Reducing Racial Inequality in Crime and Justice Science, Practice, and Policy (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
9 The Federal Role
9 The Federal Role
Pages 311-330
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 311... ...
. This chapter opens with a discussion of the history of the first federal grant program for crime control, underscoring the role of the federal government in local crime control efforts.
|
From page 312... ...
70; 101–102) HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRANT MAKING FOR CRIME AND PUBLIC SAFETY The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)
|
From page 313... ...
. The Safe Streets Act required states to develop long-term crime control strategies through criminal justice planning agencies and provided federal funding for such efforts at 90 percent of their cost.
|
From page 314... ...
The legislation gave state and local governments a three-year window during which they could receive federal crime control grants through the LEAA; thereafter; they were expected to operate their respective law enforcement programs independently. The act reduced the planning requirements that the Safe Streets Act had tied to federal funding so that states would no longer need to submit a criminal justice plan every year, and cities like Los Angeles (CA)
|
From page 315... ...
. The assistant attorney general, who leads the Office of Justice Programs, provides oversight of four programmatic offices that manage federal public safety grants: the Bureau of Justice A ssistance; the Office of Victims of Crime; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
|
From page 316... ...
. The 1996 Appropriations Act directed the Bureau of Justice Assistance to fund local governments through the block grant program to reduce crime and improve public safety with a competitive grants program based on a jurisdiction's rate of violent crimes, as recorded in the Uniform Crime Report as Part 1 Violent Crimes (Bauer, 2004)
|
From page 317... ...
, the way local, tribal, and state jurisdictions use the funds is up to their full discre tion. Importantly, the Byrne JAG program is only one of a host of federal grant programs within the Department of Justice that make up the complex web of resources dedicated to public safety.
|
From page 318... ...
The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) was created by the Violent Crime Control Act and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to support law enforcement agencies with grants for technical training and assistance.
|
From page 319... ...
. Formula-Funding and Categorical Grants-in-Aid The Byrne JAG Program is a good example of a formula-funding program providing resources for states and local governments to address their own public safety needs.
|
From page 320... ...
As a result, the existing grant funding mechanisms hinder advancing community-based and community-led efforts to reduce crime that could offer alternatives to traditional crime policy responses. Since states or units of local government must serve as the lead agencies applying for key federal funding programs, like Byrne JAG grants, community organizations are in essence barred from assuming a leadership role in standing up programs geared toward reducing crime in their communities.
|
From page 321... ...
This status allows victims of human trafficking to remain in the United States to assist in investigations or prosecutions of human trafficking violators. Foreign citizens seeking T-1 nonimmigrant status must be physically present in the United States already, due to the risks of human trafficking.
|
From page 322... ...
Without a transparent process that illustrates where grants for public safety are going, the federal grant-making process will remain a black hole of investment and continue to erode public trust. Moreover, the Office of Justice Programs' process for budgeting and appropriations is fast paced, comprising a series of quick and continuous steps involving the Department of Justice, the Office of Management and Budget, the President, and Congress (Office of Justice Programs, 2021b)
|
From page 323... ...
Dole, sometimes the "financial inducement offered by Congress in the spending context might be so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion."10 When states lack legitimate choice to accept or forego federal funding, financial inducements and grant programs turn into unconstitutional compulsion.11 For example, Byrne JAG grant conditions imposed by the attorney general in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 were challenged for infringing on the anti-commandeering principles of the 10th Amendment. One set of challenges revolved around use of the certification condition of the Byrne JAG application to ensure compliance with 8 U.S.C.
|
From page 324... ...
Some courts determined that the attorney general had exceeded his authority and violated the Constitution in imposing the certification condition.16 Others found the move to violate neither the Department of Justice's statutory authority nor the constitutional separation of powers.17 In sum, federalism concerns cabin the ability to condition funding for states and localities, and any policy-oriented changes to Byrne JAG allocations may implicate constitutional challenges from recalcitrant states or local law enforcement agencies. Opportunities Today the nation finds itself at a moment in which it has a considerable opportunity to reduce racial inequality in the criminal justice system.
|
From page 325... ...
, public safety, community wellness, and racial equity may well depend more on community-based and community-led anti-violence programs funded through other executive departments, such as Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Education, or through agencies such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration or Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. This is not an "either/or" choice; rather, it is a question of balance and relative emphasis.
|
From page 326... ...
Instead, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 197421 shifted the federal government's approach to delinquency toward punishment, empowering law enforcement authorities to intervene in public institutions serving youth in low-income urban communities. With an initial $380 million, three-year outlay for delinquency prevention and control programs, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 created the modern American system of juvenile justice.
|
From page 327... ...
"By eliminating HEW," the Wisconsin conservative said on the House floor, "we have done serious damage to our efforts to prevent people from becoming delinquents instead of simply seeing them wound up in the juvenile justice system as it is now."23 However reluctant some members of Congress may have been about the decision to treat delinquency as a crime control problem rather than a social welfare concern, the final version of the bill reflected the ideas of an ever-growing consensus of policy makers, law enforcement officials, and scholars that the remnants of the War on Poverty had worsened the crime problem, that Black youth were responsible for the majority of the nation's crime, and that the focus on rehabilitation and prevention in previous delinquency programs had been misguided.24 The shift in control of anti-delinquency programs from Health, Education, and Welfare to the Department of Justice vastly enhanced the power and influence of the latter. OJJDP was charged with disbursing $600 million in block grants to the states -- a striking increase over the 23 Hearings before the Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities of the Committee on Educa tion and Labor, House of Representatives, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., on HR 6265 and HR 9298, held in Los Angeles, March 29, and Washington, DC, April 21, May 1, 2, 8, and 21, 1974, 434; see Hinton (2017)
|
From page 328... ...
Social service and law enforcement authorities had few options outside of processing young residents through the criminal justice system. Indeed, the formal law enforcement system for young offenders that Congress designed in 1974 resulted in more Black and Latino youth 25 This amounts to roughly $850 million in today's dollars (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974)
|
From page 329... ...
, "Policymakers hoped the Runaway Youth Program would provide more humane and thrifty alternatives for young people. The constituency of the Runaway Youth Program shelters matched the gender and racial demographics of the United States in the mid-1970s to a far greater degree than other federal crime control programs.
|
From page 330... ...
The Department of Justice and similarly situated federal agencies with charges to support justice-involved populations should use their bully pulpit to disseminate findings about evidence-based programs that work to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, promote model jurisdictions implementing effective reforms, and support innovative solutions that could be tested, evaluated, and scaled. In doing so, they could emphasize that the pursuit of public safety requires addressing racial and ethnic disparities throughout the criminal justice system.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.