2018).
Americans Act, S. 2146, 114th Cong. § 3(a) (2015); Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, S. 1814, 114th Cong. § 2 (2015).
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 20 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
14
B. The Challenged Conditions Are Not Authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a)(6).
Contrary to DOJ’s contention (Br. for Appellant (Br.) at 26-29), the
language in 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a)(6) does not authorize DOJ to impose its
own criteria for determining Byrne JAG eligibility. That provision
instead 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) (emphasis added). Section 10102(a)(6), which is located in
a different chapter of the United States Code from the Byrne JAG statute,
merely delegates to the Assistant Attorney General for OJP whatever
powers the U.S. Attorney General has been granted elsewhere by statute.
See Chicago, 888 F.3d at 286-87. As the Seventh Circuit has noted, it is
“inconceivable” that Congress could have intended the language in a
provision enumerating the “otherwise-ministerial powers” of the
Assistant Attorney General for OJP to have conferred the authority to
“abrogate the entire distribution scheme and deny all funds to states and
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 21 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
15
localities . . . based on the Assistant Attorney General’s decision to impose
his or her own conditions.” Chicago, 888 F.3d at 286.
The district court correctly recognized that “special conditions” is a
long-established term of art in the federal grant-making context that
refers only to those grant conditions applying to “high-risk grantees”—as
distinguished from conditions that are generally applicable to all grants
under a particular grant program. See Philadelphia, 280 F. Supp. 3d at
617; see also Chicago, 888 F.3d at 285 n.2; California Actions, 2018 WL
4859528, at *12 n.2. The federal Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB) uniform administrative rules governing federal grants to States
and localities dating back to the 1980s have consistently used “special
conditions” in this same way. See, e.g., 53 Fed. Reg. 8,034, 8,090 (Mar. 11,
1988). Other authorities on federal grants similarly confirm this well-
known understanding of the term.11
11 Dembling & Mason, supra n.8, § 11.01, at 107 (“special
conditions” are those tailored to specific problems posed by particular grantees) (Add. 112); Malcolm S. Mason, Monitoring of Grantee Performance, in Federal Grant Law 79, 86 (Malcolm S. Mason ed., 1982) (“special conditions” are those applied to “high-risk grantees”) (Add. 113).
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 22 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
16
Indeed, when Congress amended § 10102(a)(6) in 2006 to add the
“special conditions” language, DOJ’s own regulation defined the term as
a condition that is imposed to address financial or performance concerns
specific to a particular applicant. See 28 C.F.R. § 66.12 (2006).12 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).13 Under established
12 28 C.F.R. § 66.12 (2006) provided, in relevant part:
(a) A grantee or subgrantee may be considered “high risk” if an awarding agency determines that a grantee or subgrantee: (1) Has a history of unsatisfactory performance, or (2) Is not financially stable, or . . . (5) Is otherwise not responsible; and if the awarding agency determines that an award will be made, special conditions and/or restrictions shall correspond to the high risk condition and shall be included in the award.
(b) Special 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 management assistance; or (6) Establishing additional prior approvals.
13 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 23 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
17
approaches to statutory construction, this history and context offers
strong support for reading § 10102(a)(6) to incorporate the long-
established and well-understood regulatory definition of “special
condition.” Courts “assume that when a 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 describe the universe of all potential special conditions” that
may be imposed on grants, and thus “special conditions” can be
interpreted to encompass the challenged conditions. See Br. at 30. 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—which impose new eligibility
requirements having nothing to do with remediating a grantee’s specific
phrase “specific conditions” instead of “special conditions,” but the regulations are otherwise substantively the same. See 2 C.F.R. § 200.207.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 24 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
18
performance or financial risk—are fundamentally different in nature and
kind from the types of special conditions expressly identified as
permissible under the DOJ regulation. See id. § 66.12(b)(1)-(6) (describing
permissible special conditions); see also 2 C.F.R. § 200.207. Regardless,
since DOJ does not contend that Philadelphia should be considered “high-
risk” within the meaning of the regulation,14 there is simply no basis for
DOJ’s suggestion (Br. at 30) that the challenged conditions may be
imposed even as grantee-specific “special conditions” pursuant to
§ 10102(a)(6).15
14 The regulation expressly identified the factors warranting
treatment of a grantee as “high-risk” and thus properly subject to a “special condition.” See 28 C.F.R. § 66.12(a)(1)-(5) (2006), supra n.11; see also 2 C.F.R. § 200.207(a).
15 DOJ is not aided by its claimed prior reliance on § 10102(a)(6) (see Br. at 11) when requiring all grantees to comply with certain conditions expressly authorized by the Byrne JAG statute or by other federal authorities governing federal grants or grant-making, or to spend disbursed Byrne JAG funds in certain ways falling within the eight broad purposes enumerated in § 10152(a)(1). None of those practices support DOJ’s claim (see Br. at 11, 23-24) that § 10102(a)(6) gives it broad authority to withhold Byrne JAG grant funds altogether based on conditions of its own choosing. Moreover, DOJ’s mislabeling of these generally-applicable conditions as “special conditions” does not inform the relevant inquiry of what Congress intended “special conditions” to mean when the language was enacted in § 10102(a)(6).
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 25 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
19
Nor is DOJ’s currently proffered construction of “special conditions”
consistent with how OJP itself has used that term in the administration
of the Byrne JAG program. In the FY 2018 Byrne JAG Solicitation, for
example, OJP uses “special conditions” to refer to conditions that may be
applied to a State based on OJP’s “pre-award risk assessment” of the
State’s “financial management and internal control system.”16
DOJ fares no better with its contention (Br. at 30) that the
challenged conditions are “priority purposes” under § 10102(a)(6). Here,
Congress has determined that every State and certain localities are
eligible to receive Byrne JAG funds so long as they use the funding for
one of the broad purposes permitted by statute, and submit an
application in accordance with the requirements of 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a).
See 34 U.S.C. §§ 10152(a)(1)(A-H), 10156(a)-(d). It would be “at odds with
the nature of the Byrne JAG grant” as a mandatory formula grant—and
not a discretionary grant—to read the “special conditions” and “priority
purposes” language in § 10102(a)(6) as giving DOJ open-ended authority
to impose new conditions of eligibility on Byrne JAG grantees. See
16 FY 2018 Byrne JAG Solicitation, supra n.7, at 26.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 26 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
20
Chicago, 888 F.3d at 285. For these reasons, the district court correctly
rejected DOJ’s argument that § 10102(a)(6) authorizes it to withhold the
Byrne JAG grant upon a grantee’s noncompliance with the challenged
conditions. See Philadelphia, 280 F. Supp. 3d at 616-17. Every other court
to have passed on this question has reached this same conclusion. See
Chicago, 888 F.3d at 286-87; City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d
at 873-74; California Actions, 2018 WL 4859528, at *12-13. Aside from
§ 10102(a)(6), DOJ has not identified any statute which purportedly
authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to impose the Notice and Access
conditions on the disbursement of the Byrne JAG funds.
C. The § 1373 Requirement Is Not Authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(D).
DOJ likewise misplaces its reliance (see Br. at 36) on 34 U.S.C.
§ 10153(a)(5)(D): DOJ’s claimed additional source of authority for its
requirement that Byrne JAG grantees certify their and their subgrantees’
compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a), which provides that State or 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,
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 27 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
21
lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Section 10153 requires an applicant
for Byrne JAG funds to submit an application certifying that the
applicant “will comply with all provisions of this part and all other
applicable Federal laws.” 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(D) (emphasis added).
The text and structure of § 10153—which appears in an administrative
provision authorizing the Attorney General to promulgate the form of
applications and certifications—establish that “applicable Federal laws”
refers only to the body of laws that by their express text apply to federal
grants. See California Actions, 2018 WL 4859528, at *18. Indeed, DOJ
itself has used the term in the certification context in this very way—that
is, to refer to those “federal laws . . . applicable to the award.”17 See id. at
*17 (emphasis added; quotation marks omitted).
Section 1373 is not an “applicable” law within the meaning of
§ 10153(a)(5)(D). See id. at *17-18. Indeed, § 1373 concerns information-
sharing with federal authorities, 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. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 2000d
17 DOJ, Certified Standard Assurances § 3(a), at 1 (exp. May 31, 2019).
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 28 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
22
(providing that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of
race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in . . . any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”).
Section 10153’s legislative history further supports the reading
that it does not apply to 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).18 At that time, DOJ understood the term
“applicable Federal laws” to refer to statutes that govern the provision of
federal financial assistance.19 For example, DOJ’s Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration (LEAA)—the agency responsible for
administering law-enforcement grants—issued manuals providing
18 The relevant language in the 1979 Act was codified in 42 U.S.C.
§ 3743, which, like 34 U.S.C. § 10153, codified grant application requirements, including that an applicant certify it “will comply with all provisions of this title and all other applicable Federal laws.” Pub. L. No. 96-157, § 2, sec. 403(a)(8), 93 Stat. at 1188 (emphasis added). (Add. 33.)
19 See, e.g., DOJ, Law Enforcement Assistance Admin. (LEAA), General Briefing 6 (1977) (identifying twenty-three laws “applicable” to DOJ grants, and providing the National Environmental Protection Act and civil rights statutes as examples) (Add. 39).
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 29 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
23
“guidance to grantees on their responsibilities of [sic] applicable federal
laws and regulations” (emphasis added).20 A 1978 manual lists the laws
DOJ understood to be applicable to federal law-enforcement grants, and
the list contains only statutes governing federal grant-making. (Add. 6-30.)
Absent some contrary indication, when Congress incorporates a
term of art into a statute, courts “assume” that “Congress intended” the
language “to have its established meaning.” McDermott, 498 U.S. at 342.
The inference is particularly strong here because Congress knew of DOJ’s
understanding. In 1977, DOJ prepared a report identifying the laws that
DOJ deemed applicable to law-enforcement block grants: approximately
twenty federal laws that, by their terms, governed federal grant-
making.21 The report was distributed to every Member of Congress and
every governor—among others—and was subject to public comment and
20 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.)
21 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”).
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 30 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
24
hearings.22
Construing the term “all other applicable Federal laws” to include
any and all federal statutes of DOJ’s choosing would, as the district court
correctly determined, impermissibly convert the Byrne JAG program into
a discretionary grant—a result that “would upend the formula approach
that Congress created.” Philadelphia, 280 F. Supp. 3d at 618; see also id.
at 616-17; Chicago, 888 F.3d at 286-87. Such an absurd result should be
avoided as it is at odds with the general legislative purpose underlying
the statute. See Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 575 (1982).
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.23 One of the
22 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.)
23 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 31 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
25
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
that applied to federal grant-making—imposed excessive burdens on
grantees.24 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—is invalid under the Supreme
Court’s recent decision 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,
plagued the process of getting federal assistance to states and local governments” (quotation marks omitted)) (Add. 94).
24 See Restructuring Report, supra n.21, 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.”).
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 32 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
26
“a State or any of its subdivisions” from “authoriz[ing]” sports betting. Id.
at 1470, 1478. The Murphy court thus made clear that the anti-
commandeering principles inherent in the Tenth Amendment do not
permit Congress to “issue direct orders to state legislatures”—irrespective
of the contents of the directive. 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 directly “constrains
local rule-making by precluding [local] lawmakers from passing laws . . .
that institute locally-preferred policies which run counter to Section
1373.” Chicago, 321 F. Supp. 3d at 869. Accordingly, “[s]ection 1373 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. United States v. California, 314 F.
Supp. 3d 1077, 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2018); California Actions, 2018 WL 4859528,
at *14-17.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 33 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
27
DOJ is 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 49. As the Supreme Court
clarified in Murphy, a federal statute operates to preempt state law only
where the federal statute can be reasonably understood as “regulat[ing]
the conduct of private actors, not the States.” 138 S. Ct. at 1481. Yet the
plain language of § 1373(a) is directed not at a private actor, but at “a
State, or local governmental entity or official.” 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a); see
California Actions, 2018 WL 4859528, at *14 (concluding that § 1373
“does not regulate private actors”). Indeed, DOJ relies on the fact that
§ 1373 regulates States and localities as an essential part of its argument
that § 1373 is an “applicable Federal law” under § 10153(a)(5)(D) (see Br.
at 37). See Philadelphia, 280 F. Supp. 3d at 618 (setting forth DOJ’s
argument for what constitutes an “applicable” federal law). Thus, under
Murphy § 1373 cannot constitute a preemption statute. See California
Actions, 2018 WL 4859528, at *14.
Where, as here, a statute expressly commands States and their
officials “to enact or refrain from enacting state law,” the statute violates
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 34 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
28
the Constitution’s anti-commandeering proscription, and no preemption
analysis can save it. Murphy, 138 S. Ct. at 1481. The district court thus
correctly held that § 1373 is unconstitutional under Murphy. See Chicago,
321 F. Supp. 3d at 872; California Actions, 2018 WL 4859528, at *16-17.
E. The Challenged Conditions Are Inconsistent with 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a) Because They Seek to Direct and Control the Actions of State and Local Law Enforcement.
All three conditions are also invalid under a separate statutory
provision—codified in the same chapter of the United States Code as the
Byrne JAG 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 when
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-enforcement grants to exert “direction,
supervision, or control” over state and local police forces or law-
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 35 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
29
enforcement agencies. See Pub. L. No. 90-351, § 518(a), 82 Stat. at 208.
That provision’s repeated use of “any” shows Congress’s intent to speak
broadly. See Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214, 218-19 (2008).
Applied in the present context, § 10228(a) thus 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-
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, 98-99.)
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 36 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
30
enforcement grants.26 Reviewing this history, the only appellate decision
to construe § 10228 has observed that § 10228(a)’s purpose was “to shield
the routine operations of local police forces from ongoing control by
[DOJ]—a control which conceivably could turn the local police into an
arm of the federal government.” Ely v. Velde, 451 F.2d 1130, 1136 (4th
Cir. 1971).
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 The § 1373
condition requiring grantees to report violations of § 1373 by subgrantees
effectively turns States and localities into an enforcement arm of federal
26 Controlling Crime Through More Effective Law Enforcement:
Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedure of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong. 100, 384, 497 (1967). (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.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 37 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
31
immigration authorities. See California Actions, 2018 WL 4859528, at
*16 (finding that § 1373 “shifts a portion of immigration enforcement
costs onto the States”). The burdens imposed by the § 1373 certification
requirement are particularly onerous with respect to amici States with
large numbers of subgrantees. For example, in 2016, New York disbursed
Byrne JAG funds to over 110 subgrantees, including many towns,
counties, and local law-enforcement and social services agencies.28 And
all of the challenged conditions 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, and (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. See Printz, 521 U.S. at 904.
28 Decl. of Michael Charles Green ¶ 19, New York v. DOJ, No. 18-
cv-6471 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018), ECF No. 59.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 38 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
32
CONCLUSION
The Court should affirm the judgment of the district court.
Dated: New York, NY October 11, 2018
ANISHA S. DASGUPTA Deputy Solicitor General LINDA FANG Assistant Solicitor General ERIC R. HAREN Special Counsel and Assistant Solicitor General of Counsel
Respectfully submitted, BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Attorney General State of New York
By: . /s/ Linda Fang . LINDA FANG Assistant Solicitor General
28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 (212) 416-8656
(Counsel listing continues on next page.)
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 39 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
33
XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General State of California 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
BRIAN E. FROSH Attorney General State of Maryland 200 Saint Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202
GEORGE JEPSEN Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106
MAURA HEALEY Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108
MATTHEW P. DENN Attorney General State of Delaware Carvel State Bldg., 6th Fl. 820 North French Street Wilmington, DE 19801
GURBIR S. GREWAL Attorney General State of New Jersey Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street Trenton, NJ 08625
LISA MADIGAN Attorney General State of Illinois 100 W. Randolph Street, 12th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601
HECTOR BALDERAS Attorney General State of New Mexico 408 Galisteo Street Santa Fe, NM 87501
THOMAS J. MILLER Attorney General State of Iowa 1305 E. Walnut Street Des Moines, IA 50319
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General State of Oregon 1162 Court Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97301
(Counsel listing continues on next page.)
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 40 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
34
PETER F. KILMARTIN Attorney General State of Rhode Island 150 South Main Street Providence, RI 02903
ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General State of Washington P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504
THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR. Attorney General State of Vermont 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609
KARL A. RACINE Attorney General District of Columbia One Judiciary Square 441 4th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 41 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
COMBINED CERTIFICATIONS Linda Fang certifies under penalty of perjury under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that: 1. I am a member of the bar of this Court. 2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements and length limits of
Rule 32(a)(5)-(7) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3. All parties of record are Filing Users and, as required by 3d Cir. L.A.R.
113.4, this brief has been served electronically by the Notice of Docket Activity.
4. The text of the electronic file of this brief is identical to the text of the
paper copies of this brief. 5. I caused the electronic version of this brief to be checked for computer
viruses using McAfee VirusScan Enterprise + AntiSpyware Enterprise 8.8. No computer viruses were found.
Dated: October 11, 2018
. /s/ Linda Fang .
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 42 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
Addendum
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 43 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
i
Senate Report No. 90-1097 (1968) .................................................... ADD1 Dep’t of Justice, Guide for Discretionary Grant Programs (1978) ................................................................................................. ADD6 Justice System Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 96-157, 93 Stat. 1167 (1979) ...................................................................................... 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 44 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ii
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 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) ....................... ADD112
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 45 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 46 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 47 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 48 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 49 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 50 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 51 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 52 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 53 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
,
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
..
'
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 54 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
, • 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 ~ . .
\
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 55 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.
I M 4500.lc ll<e.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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 56 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 57 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 58 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 59 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 60 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
""" 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 61 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 62 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
•· 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 63 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
M 4500.lC September 30, 1978
(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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 64 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 65 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 66 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
(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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 67 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 68 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 69 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
M 4500.lC September 30, 1978
(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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 70 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
•
(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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 71 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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.
App l Par 12 Page 13
ADD27
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 72 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 73 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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.
App l Par 12 Page 15
ADD29
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 74 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 75 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 76 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 77 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 78 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
~ 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 79 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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)]
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 80 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 81 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 82 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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)
]
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 83 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 84 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 85 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 86 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
ADD42
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 87 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 88 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 89 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
• ~ , I ! I i
w.11 ~ i I I
i ~ i ~ I '
ADD45
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 90 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
i t
I I N • l l I .... I •
I I • I I I I i
. ; ' I a i
ADD46
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 91 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 92 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)>
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 93 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 94 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 95 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 96 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)>
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 97 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)>
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 98 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 99 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 100 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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)
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 101 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 102 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 103 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 104 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 105 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 106 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 107 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
a. LU LU ..I
I 1 I! I I i ~ g I
lpl ii~ a; N 9 I
ADD63
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 108 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 109 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
> 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"
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 110 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 111 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 112 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)>
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
.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 113 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 114 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 115 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 116 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)>
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.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 117 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
~ 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 118 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)>
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 119 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
~
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 120 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
.. 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 121 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
~ 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.
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 122 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 123 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
,... 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 124 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 125 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 126 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 127 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 128 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
--
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 129 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 130 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 131 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 132 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 133 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 134 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 135 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)
>
)
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 136 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 137 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 138 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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"tl- la 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 139 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 140 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
\ \
' '
.,
·--
""'
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 141 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
:'-
-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"
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 142 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
" .
..
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 143 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 144 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
\
)>
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
.,,
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 145 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
:- )>
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.'°
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 146 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
- 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.
_ _[ !
.,,
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 147 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
)> 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
~;
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 148 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 149 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 150 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
:;-·
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 151 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 152 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 153 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
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
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 154 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
ADD110
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 155 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
ADD111
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 156 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
ADD112
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 157 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
ADD113
Case: 18-2648 Document: 003113058397 Page: 158 Date Filed: 10/11/2018