Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Hi s t o r i c a l Setting of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, established i n 1968, was preceded by two major federal e f f o r t s to develop an anti-crime program. During the early 1960s, there was growing concern over crime, and the i n - creasing crime rate became a major issue during the 1964 presidential campaign. In response to the growing concern. President Johnson expressed caution about creating a federal role i n an area t r a d i t i o n a l l y viewed as a state and loc a l responsibility (see Johnson 1966). However, he did create, by Executive Order, a President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, us- ually referred to as the President's Crime Commission, and he proposed the Law Enforcement Assistance Act. That Act, which created an Office of Law Enforce- ment Assistance (OLEA) wi t h i n the Department of Justice, was passed i n 1963 (Pub. L. 89-197). I The President's Crlm'jp. Commission was intended to develop a better under- standing of crime i n America and of appropriate governmental responses to crime. OLEA's primary function was to administer a grant-in-aid program for developing innovative programs i n law enforcement. Thus the federal government began i t s course of assisting state'and l o c a l e f f o r t s to cope with crime. The 1965 Act
4 anticipated a need for research and evaluation by proposing to fund p i l o t pro- jects of national significance that could be tested for effectiveness and the results broadly disseminated to criminal j u s t i c e agencies. (See U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 1976, Ch. I I , pp. 2-3; hereinafter referred to as ACIR 1976; also see comments by Ramsey Clark, U.S. Congress, Senate 1967, p. 387.) OLEA concentrated on action rather than research, fund- ing a number of traini n g programs as well as 30 state crime planning commis- sions. Total funding for OLEA for 1965-1968 was more than $20 m i l l i o n . The President's Crime Commission issued i t s voluminous reports i n 1967 (U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice 1967; hereinafter referred to as President's Crime Commission 1967) which sparked a renewed concern for a national e f f o r t to control crime. In response to p olls of American attitudes reporting a r i s i n g fear of crime. President Johnson issued numerous pronouncements of concern and eventually proposed more federal l e g i s l a t i o n . At the same time, c i v i l disturbances focused national fear. The House of Representatives version of the Safe Streets Act was reported out of committee f i v e days after the Newark r i o t i n July 1967. The b i l l was debated during the cooling of the Detroit r i o t i n August. The Senate version was reported out of committee after the Washington, D.C., r i o t s i n spring 1968, passed by both houses, and sent to the President the day after Robert Kennedy's assassination. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration was created (and NILECJ with i t ) by T i t l e I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. I t
5 was amended by T i t l e I , the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Amendments, of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970 (signed January 2, 1971) and by the Crime Control Act of 1973. The 1968 Act repealed the Law Enforcement Assist- ance Act of 1965 and replaced OLEA with LEAA. The growth of federal assistance to law enforcement has been rapid. OLEA was appropriated $7 m i l l i o n i n 1965. In contrast, LEAA was appropriated $63 m i l l i o n i n i t s f i r s t year, and by 1973 LEAA was authorized $1 b i l l i o n each for f i s c a l 1974 and 1975, and $1.25 b i l l i o n for f i s c a l 1976. (See Table 1 i n Ap- pendix D for a detailed breakdown of the components of LEAA's appropriations.) The 1965 program under OLEA was an example of direct federalism, offering d i r e c t grants to loc a l law enforcement and criminal j u s t i c e agencies and newly created state planning agencies. (For a discussion of t h i s issue, see Rogovin 1973, pp. 11-12). The 1968 Safe Streets Act changed that direct grant/direct Attorney General authority to a state block grant program using the administra- t i v e mechanism of state planning agencies (SPAs). The largest proportion of LEAA funds by far goes each year to SPAs for th e i r planning and block grants. Crime as a national, p o l i t i c a l issue produced an odd but significant ad- ministrative feature i n LEAA. Both l i b e r a l s and conservatives, for separate reasons, were afraid of creating a federal police force. In addition, conserva- tives were wary Of giving the power to dire c t LEAA to the then Attorney Gen- er a l , Ramsey Clark, because he was thought to be "soft on criminals" (ACIR 1976, pp.9-10). As a r e s u l t , the Act created a three-man administration, referred to as a t r o i k a , under the general authority of the Attorney General. The troika consisted of the LEAA Administrator and two deputy administrators. This ar- rangement proved unworkable because i t produced i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t and even more than the usual bureaucratic I n e r t i a . (For a detailed account of the problems out of the troi k a arrangement, see Rogovin 1973, pp. 12-17.)
6 The 1968 Act was amended i n 1971 and 1973. The 1971 amendments modified the t r o i k a and established a new part for grants to correctional i n s t i t u t i o n s (Part E); they had no direct effect on the I n s t i t u t e . The 1973 amendments again modified the troi k a (out of business, for a l l intents and purposes) and added the words "and criminal j u s t i c e " following "law enforcement" throughout the l e g i s l a t i o n . The intended impact of the added words was to s h i f t emphasis to a broader range of programs. The House Report (U.S. Congress, House 1973, p. 4) commented: I t [the b i l l ] miikes more emphatic the intention of the Congress that monies expended under t h i s Act address a l l aspects of the criminal j u s t i c e systemânot merely police, and not merely the purchase of police hardware. The Committee, to c l a r i f y t h i s end, has added the words "and criminal j u s t i c e " to the words "law enforcement" wherever they appear thoughout the b i l l . Currently, there are four basic parts of LEAA's enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . Part B: Planning Grants. Each state receives a minimum of $200,000 to establish and maintain a state planning agency and to develop a comprehensive plan; 40 percent of these funds are to be passed through to l o c a l governments. The federal government pays up to 90 percent for planning grants and up to 100 percent of expenses for regional planning units, and the state must pay 50 per- cent of the non-federal share. Part C: Grants for Law Enforcement Purposes. Eighty-five percent of these funds are distributed by block grant to states with approved comprehen- sive plans, and 15 percent are distributed on a discretionary basis "to strengthen law enforcement and criminal j u s t i c e " under ten categories: public protection, recruitment and t r a i n i n g , public education, construction, organized crime, r i o t s , police-community relations, community-based corrections, and the establishment of Interstate and intrastate planning bodies. Block grants, except for con-
7 stru c t i o n , pay up to 90 percent of expenses, and the state must pay 50 percent of the non-federal share. Part D: Training, Education. Research. Demonstration, and Special Grants. This part authorizes NILECJ, FBI traini n g programs, certain programs of higher education, and certain prosecutorial trai n i n g programs. I n s t i t u t e grants may be awarded for up to 100 percent of the t o t a l cost of a project. Part E; Grants f o r Correctional I n s t i t u t i o n s and F a c i l i t i e s . F i f t y percent of these funds are available as block grants to the SPAs and 50 percent i s d i s - tributed on a discretionary basis to SPAs or loc a l government units. The fed- eral share i s 90 percent of the cost of the project. The National I n s t i t u t e of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice NILECJ was proposed by an amendment offered by Representative McClory of I l l i n o i s during the House debate and authorized under T i t l e I , Part D of the Act. Section 402(a) established the I n s t i t u t e under the general authority of LEAA "to encourage research and development to improve and strengthen law en- forcement," and Section 402(b) authorized specific a c t i v i t i e s . I n the 1973 amendments (Crime Control Act), the authorizing language of the I n s t i t u t e was expanded: ... to encourage research and development to improve and strengthen law enforcement and criminal j u s t i c e , to di s - seminate the results of such e f f o r t s to state and loc a l governments, and to assist i n the development and support of programs f o r the t r a i n i n g of law enforcement and crim- i n a l j u s t i c e personnel. The 1973 amendments also added a mandate for tr a i n i n g programs [specified as (6) under Section 402(b)] and a new Section 402(c) that specifies clearinghouse, evaluation, manpower survey, and reporting requirements. F i n a l l y , as noted.
8 the words "and criminal j u s t i c e " were added to each reference to improving an aspect of law enforcement. Section 402(b) currently authorizes the I n s t i t u t e : (1) to make grants t o , or enter i n t o contracts with public agencies, i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education, or private organizations to conduct research, dem- onstrations, or special projects pertaining to the purposes described i n t h i s t i t l e , including the development of new or improved approaches, tech- niques, systems, equipment, and devices to Improve and strengthen law enforcement and criminal j u s t i c e ; (2) to make continuing studies and undertake programs of research to develop new or improved approaches, techniques, systems, equipment, and devices to im- prove and strengthen law enforcement and criminal j u s t i c e , including, but not limited t o , the effec- tiveness of projects or programs carried out under thi s t i t l e ; (3) to carry out programs of behavioral research de- signed to provide more accurate information on the causes of crime and the effectiveness of various means of preventing crime, and to evalu- ate the success of correctional procedures; (4) to make recommendations for action which can be taken by federal, state, and local governments and by private persons and organizations to im- prove and strengthen law enforcement and crimi- nal Justice; (5) to carry out programs of i n s t i t u t i o n a l assist- ance consisting of research fellowships for the programs provided under t h i s section, and special workshops for the presentation and dissemination of information resulting from research, demonstra- tions, and special projects authorized under t h i s t i t l e ; (6) to assist i n conducting, at the request of a state or a unit of general l o c a l government or a combination thereof, local or regional t r a i n i n g programs for the traini n g of state and loc a l law enforcement and criminal j u s t i c e personnel, including but not limited to those engaged i n the investigation of crime and apprehension of criminals, community relations, the prosecution
or defense of those charged with crime, correc- tions, r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , probation and parole of offenders. Such train i n g a c t i v i t i e s shall be designed to supplement and improve rather than supplant the tra i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s of the state and units of general l o c a l government and shall not duplicate the t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under Section 404 of t h i s t i t l e . While part i c i p a t i n g i n the trai n i n g program or traveling i n connection with p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the t r a i n i n g program, state and loca l personnel s h a l l be allowed t r a v e l expenses and a per diem allowance i n the same manner as prescribed under Section 5703(b) of T i t l e 5, United States Code, for persons employed i n t e r - m i t t e n t l y i n the Government service; (7) to carry out a program of col l e c t i o n and dis - semination of information obtained by the I n s t i t u t e or other federal agencies, public agencies, I n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education, or private organizations engaged i n projects under t h i s t i t l e , including information re- l a t i n g to new or improved approaches, tech- niques, systems, equipment, and devices to improve and strength law enforcement; and (8) to establish a research center to carry out the programs described I n t h i s section. The 1973 amendments mandated that the I n s t i t u t e also serve as a national and International clearinghouse for the exchange of information on the improve- ment of law enforcement and criminal j u s t i c e , evaluate programs and projects carried out under T i t l e I to determine t h e i r Impact and the extent to which they meet the purposes of t h i s T i t l e , and disseminate the results of i t s evalu- ations to SPAs and by request to units of loc a l government. The I n s t i t u t e i s required to report annually to the President, Congress, and the SPAs.
