SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
57–225
1999
RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1997 AND BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT OF 1997
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 1524 and H.R. 2829
MARCH 19 AND 25, 1998
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Serial No. 104
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
SONNY BONO, California
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana
CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
THOMAS E. MOONEY, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Crime
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BILL McCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman
STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
PAUL J. MCNULTY, Chief Counsel
GLENN R. SCHMITT, Counsel
DANIEL J. BRYANT, Counsel
NICOLE R. NASON, Counsel
DAVID YASSKY, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
HEARING DATES
March 19, 1998
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
March 25, 1998
TEXT OF BILLS
H.R. 1524
H.R. 2829
OPENING STATEMENT
McCollum, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on Crime
WITNESSES
Baldacci, Hon. John E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maine
Carillo, Michael A., Chief of Police, Deming, New Mexico
Colwell, Lee, Director, Criminal Justice Institute and the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement
Henson, Hobart M., Director, Office of State, Local and International Training, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Hutchinson, Hon. Asa, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Roberts, Jack, President Southern States Police Benevolent Association
Robinson, Hon. Laurie, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs
Sexton, Edmund M. ''Ted,'' Sr., Sheriff, Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, and Executive Board Member, National Sheriffs Association
Simpson, Stephen, Sheriff, Loudon County, VA
Teodorski, Bernard, Vice President, National Fraternal Order of Police
Young, Herman W., Sheriff, Fairfield County, South Carolina
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Baldacci, Hon. John E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maine: Prepared statement
California Correctional Peace Officers Association: Prepared statement
Capozzi, Frederick V., Chief Seneca Falls Police Department: Prepared statement
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Carillo, Michael A., Chief of Police, Deming, New Mexico: Prepared statement
Colwell, Lee, Director, Criminal Justice Institute and the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement: Prepared statement
Etheridge, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina: Prepared statement
Henson, Hobart M., Director, Office of State, Local and International Training, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: Prepared statement
Hutchinson, Hon. Asa, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas: Prepared statement
The Law Enforcement Alliance of America: Prepared statement
Morgan, John D., Chief, Gulf Breeze Police Department: Prepared statement
Office of Justice Programs: Report
Robinson, Hon. Laurie, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs: Prepared statement
Simpson, Stephen, Sheriff, Loudon County, VA: Prepared statement
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Teodorski, Bernard, Vice President, National Fraternal Order of Police: Prepared statement
Visclosky, Hon. Peter J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, and LoBiondo, Hon. Frank A., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey: Prepared statement
Young, Herman W., Sheriff, Fairfield County, South Carolina: Prepared statement
APPENDIX
Material submitted for the hearing
Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1997
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill McCollum (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Present: Representatives Bill McCollum, Steve Buyer and Asa Hutchinson.
Staff present: Paul J. McNulty, chief counsel; Glenn R. Schmitt, counsel; Aerin Bryant, professional staff member; Kara Norris, staff assistant; David Yassky, minority counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MCCOLLUM
Mr. MCCOLLUM. The Subcommittee on Crime will come to order. I understand that Mr. Hutchinson, who is going to be a witness this morning, counts as a quorum. So we are two, and I'm sure we will be joined by our colleagues in a couple of minutes.
This morning the Subcommittee will examine issues related to the bill H.R. 1524, the ''Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act,'' and the unique challenges faced by law enforcement agencies in rural communities.
[The bill, H.R. 1524, follows:]
105TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1524
To establish a National Center for Rural Law Enforcement, and for other purposes.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 1, 1997
Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. COOKSEY, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. FROST, and Mr. BUNNING) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To establish a National Center for Rural Law Enforcement, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ''Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Effective and impartial enforcement of the law is one of the most important functions of government.
(2) The preservation of our form of government and the rights of our citizens are dependent upon competent and professional law enforcement agencies.
(3) Responsibility for law enforcement in the United States reposes primarily with State and local governments.
(4) Approximately 22,400 local government entities exist in the 50 states; one-third of all Americans live in nonurban areas; of the 17,120 law enforcement agencies, 90 percent serve populations of less than 25,000 residents and 75 percent serve a population of fewer than 10,000 residents.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(5) Rural violent crime has increased over 53 percent from 1983 to 1995, and is taking a toll on small town and rural citizens and small town and rural law enforcement personnel.
(6) Rural law enforcement agencies totaling 12,735 (police departments and sheriffs offices serving a population of under 25,000) have needs in the areas of providing management education and training, a clearinghouse, professional evaluation, technical assistance, practical research and analyses, and computer and forensic education and training as identified by the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(7) The National Center for Rural Law Enforcement has cooperated in the past and will continue to cooperate with the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Agriculture to promote the development and implementation of management education and training, a clearinghouse, professional evaluation, technical assistance, practical research and analyses, and computer and forensic education and training for rural law enforcement agencies.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of assisting rural law enforcement agencies with management education and training, maintaining a clearinghouse, evaluation, technical assistance, research, computer and forensic education and training, and providing such other support as may be necessary or useful, there is authorized to be established a private, nonprofit corporation, to be known as the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement which shall be neither an agency nor establishment of the United States Government.
(b) INCORPORATORS.—The Board of Directors first appointed shall be deemed the incorporators, and the incorporation shall be deemed to have been effected from the date of the first meeting of the Board.
(c) RESIDENCE.—The Center shall be located in, and shall be considered, for purposes of venue in civil actions, to be a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas, or at such other place as the Board may subsequently direct.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SEC. 4. CORPORATE POWERS.
The Center—
(1) shall have succession, and may sue and be sued, in its corporate name;
(2) may adopt and use a corporate seal which shall be judicially noticed;
(3) may adopt, amend, and repeal bylaws;
(4) may purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire and hold such property as it deems necessary or convenient in the transaction of its business, and may dispose of any such property;
(5) shall be eligible to apply for and to make grants from or to, and to enter into contracts or cooperative agreements without regard to the Federal Procurement Acquisition Regulations with, Federal, State, and local governments, public or private institutions, organizations, entities, and individuals necessary or convenient to the exercise of the functions or powers conferred explicitly or implicitly by this Act;
(6) may arrange, as permitted by law, for the loan, detail or assistance, or use of facilities, personnel, or equipment from Federal, State, or local agencies, departments, or entities on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis;
(7) may request from any Federal department or agency such information, data, and materials as may be necessary or convenient to the exercise of the functions or powers conferred explicitly or implicitly by this Act although the head of such department or agency may decline to comply with such a request;
(8) may solicit and accept gifts, devises, grants and donations of property, including cash or services in furtherance of its function and mission;
(9) shall have such other powers as may be necessary or appropriate for the exercise of the functions or powers conferred specifically or implicitly by this Act; and
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(10) is prohibited from supporting any political party or candidate for elective or appointive office.
SEC. 5. BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
(a) COMPOSITION.—The Board of the Center shall be composed of 18 members as follows:
(1) Two members from each of the 6 regions (Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest, Midwest, and West) shall be appointed from rural law enforcement agencies serving rural areas.
(2) One member shall be appointed from the International Association of Directors of State Law Enforcement Training.
(3) Two members shall be selected from personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and shall hold membership on the Board in an ex officio capacity. The members shall be selected by and serve at the pleasure of the Director of the FBI.
(4) The president of the University of Arkansas shall be an ex officio Board member.
(5) The Executive Director of the Center shall be an ad hoc Board member.
(6) One resident of a rural area shall be selected to serve as an ad hoc member.
(b) INITIAL BOARD.—
(1) SELECTION OF MEMBERS.—Appointive members of the initial Board of Directors shall be selected cooperatively by the president of the University of Arkansas, the Director of the FBI, and the Executive Director of the preexisting National Center for Rural Law Enforcement at the University of Arkansas.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(2) DESIGNATION OF CHAIRMAN.—The president of the University of Arkansas and the Director of the FBI shall designate a chairman from among the appointees to the initial Board.
(3) TERM OF OFFICE.—The term of office for appointive members of the initial Board shall be 3 years.
(4) SELECTION OF SUCCESSORS.—Not later than 90 days before the expiration of such 3-year term, the Board shall select, with the advice and counsel of the president of the University of Arkansas and the Director of the FBI, successors to the initial appointive members.
(c) SUBSEQUENT BOARDS.—
(1) TERM OF OFFICE.—The term of office for appointive members to subsequent Boards shall be 6 years.
(2) STAGGERED TERMS.—The successor appointive Board members, at their first meeting, will draw lots from 1 to 6 years.
(3) SUBSEQUENT SELECTIONS.—The Board shall select, with the advice and counsel of the president of the University of Arkansas and the Director of the FBI, successors as may be necessary or appropriate to replace members who resign or otherwise vacate their offices or whose terms of office expire within 90 days.
(4) TERM LIMIT.—No member shall serve more than 1 uninterrupted 6-year term.
(5) ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.—After the initial Board has been replaced, as appropriate or necessary, the Board shall elect a chairman from among its appointive members. The chairman's term of office shall be coextensive with that individual's term of office on the Board.
(d) FUNCTIONS.—The Board shall direct the exercise of all of the business and powers of the Center, including the adoption, amendment, and repeal of bylaws. The Board shall appoint (subject to specific provisions herein) and oversee the Executive Director and other corporate officers in the performance of their duties.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(e) QUORUMS.—Vacancies on the Board shall not impair the powers of the Board to execute the functions of the Center if there are not less than 7 voting members in office. Such number shall also constitute a quorum for the transaction of the business of the Board.
(f) COMPENSATION AND STATUS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The members of the Board shall serve without compensation from the Center but are authorized to receive whatever pay, allowances, and benefits to which they are otherwise entitled by virtue of their Federal, State, or local government employment.
(2) EXPENSES.—The members may be compensated for travel and per diem expenses by the Center at rates authorized under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their permanent duty stations in the performance of Center business.
(3) STATUS.—Other than the 2 ex officio members from the FBI, members of the Board shall not be considered officers or employees of the United States for any purpose.
SEC. 6. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.
(a) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.—
(1) INITIAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.—The Executive Director of the preexisting National Center for Rural Law Enforcement at the University of Arkansas shall serve as the initial Executive Director for the Center with a term of 3 years.
(2) SUBSEQUENT APPOINTMENTS.—After the initial 3-year term of the first Executive Director, the Board of Directors shall select and appoint, without regard to the provisions of the civil service laws applicable to officers and employees of the United States, and after consultation with the Director of the FBI and the president of the University of Arkansas, a successor whose term of office shall be 5 years.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(3) VACANCY.—The Board may at any time select and appoint, after consultation with the Director of the FBI and the president of the University of Arkansas, a successor to replace an Executive Director who resigns or otherwise vacates office or whose term of office will expire within 30 days. An Executive Director appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which the predecessor was selected and appointed shall serve for the remainder of such term.
(4) CONSECUTIVE TERMS.—No person shall serve as the Executive Director for more than 2 consecutive terms, excluding the term of the initial Executive Director.
(5) COMPENSATION.—The Board shall fix the Executive Director's compensation, benefits, and allowances.
(6) DUTIES.—The Executive Director shall be responsible to the Board of Directors for—
(A) the management and administration of the Center,
(B) the conduct of its day-to-day affairs and business,
(C) the performance of its officers, agents, and employees, and
(D) the establishment of an advisory board to assist the Executive Director with policy issues.
(b) ADDITIONAL STAFF.—The Executive Director shall select and nominate for appointment by the Board such other senior officers, assistants, and employees as may be necessary for the transaction of the Center's business and subject to Board concurrence, fix their compensation and define their duties. Officers may be removed by the Executive Director for cause subject to the concurrence of the Board. Assistants and other employees may be removed by the Executive Director without Board concurrence.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(c) FBI STAFF.—To assist the Center in carrying out its functions and programs, the Director of the FBI may assign, on a full-time basis, not more than 4 FBI personnel to the Center on a nonreimbursable basis. Personnel so assigned will remain employees of the Federal Government for all purposes and will not become employees of the Center for any purpose.
(d) STATUS.—Unless otherwise an employee of the Federal Government, officers and employees of the Center shall not be considered to be employees of the United States for any purpose.
SEC. 7. FUNCTIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In cooperation with the FBI, the Center, an educational entity, shall provide for the development of a rural law enforcement educational program through consultation with institutions of higher learning and the Board. The Center shall provide for—
(1) the development and delivery of management education and training, clearinghouse, evaluation, technical assistance, practical research and evaluation, and computer and forensic education and training for and to rural law enforcement agency personnel, including supervisory and executive managers;
(2) the delivery of technical assistance, including research and studies into the causes and prevention of criminal activity, to rural law enforcement agencies;
(3) equitable education opportunities;
(4) the development, promotion, and voluntary adoption of national educational and training standards and accreditation certification programs for rural law enforcement agencies and personnel;
(5) the development and dissemination of information designed to assist States and units of local government in small town and rural areas throughout the country;
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(6) grants to, and contracts with, Federal, State, and local government, units of local rural law enforcement, public and private agencies, educational institutions, organizations and individuals to carry out this subtitle;
(7) the establishment and maintenance of a clearinghouse and information center for the collection, preparation, and dissemination of information on criminal justice and rural law enforcement, including programs for the prevention of crime and recidivism;
(8) the delivery of assistance, in a consulting capacity, to criminal justice agencies in the development, establishment, maintenance, and coordination of programs, facilities and services, training, and research relating to crime in rural areas;
(9) encouragement and assistance to Federal, State, and local government programs and services;
(10) the development of technical education and training teams to aid in the development of seminars, workshops, education and training programs within the States and with the State and local agencies that work with small town and rural law enforcement managers;
(11) conducting, encouraging, and coordinating research relating to law enforcement and criminal justice issues, including the causes, assessment, evaluation, analysis, and prevention of criminal activity;
(12) the formulation and recommendation of rural law enforcement policy, goals, and standards applicable to involved criminal justice agencies, organizations, institutions, and personnel; and
(13) the evaluation by institutions of higher learning for the purpose of encouraging programs of study for rural law enforcement.
(b) DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITIES.—The Center may—
(1) create an organizational structure with regional representation for the purpose of—
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(A) delivering management education and training;
(B) conducting research focused on small town and rural law enforcement needs;
(C) providing technical assistance;
(D) creating a clearinghouse focused on small town and rural law enforcement;
(E) conducting evaluations for the benefit of small town and rural law enforcement;
(F) providing education and training in forensics; and
(G) providing education and training in computers;
(2) confer with and request the assistance, services, records, and facilities of State and local governments or other public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals; and
(3) procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, at rates of compensation not to exceed the daily equivalent of the rate authorized for members of the Senior Executive Service, ES–6, Level V, as authorized by section 5352 of title 5, United States Code. SEC. 8. METHODS.
In carrying out its functions under this section, the Center shall—
(1) utilize consensus building; and
(2) work in cooperation with—
(A) small town and rural, non urban law enforcement agencies;
(B) agencies of Federal, State, and local governments; and
(C) institutions of higher learning, law enforcement associations and other not-for-profit organizations;
(3) request and receive from other Federal departments and agencies such statistics, data, program reports, and other materials necessary for the Center to carry out its functions;
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(4) arrange with and reimburse the heads of other Federal departments and agencies for the use of personnel, facilities, or equipment of such departments and agencies; and
(5) use the assistance, services, records, and facilities of State and local governments or other public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals.
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term ''Board'' means the Board of Directors of the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement.
(2) The term ''Center'' means the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement.
(3) The term ''Executive Director'' means the Executive Director of the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement.
(4) The term ''FBI'' means the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(5) The term ''rural area'' means an area with a population of 25,000 or less.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act— (1) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; and
(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
In recent years, much attention has been given to the fact that crime knows no boundaries internationally. We too often forget, however, that crime knows no boundaries nationally either. The blight of violent crime has not merely affected major cities; it is affecting our counties and small towns as well.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The label ''rural'' doesn't mean a community is crime-free. While rural crime rates have been historically lower than urban crime rates, patterns of rural crime indicate that urban problems are spreading to rural areas. Urban drug trafficking has been a driving force behind the rising crime rates, as well as the spread of drug use and the development of gangs in rural areas. Overall, violent crime rates have been decreasing over the last few years in major cities across the country, but violent crime rates in rural communities have either risen or stayed approximately the same.
About 75 percent of the 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States serve populations of less than 10,000 residents. One-third of all Americans live in nonurban areas, and almost 90 percent of police departments serve populations of less than 25,000 residents.
Police departments that serve rural communities face unique challenges. Rural law enforcement officers often work with lower budgets, less staff, less equipment, and fewer written policies to govern their operations than their urban counterparts. Many programs and services available to urban law enforcement agencies don't exist in rural areas. Much needed training can be hard to come by.
While training programs for State and local law enforcement are offered at the Federal, State and local levels, the extent to which these programs are available to rural agencies is unclear. Currently, the FBI, DEA, ATF, BOP, and several offices within the Justice Department, offer a wide variety of training programs to State and local law enforcement. Moreover, several Federal grant programs currently exist which allow State and local agencies the flexibility to use the funds for the purpose of law enforcement training.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Next week, the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement, and we will hear testimony from the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs regarding the extent to which the Federal Government already assists State and local law enforcement through training and grant programs that exist on the books. The Justice Department will also discuss the number of State and local law enforcement officers who take advantage of currently existing Federal programs. Hopefully we'll get a clearer picture as to what the Federal Government is currently doing in this area so we can determine the comparative merit of proposals such as the ''Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act.''
H.R. 1524, the ''Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act,'' is an effort to provide much needed training to rural law enforcement agencies. Sponsored by Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Baldacci, H.R. 1524 authorizes the establishment of the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement as a private, nonprofit corporation. The Center, which was established in 1995 as part of the University of Arkansas' Criminal Justice Institute, is currently funded by smaller grants from the FBI and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Center offers management and training courses, as well as research and grant assistance to rural law enforcement agencies. H.R. 1524 would provide for six yet-to-be-determined regional offices, which would supplement the Center's Little Rock, AR headquarters.
I could go on to describe the bill, but I know that my good friends from Arkansas are going to do that. So unless anybody else would like to make a statement—and I don't see anyone else here to do that—we're just going to go on to our witnesses today.
Congressman Asa Hutchinson represents the Third District of Arkansas. He is on our first panel and he is our first witness. He's in his first term of office. Here in the House, Congressman Hutchinson serves on the Crime and Constitution Subcommittees of the Judiciary Committee, as well as on the Transportation Committee and the Veterans Committee.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
From 1982 to 1985 he served as United States Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas. He spent 10 years in private practice in his home town of Fort Smith, AR. Congressman Hutchinson has been a consistent advocate for rural America.
Congressman John Baldacci represents the Second District of Maine and is in his second term of office. He was first elected to public office at the age of 23 when he won a seat on the Bangor City Council in 1978. In 1982, he was elected to the Maine State Senate, where he served until his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994. He currently serves on the House Agriculture and Small Business Committees and represents the Northeast in his capacity as a regional whip.
I welcome both of you. Your complete statements will be put in the record, without objection. You may proceed, Mr. Hutchinson.
STATEMENT OF HON. ASA HUTCHINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to personally express my gratitude to you for conducting this hearing today, but also for your leadership on the crime issues that face our country. You're not only an expert in terms of the Federal legislation, but also you're out in the field and you understand what's happening in the grass roots. I appreciate your leadership on this national crisis that faces our country.
This hearing in reference to the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act is much appreciated. I want to particularly thank my colleague, Congressman John Baldacci, for assisting in this legislation. In fact, he first took the lead in it by introducing similar legislation in the 104th Congress. He's been very instrumental in creating a bipartisan measure of support for this legislation, which has been very critical.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Recent reports indicate that the Nation is making impressive progress in fighting crime. Unfortunately, these trends are more indicative of improvement in urban centers and the needs of rural America are being left behind. In rural America, violent crime rose 35 percent from 1983 to 1993, and these trends are continuing.
In Arkansas, my State, for example, violent crime rose 7 percent from 1992 to 1996. Violent juvenile crime, which this committee has addressed, was up a staggering 17.5 percent. Arkansas, of course, is a rural State.
This all points to a disturbing trend for Americans, like many of my constituents, who reside in rural America. These appalling statistics translate not only in increased violence against citizens in our small towns across the country, but these figures also translate into more deaths among our police officers. From 1988 to 1991, the rate of rural police officers killed in the line of duty per capita outpaced that of large urban centers. Meantime, our rural police departments receive very little benefit from the tax dollars that are used to train the Nation's law enforcement community.
All of these facts should be taken into account when we consider that we are spending, according to a recent GAO report, over $117 million to assist foreign governments with their local law enforcement efforts. And yet it seems that rural America has been overlooked.
From my perspective, historically, rural America has been neglected in our Federal law enforcement priorities, whether it's the DEA, the INS, the Postal Service, the drug task forces, all of these have first started with battles in the urban centers, and that is important because of the tremendous drug problems and crime problems there. But we have to address also what is happening in our rural communities.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One particularly troubling development is the increasing use in rural areas and the production and distribution of methamphetamine, which is vastly expanding in Arkansas and other rural areas. As a father, I believe we owe it to our children to assist in training local law enforcement officials to watch for the signs of drug trafficking, but also be equipped to deal with the unique safety and environmental challenges posed by meth labs.
This leads us to the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement and the legislation that is before this committee, a National Center that does not mandate to local law enforcement but meets the desires of the small, local agencies. That is the appropriate response. Currently, the only management training for rural departments is at the FBI Training Center in Quantico, VA. While this is an excellent program, many small police departments are not able to take advantage of the opportunity because of a lack of resources.
These small, rural departments have limited budgets and small staffs, less than ten officers, and to commit someone to a 12-week program is very difficult and places an inordinate strain on the rest of the police force.
I know that some have asked how these local law enforcement challenges affect the Federal Government. Well, as a former United States Attorney, I can tell you that many cases are made by rural law enforcement officers that bring information and help the Federal Government make the case. An example of that is the current prosecution of the ''Freemen'' in Montana. We're relying to a large extent on what rural law enforcement agencies do.
This legislation, H.R. 1524, is designed to address the training of our rural law enforcement personnel. The Center would conduct training conferences in each region of the country; it would set up six regional centers that will expand and reach out to every area of the country; it would provide a clearinghouse for information about model policies, training, and technical assistance. So I believe that this properly addresses the problem that presently exists in our country and will make a difference in combating crime in nontraditional crime areas.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for extending this hearing and giving me this opportunity to testify on behalf of this legislation, and also to my colleague, John Baldacci. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutchinson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ASA HUTCHINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking you for holding this hearing on H.R. 1524, the ''Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1997.'' There are a number of folks who deserve recognition, but I particularly want to mention my colleague, Congressman Baldacci. He first introduced similar legislation in the 104th Congress, and has been very instrumental in creating bipartisan support for this legislation.
The needs of rural America have been left behind despite the recent progress we have made in fighting crime. Criminals know that law enforcement agents in these rural areas are not as well trained, making rural communities a haven for criminal activity. From 1988 to 1991, the rate of rural police officers killed in the line of duty per capita outpaced that of large urban centers. In these rural areas violent crime rose 35 percent from 1983 to 1993. And these trends are continuing. In my own State of Arkansas, violent crime rose seven percent from 1992 to 1996. Violent juvenile crime was up a staggering 17.5 percent. This all points to a disturbing trend for those Americans, like many of my constituents, who reside in rural America.
All of these facts should be taken into account when we consider that we are spending, according to a recent GAO report, over $117 million to assist foreign governments with their local law enforcement. Yet, it seems that rural America has been overlooked.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One particularly troubling development is the increasing use of rural areas for the production and distribution of methamphetamine. As the Special Agent in Charge of the Arkansas FBI recently told me, the number of meth labs are dramatically increasing in rural areas. As a father, I believe that we owe it to our children to assist in training local law enforcement officials to watch for the signs of drug trafficking, but also to be equipped to deal with the unique safety and environmental challenges posed by meth labs.
Once all of this evidence is weighed, I believe the need for the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement is very evident. A national center that does not mandate to local law enforcement, but meets the desires of the small agencies, is the appropriate response. Currently, the only management training for rural departments is at the FBI Training Center in Quantico, Virginia. While the FBI program is an excellent one, many small police departments are not able to take advantage of this opportunity because of a lack of resources.
These small, rural departments have limited budgets and small staffs. For a department that has less than ten officers to commit someone to a 12-week program puts an inordinate strain on the rest of the police force. Furthermore, the budget strain on these departments is enormous and the travel alone to Quantico would obliterate their annual travel budget.
I know some have asked how these local law enforcement challenges affect the federal government. Well, as a former United States Attorney, I can tell you that a number of federal prosecutions depend on information collected and forwarded to the federal government. Just witness the current prosecution of the ''Freemen'' in Montana. This is a good example of how our federal agencies are dependent on rural law enforcement agencies.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The obvious question is then, ''How does H.R. 1524 solve these problems?'' First, the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement is charged with conducting training conferences in each region of the country. Second, it is directed to begin formulating plans for six regional centers. Third, it is required to maintain a grant database and provide assistance to rural departments as they apply for these federal grants. Fourth, the center is required to develop a set of voluntary national training and educational standards for rural departments. These provisions will go a long way to meeting the needs of rural law enforcement agencies, which have so aptly demonstrated that when given the right tools, can make a difference in combating crime in non-traditional crime areas.
Let me again thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for your dedication to law enforcement around the country. I hope we can move forward together on this issue and do what is right for those who truly are serving on the front lines.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you.
Mr. Baldacci, you're welcome to proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. BALDACCI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and I appreciate the courtesies that you have afforded me and Representative Hutchinson in your opening introductions and the statement that you read, because you very accurately reflected exactly what is going on. It was almost like you were immediately able to recognize the problem in rural America.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to thank Representative Hutchinson because he has taken the lead in this Congress, and we have worked to solicit Members in a bipartisan fashion. I truly believe that the way we can accomplish many great things is by working together.
My family runs a little business, and my mother has always taught us that everybody that comes through that door gets served, regardless of party and regardless of ideology. I appreciate what representative Hutchinson has been able to do.
The District I represent is the largest physical district east of the Mississippi. Aroostook County, located at the top of my District, is larger than the two States of Rhode Island and Connecticut put together. It's the largest county east of the Mississippi. My home town of Bangor, which many people consider to be northern Maine, is 222 miles from Madawaska, one of the State's northernmost communities.
The towns that are scattered throughout my District are the epitome of rural. In many areas, a family's closest neighbors may live more than a mile away. Certainly, those types of development present many different challenges to law enforcement than those found in urban areas.
While each individual rural town has a small population, taken together, rural areas represent about one-third of all Americans, and a full 90 percent of all law enforcement agencies serve populations of fewer than 25,000 residents. Seventy-five percent of all law enforcement agencies, in fact, serve populations of fewer than 10,000 residents.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In Maine, we have about 450 towns and cities, and of those, only 11 had populations of more than 10,000 residents in the 1996 census estimates. The vast majority of Maine's police officers serve these very rural areas.
In Maine, the State slogan is ''The Way Life Should Be.'' We are justifiably proud of our quality of life. We live in beautiful natural surroundings, and our people are generous, compassionate, and are community-minded. But much as we wish this were the case, Maine is no panacea. Rural does not mean crime-free.
Maine does not face the same challenges in crime as New York City and Washington, DC. Most of our State doesn't even face the same crime problems as they do in Portland, ME or Alexandria, VA. But we do face crime issues.
The entire reason that we introduce this legislation is because rural crime is different, and combatting it requires different tools, different training, and different resources.
This subcommittee and the administration should be proud of the overall crime rate trends in the United States. In nearly every category, crime rates have dropped over the past 5 years. We are making progress.
However, there are areas where crime is on the increase, and rural crime is one of those areas. In fact, over the last 10 years rural violent crime has increased by more than 35 percent, even as overall crime rates have been reduced. Statistics show that a rural law enforcement officer is more likely to be killed in the line of duty than an officer in a city with a population over 250,000.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In spite of these increased incidents of violent crimes and incidents in rural areas, most small town police and sheriff departments cannot afford to send their forces to a 12-week rural law enforcement training program provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Many of Maine's police departments are staffed by only three or four officers, and to have one of those officers away at training for 3 months is just impossible.
But that does not diminish the need for training. The National Center would ensure that no rural police department would feel alone in the woods any longer. It would ensure that the innovative and accessible training would be available to all of the agencies in rural areas, and it would provide a mechanism for rural areas to learn from their counterparts across the country, and provide the best practices for meeting the unique challenges faced in rural law enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation that would take our Nation's fight against crime to the next level. We have made tremendous progress on this front, but let us take this fight to our Nation's rural areas. Let us seek to reverse the disturbing trend of increased violence in the rural areas that were once considered safe havens.
I mentioned Aroostook County at the beginning of my statement. It's as rural as I know. When I was first campaigning, I was told not to lock my car doors because people will think that you're either from away, or you have something to hide. I want you to know that even in Aroostook County I see more and more people locking their cars and looking over their shoulders. This is a trend that bothers me greatly. I hope that this subcommittee will move H.R. 1524 forward to give the police departments the help that they need.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, I want to thank my colleague, Asa Hutchinson. He has done a terrific job in working on this legislation, and in working on this committee with your leadership on the subcommittee and committee.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baldacci follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. BALDACCI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE
Mr. Chairman: I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. Rural crime is an important issue, and I commend you for bringing attention to it.
In the 104th Congress, I introduced the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act. In the 105th Congress, I have been pleased to join forces with Rep. Asa Hutchinson to continue my efforts in this area. Congressman Hutchinson and I share a common goal: ensuring that law enforcement agencies serving rural areas have the resources they need to protect the millions of Americans who have chosen to live in rural areas.
I represent the geographically largest Congressional District east of the Mississippi River. Aroostook County, located at the top of my District bordering Canada, is the largest county east of the Mississippi. My hometown of Bangor—which many people consider to be ''northern Maine''—is a full 222 miles from Madawaska, one of Maine's northernmost towns.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The towns that are scattered throughout my District are the epitome of rural. In many areas, a family's closest neighbors may live more than a mile away. Certainly, this type of development presents different challenges to law enforcement than those found in urban areas.
While each individual rural town has a small population, taken together, rural areas are home to about one-third of all Americans. A full 90% of all law enforcement agencies serve populations of fewer than 25,000 residents. 75% of all law enforcement agencies, in fact, serve populations of fewer than 10,000 residents.
In Maine, we have about 450 towns and cities. Of those, only 11 had populations of more than 10,000 residents in the 1996 Census population estimates. The vast majority of Maine's police officers serve very rural areas.
In Maine, the state slogan is ''The Way Life Should Be.'' We are justifiably proud of our quality of life. We live in beautiful natural surroundings. Our people are generous, are compassionate, are community-minded.
But much as we wish this were the case, Maine is no panacea. Rural does not mean crime free.
Certainly, Maine does not face the same crime challenges as do new York City, Washington, DC or other large cities. Most of our state does not even face the same crime problems as they do in Portland, Maine or Alexandria, Virginia.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But we do face crime issues. And the entire reason that we introduced this legislation is because rural crime is different. And combating it requires different tools, different training, and different resources.
This Subcommittee and the Clinton Administration should be justifiably proud of our overall crime trends in the U.S. In nearly every category, crime rates have dropped over the past 5 years. We are making progress in the fight.
However, there are areas where crime is on the increase. Rural crime is one of those areas. In fact, over the last 10 years, rural violent crime has increased by more than 35%, even as overall crime rates were on the decline. Statistics show that a rural law enforcement officer is more likely to be killed in the line of duty than an officer in a city with a population over 250,000.
In spite of increased incidents of violent crime in rural areas, most small town police and sheriffs' departments cannot afford to send their forces to the 12 week rural law enforcement training provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Many of Maine's police departments are staffed by only 3 or 4 officers. To have even one of those officers away at training for 3 months is an impossibility.
But that does not diminish the need for the training. The National Center for Rural Law Enforcement would ensure that no rural police department would feel alone in the woods any longer. It would ensure that innovative accessible training is available to all of our rural agencies. It would provide a mechanism for rural areas to learn from their counterparts across the country, and to share the bets practices for meeting the unique challenges faced in rural law enforcement.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, this is important legislation that would take our nation's fight against crime to the next level. We have made tremendous progress on this front. Let us now take the fight to our nation's rural areas. Let us seek to reverse that disturbing trend of increased violence in the rural areas that were once considered safe-havens.
I mentioned Aroostook County at the beginning of my statement. It is as rural a place as I know. In many places in the County, if you lock your car doors when you get out, they know that you are ''from away'' and suspect that you must have something to hide. Unfortunately, even in Aroostook County, some trust is beginning to erode. I see more and more people locking their cars, and looking over their shoulders. This is a trend that bothers me greatly. I hope that this subcommittee will move H.R. 1524 forward to give police departments in rural areas all across the country the tools and the training they need to do their jobs more effectively.
Again, I thank you for scheduling this hearing today, and for giving me the opportunity to testify before you.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. You're welcome.
If I can find a county somewhere like Aroostook, where I can leave my car doors open again, I'm going to head right there. A lot of people will.
Let me make one observation to both of you while I think about it—I think it's important for everyone else who's here as well—that, even though the rate of violent crime is down slightly, it is still way up comparatively in historical numbers. So rural America should not be resting any more comfortable than the urban areas.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think back in 1980 the figures were 160 to 165 violent crimes for every 100,000 people in the population. We got up to about 685 violent crimes for every 100,000 people, almost four times that much, about three or 4 years ago. Now it's down to the remarkably low number of 630. So we've got a long way to go. That 630 versus 160 or 165 is a very different ratio.
I wanted to ask you this, Mr. Baldacci: your State and Aroostook County in particular, is about 1,300 miles as the crow flies to Little Rock, why do you support a center being located in Little Rock? Would it not be just as difficult for that three-man police force to send somebody to Little Rock as it would be to send them to the FBI or another federal training center?
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, in our State we've had problems in the rural areas, whether it be domestic violence or violent crime, and they usually are with our county sheriffs departments and local law enforcement. That's been the first area in the budgets that have been cut, and they did not have the proper training.
In one particular case there was a tragedy because of officers not really having the education, training and experience. So it is very important that that piece be done and that a system be provided to rural law enforcement, and they cannot afford to take time off.
The way this legislation is structured was that the Center is there now, and what Mr. Hutchinson created are six regional centers. So we're going to actually get closer to the source and to network more in the rural areas and be able to provide the opportunity, as the legislation talks about going to community colleges that have law enforcement within our local areas and coordinating and utilizing those centers.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So actually what this legislation is doing is pushing it outside of Little Rock and more into the rural communities throughout America and having those six regional centers.
I think it's so vitally important, Mr. Chairman, that they do get the training and that experience, and we try to do all we can. Because as the populations move into the rural areas, and they get away from the crime in the communities, those community forces need to have the training. That's why I have worked on this and worked with Representative Hutchinson, because I believe we can also work from a national level.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Hutchinson, the National Institute of Justice has suggested that there be remote access through the Internet, through video-types of programming and so forth for additional education for law enforcement officials at some of the various research institutions they have at our universities aroud the country for law enforcement.
Do you contemplate that in this legislation? Do you think that the Rural Law Enforcement Center in Little Rock that you contemplate being enhanced with the various regional offices would also have the component of reaching out to the officer in a way that he didn't even have to go to a place like the local community college, like Mr. Baldacci suggested?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think that's one option that should certainly be examined and utilized. One benefit from this Center would be to bring technology to rural law enforcement, and the video conferences, the access to the Internet, the ability to train via video conferences, would be certainly something that would be examined.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I don't think there is probably ever a substitute for, at some point, getting together with other rural law enforcement officers to share ideas, to engage in discussion. So I'm sure it will be a combination of both. That is certainly something that the Center should utilize.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. You suggest twelve million dollars as the authorizing amount for the first year of operation. Then you've got an open-ended authorization for the next 2 years after that for 3 years.
Number one, do you think it's going to increase in the second or third year to be greater than $12 million, and number two, what happens, in your view, at the end of 3 years? Do you see a continuous Federal stream of funding necessary, or do you think the Center, for whatever reason, would become free-standing on it's own? What's the vision for the longer haul?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would think that it would be a continuing need for funding, but at a fairly modest level. I think it's important in this context to move slowly, as you develop these centers, that they're well-structured, that they're watching after the tax dollars very carefully. But I think that assistance is going to be a long-term need.
The budget figures that are placed in the bill are subject to alteration, at your wisdom, and adjustment. But that looks to me like a reasonable place to be at this point. We might want to set a figure for the later years rather than leaving it open-ended, maybe to give more people assurance that we're not going to gobble up money.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I think it's a fairly modest amount that could be applied toward rural law enforcement, to keep this as an ongoing project.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. This exists today in Little Rock, if I'm not mistaken. Do you know what the budget is now, any idea?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I believe——
Mr. MCCOLLUM. We'll get it from them when they come up here.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think so. It's fairly modest, but we have a Department of Justice grant and a Department of Agriculture grant, but less than what we're requesting in the bill.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. The only other question I have of you two gentlemen relates to our colleague, Mr. Buyer, who received a letter, that you may be aware of, from a rural sheriff in his District who was actually not in favor of your bill. He states in his letter that in his judgment—this is a rural sheriff—rural law enforcement was treated differently than ''real'' law enforcement. He didn't believe that his deputies should be trained in any manner differently than the big city law enforcement people. Rather they should be trained in the same place together.
Do you think there is a widespread view among rural law enforcement people that somehow they're not being trained the same? Would training in a specially designated rural law enforcement site result in people being trained differently than urban officers? Mr. Baldacci, please respond.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, frankly, I think that rural law enforcement hasn't gotten the attention that should be given to it, or the tools. It's almost like with rural health care. We have a rural health care caucus to try to bring more attention to those issues, because the reimbursement levels are based more toward urban and we never get the differential.
So this is a way to draw more attention on rural areas. It's a way to get the resources, training and education and the like to rural, so I can't imagine—I've got a letter from my sheriff and most of the sheriffs saying that they're supportive because they recognize what's going on with their budget and the fact that they're not getting the kind of attention they should.
Is there going to be anybody that's critical of it? Yes, but I think you're going to find more support than not.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Hutchinson.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I have been at some of the training conferences conducted by the Rural Law Enforcement Center, and the training is just as up-to-date and modern and as efficient and comparable to what would be given to urban centers. But it is obviously tailor made to the different needs that exist in rural America.
When I used to go to U.S. Attorney conferences, they divided us between large urban centers, small U.S. Attorney offices, and mid-sized, because of the different specialized needs.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You will hear testimony today from many people who have participated, and I think they can testify more specifically to your question.
Mr. BALDACCI. If I may, Mr. Chairman, there is one example given to me, the program about walking the beat. It's like when you get out of your car, it's 222 miles from Bangor to Madawaska, and some people would argue that there probably is a lot more wildlife than people out there as you're going further north. For them to get out of their cars and walk around may be not the best use of their time and resources. There are different needs that need to be addressed and that's just one example. I'm sure you'll hear many others.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. I thank both of you for coming. I appreciate both your sponsoring the bill. We will now go to the second panel.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Our second panel today consists of several witnesses. If you would come forward as I introduce you, we will put your name tags up wherever you happen to be seated here.
Our first witness on the second panel is Dr. Lee Colwell. Dr. Colwell is a professor of criminal justice and Director of both the Criminal Justice Institute and the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement at the University of Arkansas. He is a consultant and lecturer on criminal justice matters and has over 40 years experience in the criminal justice system. He retired in 1985 from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where he served as Associate Director—the number two position—of the FBI. Dr. Colwell received his doctorate in public administration from the University of Southern California.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also with us today is Mr. Hobart Henson. Mr. Henson currently serves as the Director of the National Center for State, Local and International Law Enforcement Training, an office of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, GA. Prior to his appointment as Director of the National Center, he completed a distinguished 27 year career with the Illinois State Police, rising through the ranks to the level of Lieutenant Colonel and the position of Assistant Deputy Director. Mr. Henson is active in several law enforcement associations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Police Executive Research Forum, among others. He holds a masters of public administration degree and a masters of criminal justice professions degree from the University of Illinois.
Our next witness is Sheriff Ted Sexton. Sheriff Sexton is the Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County, AL. He was elected to this position with the Tuscaloosa County Sheriff's Department in 1991. Prior to that time, from 1987 to 1991, Sheriff Sexton served as a department director for the Alabama Canine Law Enforcement Officers Training Center. His career in law enforcement spans two decades, beginning in 1977 as an officer with the Tuscaloosa Police Department. Currently, Sheriff Sexton is a member of the Executive Board of Directors for the National Sheriffs' Association, where he serves as Sergeant-at-Arms.
Also appearing before the subcommittee today is Chief Michael Carillo. Chief Carillo is the Chief of Police of the City of Deming, New Mexico, a position which he's held since 1993. Prior to serving in this office, he served as Sheriff for 4 years with the Grant County Sheriff's Department in Silver City, New Mexico. Chief Carillo is past president of the New Mexico Sheriffs Association and currently serves as chairman of the Southwest New Mexico Juvenile Task Force and the Southwest New Mexico Task Force.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Next, I want to introduce Sheriff Herman Young of the Fairfield County Sheriff's Office in Fairfield County, South Carolina. Sheriff Young was first elected Sheriff in November, 1992. He's been in public service for more than 35 years.
In 1962, he joined the New York City police force, and in 1965 became the first black officer in Winnsboro, South Carolina. Sheriff Young also served as administrator of the Fairfield County Detention Center for 19 years before assuming his current position. He has completed courses with the Department of Justice, the National Institute for Corrections, and the University of South Carolina College of Criminal Justice.
Finally, the Subcommittee welcomes testimony from Mr. Jack Roberts. Currently, Mr. Roberts is the President of the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, a position to which he was elected in 1990. His work with the Association first began in 1974, when he served as the first President of the Leon County Charter of the Florida Police Benevolent Association.
In 1984, he also organized and served as the first Executive Director of the Police Benevolent Association of Georgia. With over 20 years of service in the Tallahassee Police Department, Mr. Roberts' experience in law enforcement is extensive. Mr. Roberts received his bachelor of science degree in criminology from Florida State University. I certainly welcome my fellow Floridian.
At this point, I would simply like to say that the full statements and the text of each of the witnesses on this panel will be received in the record, without objection. I would welcome each of you to proceed.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would urge you to attempt to keep your comments to about 5 minutes in length so that we can question you. Please just summarize your testimony, if you would.
I suppose we should begin with Dr. Colwell. I introduced you in a certain order, but it may be easier for all of us if you just go in the order in which you're seated.
Dr. Colwell, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF LEE COLWELL, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE AND THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Mr. COLWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my appreciation for your leadership in conducting these hearings, and the deep appreciation I have for the opportunity to appear before this committee to speak on behalf of the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act.
In addition to the members here at the table, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce two other representatives who are here from rural law enforcement but who are not scheduled to testify, and they, too, have prepared statements. I would respectfully request that they be permitted to introduce those statements for the record.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Without objection, they will certainly be entered in the record. You may feel free to introduce them, by all means.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COLWELL. This is Chief Capozzi from New York.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Chief, welcome.
Mr. COLWELL. And Chief John Morgan from Florida.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Chief. I feel almost embarrassed that we don't have you up here at the table. Do you want to come join them? You're certainly welcome to. All right, fair enough.
Dr. Colwell.
Mr. COLWELL. Thank you, sir.
There is so much that's been said by Congressman Hutchinson and Congressman Baldacci that it has taken some of my comments, but I appreciate their thoughtfulness in bringing up statistics concerning crime in rural areas. So I want to hit some general areas that I think are important for the consideration of the committee in its deliberations on this bill.
Since 1789, our Federal Government has used Federal law enforcement to intercede in State, local and small rural areas. That's a necessary function based on the types of crimes that occur over the years. That intervention and support still goes on today, and it's critical to citizens in rural communities.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But this is not about whether or not the Federal law enforcement agencies should be in rural areas. I believe this is a policy issue, as has been alluded to by the Congressman. It concerns the lack of attention to small town and rural communities. There are 3,109 counties in this country, 3,084 sheriffs offices, and the majority of those serve communities that are, by definition, rural or includes small towns.
Our Nation's focus has been on the urban areas and the people who live in those urban areas, but we also have approximately one-third, as you mentioned earlier, of citizens who live in rural areas. The assumption is that one model for education and training for law enforcement fits all. Comments have been made that there are differences, even in the United States Attorney offices, on how different levels serve different constituencies and face different problems. All of them are complex. All of them need attention. All of them serve citizens of this country.
One part of this bill would address this need in rural areas. Ninety percent of our law enforcement agencies serve a population of 25,000 or less. Congressman Baldacci mentioned that there were 11 cities in his State, out of 400-and-something municipalities, that have a population of more than 10,000. In my home State we have 384 municipal governments and 75 counties, and there are only 13 cities in that State that have a population of more than 25,000. So I think these figures are relevant almost in any State that you want to direct your attention to.
While crime trends have gone down nationally—and we rejoice in that fact—they still have gone up in rural areas. In rural areas and small towns, there is no governmental infrastructure that is taken for granted in larger areas. There is a low tax base. They suffered an economic recession in the early eighties, where one-third of our farms failed. They have been plagued with suicides, alcoholism, drugs, domestic violence, and now gang activity in the small town and rural areas.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There's an informal justice system in rural areas. I know chiefs of police who serve as prosecutors in cases at the early stages. There are complex issues facing these chiefs and these sheriffs.
Law enforcement is the most significant presence in any community. It's the only agency of government that is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year to our citizens. It is one of the few agencies where you can call and still speak with a human being with your problem.
Federal initiatives often do not reach the rural law enforcement community. Management education—and I emphasize the word ''education''—is absent in rural areas, and what is available is not necessarily tailored to the needs of the small towns and rural areas.
This bill would not create just another Federal bureaucracy. This entity would be governed by the constituents to whom it is designed to serve. Most States are predominantly rural—I mentioned that earlier.
Why should this committee and this Congress adopt this bill? I believe it is a bill that has an empowerment mechanism to the chiefs and sheriffs who serve just as well and just as diligently as their counterparts in urban areas. It's a quality-of-life issue. People in rural areas should be just as free of the fear of crime as those in urban areas. It's an economic development issue because, if you can't have crime-free areas, it inhibits the ability of the small communities to develop from an economic standpoint.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It's a public safety issue. Citizens in rural and small town areas are entitled to the same per capita dollar on law enforcement services as those in the urban areas. It's an opportunity for the Federal Government to provide leadership in a long-neglected area, by providing specific services and opportunities for chiefs and sheriffs in small town and rural areas.
This bill, as you know, is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, with 270,000 members; the National Sheriffs Association; over 50 State sheriffs and chiefs associations; and with participants in 49 States, it is supported by the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, which represents the 50 training academies in our 50 States. The major chiefs association and the National Executive Institute and the FBI have also expressed their support of this bill.
This proposal does not duplicate services that exist. The training and education that is available tends to follow the urban model. The leadership qualities that are involved in managing a large metropolitan area law enforcement agency are those same qualities are important in a rural department and small town department. That's why we have engaged, through a cooperative agreement, with the leadership faculty at West Point, to assist us in the delivery of management education and training programs for small town chiefs and rural sheriffs.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to be here and speak on behalf of this bill. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Colwell follow:]
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEE COLWELL, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE AND THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
I am Dr. Lee Colwell, Director of the Criminal Justice Institute and the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement. I am most appreciative of the opportunity to testify in support of the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement (NCRLE) Bill H.R. 1524. I have over 40 years experience in the criminal justice system, having retired in 1985 from the Federal Bureau of Investigation where I last served in the number two post as the Associate Director. Many truths were observed during my career with the FBI and from my association with rural law enforcement agencies across the United States. One such truth was that rural agencies did not receive the same level of attention by the federal government as their urban counterparts.
Educational resources for small town and rural law enforcement agencies have long been nearly non-existent. Until recently, the only formal law enforcement management education available for rural chiefs and sheriffs was provided through the FBI National Academy, located in Quantico, Virginia.
Today's rural sheriffs and small town chiefs of police are faced with an increase in crime. Social awareness and concerns have placed crime and law enforcement at the forefront of national attention. Increasingly, the face of rural America has become more diversified while crime challenges become more violent and more frequent. Improved education and training programs for small town and urban law enforcement must be viewed as necessary to prepare law enforcement officials for the shifting of new problems.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When crime rates increased in urban areas, educational and training opportunities were made accessible to urban departments to help them better protect their citizens. But little was available to the small town and rural law enforcement agencies who faced funding and personnel shortages. National crime control initiatives were, and still are, often tailored to the needs of the nation's larger cities. The needs of rural communities have been overlooked. This has left small town America less prepared for the challenges that face them today. The National Center for Rural Law Enforcement (NCRLE) was established in 1995 for the sole purpose of researching and addressing the needs of small town and rural law enforcement agencies throughout the United States.
At regional conferences, forums, and plenary planning sessions, over 300 rural area sheriffs and chiefs of police have provided us with their most pressing needs. Through research surveys targeted at rural agencies, we corroborated and validated these findings. We are already working to meet those needs.
The National Center for Rural Law Enforcement (NCRLE)
The National Center for Rural Law Enforcement is a university-based organization with a practitioner orientation devoted to management education, research, forensics, computer and technical assistance for rural law enforcement agencies throughout the nation. The center works in close coordination with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and other federal agencies.
There are eight primary functions of the NCRLE:
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Provide management education and training;
Serve as a clearinghouse for information pertinent to rural law enforcement;
Provide research and technical assistance;
Afford access to a non-operational communications network;
Develop and administer education and training curricula;
Provide forensic science education and training;
And provide computer related education and training.
Lastly, but very importantly according to the rural sheriffs' and chiefs' of police, the NCRLE identifies, integrates and voices the needs and views of rural law enforcement.
The NCRLE is essential because:
Many services accessible to urban law enforcement agencies are non-existent in rural areas.
Some larger urban agencies hire full-time personnel to do research for grants then write grant requests. Smaller agencies don't have that ability thus frequently are unaware of grants for which they may qualify.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Federal funding initiatives often omit the needs and priorities of rural law enforcement agencies.
Not until the NCRLE was created had anyone attempted to identify and meet the particular needs of rural law enforcement agencies.
Many crimes are unique to rural areas.
It does not duplicate existing services. Although selective programs may provide certain education and training for a profit, the costs, location, and length of these programs generally prohibit participation by rural law enforcement agencies.
Most agencies have only sufficient training budgets to meet minimum training requirements of new officers.
Typically, the bulk of a sheriff's budget is for prisoner constitutionally mandated maintenance and medical care. Only the residual is left to protect the community.
It enhances and complements existing programs.
It is not another federal bureaucracy.
1) Control would rest with rural law enforcement advisory boards. 2) Regional centers would provide services to rural agencies located within those regions.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rural Law Enforcement
Rural areas have a higher quality of life than do many urban areas. As a result, more and more people move from the city to the country, and crime follows them.
1/3 of all Americans live in rural areas.
Of the 15,588 local and state law enforcement agencies in the United States,
90% serve populations of less than 25,000.
75% serve populations of fewer than 10,000 residents.
Crime in rural America has increased
Violent crime increased 53% in the twelve years from 1983 to 1995.
In 1995, rural cities (those under 25,000 population) experienced a 1% increase in index crimes and a 2% increase in property crimes. Cities with populations exceeding one million saw violent crimes drop 8%.
In rural areas, larceny or theft showed a 3% increase.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rural law enforcement officers have been killed at a greater rate than that of large urban areas during the last five years.
The average starting salaries in rural police departments and sheriffs' offices is $17,400 per year compared with $26,000 in urban departments without a corresponding difference in cost of living.
Crime rates are dropping in large cities because
Crime is moving from urban to rural areas.
Large cities get the lion's share of federal law enforcement dollars earmarked for cities and towns.
Property crimes such as larceny, burglary, and auto theft have increased in rural areas because
The mobility of our society and the economic conditions in rural areas.
Criminals realize there is less law enforcement coverage thus reduced potential for arrest.
Hate-crime related arson in rural areas is a national concern.
Many rural law enforcement agencies are understaffed, which limits their ability to deter criminal activity.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also limits their ability to send officers to long management courses far from their community.
Sheriffs and chiefs of police attending the NCRLE meetings report that gangs are moving into rural areas. If rural gangs follow the same pattern as their urban counterparts, we can expect to see an increase in aggravated assaults in rural areas.
In one rural state alone, we have seen the following increases in rural crime from 1996 to 1997:
1) Rural bank robberies increased over 100%.
2) Clandestine drug labs increased from 94 to 242.
3) All six law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 1997 were from rural areas (3 feloniously).
Small town and rural law enforcement practitioners have long been forgotten. As crime challenges become more complex, the small town and rural law enforcement agencies have few resources to adequately address the problems of today. You will hear the testimony of others today. As you weigh their comments, I encourage you to remember the only real experts on the needs of rural law enforcement and how to best meet those needs are the sheriffs and small town chiefs of police sitting here. Others may say they can meet their needs . . . but to date no one but the NCRLE has even asked ''what do you need?''
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The NCRLE has already begun to meet the needs of rural law enforcement agencies. This effort has been recognized and strongly supported by such organizations as the Fraternal Order of Police with its over 270,000 members, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, plus 51 other professional law enforcement associations.
Rural constituents are entitled to no less than the same constitutional protections and rights as their urban counterparts. Rural constituents are entitled to no less than the same quality professional law enforcement striven for in large urban agencies and which they attain often through federal support. Through your support and passage of H.R. 1524, the ''Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1997,'' the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement will continue to provide the most up-to-date, comprehensive education and training, research and technical assistance available to rural law enforcement officials throughout the United States.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Morgan follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN D. MORGAN, CHIEF, GULF BREEZE POLICE DEPARTMENT
My name is Chief John Morgan of the Gulf Breeze, Florida, Police Department. I am pleased to offer my testimony in support of the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1997. I have spent the past 25 years in the Law Enforcement profession, working with state, county and municipal agencies. For the past 15 years, I have had the pleasure of serving as chief of police of three different departments, two in Arkansas and my present position in Florida. Two of these agencies employed less than fifty officers, so I am familiar with the needs of small agencies. My current agency employs sixteen full time officers.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1983, at the age of 29, I was an instructor at the Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy. The chiefs position with the City of El Dorado opened, and I applied and was ultimately appointed to the position. Although I had a Master's Degree in Public Justice Administration, the night I was appointed I looked at my wife and told her ''I don't know how to run a Police Department.'' Fortunately, I had maintained a network of mentors and was able to draw on their experience while I was in the learning curve. However, it was not until two years later, after I attended the FBI National Academy, that I felt adequately prepared to deal with some of the issues that law enforcement administrators face.
During the course of my career, I have recognized that there is a major void in the area of affordable leadership and management education and training for law enforcement officials. While the FBI offers the National Academy, many administrators from smaller organizations are unable to make the three month commitment that this program requires. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to attend when I was the chief of a larger agency, but I can assure you that in my present position I would not be able to make a three month commitment. The FBI also offers the National Executive Institute and the Law Enforcement Executive Development Seminar, which I have attended, but the former requires that the agency have at least 250 sworn officers, and the latter requires at least 50 sworn officers. While these are both outstanding programs, nearly 90% of the law enforcement agencies in this country would not qualify because of the number of sworn officers they employ.
When Dr. Lee Colwell retired from the FBI and moved to Arkansas, he quickly realized that this void existed, and that affordable management and leadership education and training was generally unavailable to the vast majority of law enforcement agencies in the state. Through his position with the Criminal Justice Institute at the University of Arkansas, he teamed with the local office of the FBI and in 1991, offered the first Arkansas Leader session, a one week leadership education and training program for agency heads and top management. Chiefs and sheriffs in Arkansas had access to quality leadership education and training that many of them had not previously had, whether it be due to departmental size or budgetary constraints.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Colwell recognized that there was a need nationwide for quality law enforcement education and training for rural law enforcement agencies, and with input from chiefs and sheriffs from across the country, the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement was formed. One of the priorities of the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement was to provide quality leadership education and training for chiefs and sheriffs, and the Rural Executive Management Institute was created. This program is comprised of two three day education and training sessions and covers a variety of issues that law enforcement executives deal with on a daily basis. I had the opportunity to attend the most recent session, and the quality of the program was every bit as good as the Law Enforcement Executive Development Seminar offered at the FBI Academy.
The National Center for Rural Law Enforcement, if funded, is in a position to offer a major service to small law enforcement agencies in this country, namely accessible, affordable, quality education and training. The program will be governed by a board of rural chiefs and sheriffs, who are obviously in the best position to determine the education and training needs of rural law enforcement. I ask all of you to support HR 1524, which provides the funding necessary to support the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement. To do so will send a strong message to rural law enforcement agencies that this Congress is supportive of all law enforcement agencies regardless of the size of the organization.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Capozzi follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF FREDERICK V. CAPOZZI, CHIEF, SENECA FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT
My name is Frederick V. Capozzi, and I am the Chief of Police of the Seneca Falls Police Department in Seneca Falls, New York.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am pleased to offer my testimony in support of the Rural Law Enforcement Act of 1997 and the support of HR 1524.
Seneca Falls, New York, is a unique community set in the heart of the Finger Lakes region of New York State. We are a relatively small community of approximately 8,000 people, which has a Police Department of 12 fulltime of fleers and 3 part-time of ricers, who protect the well-being of the citizens of our community and provide a quality of life that we feel is unsurpassed in any place else in New York State.
Seneca Falls is also very close to three major metropolitan areas . . . being Rochester, New York, to the west, which is forty-two miles away; Syracuse, New York, to the east, which is forty-two miles away; and Ithaca, New York, which is forty-six miles to the south. Because of the proximity of these major metropolitan areas, major city crime has started to rear its ugly head in Seneca County and also in Seneca Falls. It seems every time that a drug arrest is made in one of our communities in Seneca County, it inevitably leads back to connections with the major metropolitan area, just to name one example.
I have been a police of fleer for the last twenty-four years in Seneca County; I have been a police of ricer in the Village of Seneca Falls for the last twenty-two years and Chief of Police for the Seneca Falls Police Department for the past twelve years. It is well documented that rural law enforcement is seeing an increase in big city crime and big city problems in rural America; but quite to the contrary, available funding from either state or federal agencies had not made its way to local communities and local police departments at the same rate of increase as crime has come to our community.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It has always been noted that education and training are the fundamental aspects of effective law enforcement. With the ever increasing change in American policing, rural law enforcement officers are under a distinct disadvantage and may be doing a disadvantage to their community when they do not receive the proper amount of education and training. Time and again, we have witnessed municipalities unable to defend themselves from lawsuits alleging failure to educate and train police officers. Juries are willing to hold municipalities responsible for lawsuits arising out of improper police action. Most of these actions arise from police officers not following accepted methods of policing. It is incumbent upon not only the municipalities, but also state and federal officials, to provide the funds necessary to educate and train it police officers. We expect police officers to perform a multitude of functions for their communities that they serve. But, without the most up-to-date education and training, they are performing those tasks as if one hand was tied behind-their back. Many rural law enforcement agencies have very small budgets in comparison to larger municipalities. Because of the smaller budget, smaller amounts of that budget are allotted for education and training. Usually, this money for education and training is spent on police officers, sergeants, captains, and lieutenants . . . so they would be able to properly provide the services for the community.
Usually, very little of this education and training account is left over for law enforcement chiefs and sheriffs to provide education and training for themselves to keep up-to-date on current issues. There are education and training classes that are available for law enforcement executives, both locally and on the federal level, but they are also costly and time consuming. In 1991, I did attend the FBI National Academy at Quantico, Virginia. I am extremely fortunate and grateful for the opportunity. The instructors and the courses which I received during my three month absence to complete the Academy was at the highest level of education and training that any law enforcement officer can ever expect to receive. But the downside of being gone three months left us with a void of not having a department head to run its agency and also the expense which was well over $3,000.00 . . . which was paid partially by myself and the community. There are other law enforcement executive education and training programs that are offered. One of them is the LEEDS Program, which is the Law Enforcement Development Seminar. It is a two-week program designed for department heads of medium sized departments serving a population of 20,000 or less, with 50 or more sworn full-time people. I have talked to law enforcement chiefs and sheriffs from other parts of New York State and also throughout the United States who find this course to be an excellent education and training opportunity, but rural law enforcement agencies do not meet the criteria of population or sworn law enforcement of fleers to receive this training.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is where the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement fills that void. The programs and services provided by the NCRLE are the only ones available for use by rural law enforcement agencies and are not duplicated by any other organization. I have attended the Conferences and Forums that have been provided by the Center and was amazed to find that, at most part, most chiefs and sheriffs are facing the same issues that I am facing here in rural New York State. The Center has helped identify the needs of rural law enforcement, and with the direction of Dr. Lee Colwell and his staff, the Rural Executive Management Institute (REMI) was established.
I was fortunate enough to attend the first REMI session and found that the quality of instruction and also the instructors were very close, if not equal to, the caliber which I received from the FBI National Academy. Now, chiefs and sheriffs from all over rural America have the ability to provide the information that they need, and it only takes a total of six days, presented in two three-day segments at no cost to the individual department. In addition, REMI and the NCRLE serves as a clearinghouse to provide technical assistance for rural departments.
Matching funds for education and training and technical services are not available at the state or local level.
Just this past year of 1997, I was in desperate need of information on consolidation of law enforcement agencies. It took me one phone call to the Center to be provided with information from all over the United States, which helped me formulate an informational base to be used during the discussions of consolidation. Without their technical assistance and their clearinghouse of information, I would have been at a loss and not very knowledgeable on how to handle this issue. The Center also provides an Internet system with an e-mail capability at no cost to the local tax-payers. This will provide us the information on the WWW and also be able to contact other chiefs and sheriffs of other rural law enforcement agencies where we can address issues and exchange information.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Center for Rural Law Enforcement is truly a long-needed and highly effective representation of rural law enforcement and is a godsend to each chief and sheriff of rural law enforcement agencies.
I am strongly urging you to give your full support to HR 1524 by passing this very important Bill. I truly believe that I am not only speaking for myself, but I am speaking for all chiefs and sheriffs of rural law enforcement in America in asking for your support.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. You're welcome, Dr. Colwell.
We have a vote pending, and I understand as soon as that's over we have a 5-minute vote. So I don't think it would be fair to the rest of the witnesses to begin their testimony. I don't want to cramp it because it would be less than 5 minutes that we would be able to stay for it.
What we will do is recess and return as soon as the vote is over, which will probably be in about 30 minutes.
Thank you very much, gentlemen. We will be in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. MCCOLLUM. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When we recessed, Dr. Colwell had just finished his testimony. As I indicated, I think it would be the easiest thing, even though I didn't introduce you in that order, if we just go from my left to right.
Mr. Roberts, that would make you next to give us your thoughts. If you could summarize in 5 minutes or so, it would be appropriate and appreciated. Then we will go to questioning.
STATEMENT OF JACK ROBERTS, PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN STATES POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION
Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate you recognizing our association by allowing me to speak today.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. You're welcome. Happy to have you.
Mr. ROBERTS. I feel terribly outnumbered with all these management folks here today.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Don't feel outnumbered when the committee is here.
Mr. ROBERTS. My name is Jack Roberts. I'm a retired Tallahassee police sergeant and the elected president of Southern States PBA, a nonprofit association of over 16,000 law enforcement officers. A large portion of these members come from small, rural law enforcement agencies.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of our main objectives, as outlined in our constitution, is to promote professionalism among law enforcement officers. Legislation such as H.R. 1524 can certainly help in this respect, but it needs some drastic changes from its current form. We agree with the concept in principle, but we have specific suggestions on ways to improve its effectiveness.
Due to the fact we are such a transient society, rural America is no longer immune to the horrors of big city crime. Although the frequency of these crimes is reduced, the impact of murders, drugs, rapes and family violence are very traumatic to small, quiet communities, whose citizens thought they were safe from such things.
Therefore, we agree with the bill's establishment of a clearinghouse for information, research on rural crime, and the development of crime prevention programs.
We also agree with the development of national educational, training and accreditation standards for law enforcement officers, because such standards are long overdue. We are proud of the high quality of the men and women officers who are our members, but by and large, the certification training they receive is less than that in the northern and western States. In some jurisdictions, you can serve as a law enforcement officer, carry a badge and a gun, and basically have the power of life and death, all while waiting for your first hour of training. We believe that higher standards will result in better police officers, which translates into better protection for our citizens.
We believe that the following items must be addressed in any legislation regarding a National Center for Rural Law Enforcement:
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One, personnel standards. In addition to training standards, a standard for handling personnel and reducing turnover should exist. In one of our member States, there is a police department numbering about 150 officers, which has been in existence for over 100 years. The department does not have one retired officer. It is continually hiring and paying to train new officers. This constant turnover keeps the experience level of the officers at a very low level and keeps the taxpayers reaching into their pockets.
Such a situation is quite common in the South, and we believe it is a direct result of not having some standard to treat police officers fairly in employment matters. This means that an eager young man or woman gets into law enforcement, stays a short time, and then finds other employment because he or she is not treated fairly.
No one knows the actual cost, but I would venture to say that over the years small towns and counties, that can ill afford it, have spent millions of dollars in training replacement officers and then training their replacements, because police officers were fired without just cause.
A personnel standard calling for fair and equitable treatment of the men and women who risk their lives for us would do several things:
One, it would ensure that good police officers are not fired on a political whim; it would maintain a higher level of experience in the officers on the job; over a period of time, it would save millions of dollars in legal expenses; and it would also save millions of dollars now spent to train replacement officers for those who did not need to be fired.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What a personnel policy such as this would not do is to prevent management from firing officers who need to be fired. We don't support rules or regulations that prevent you from firing ''bad'' cops. As a matter of fact, if you will point out the ''bad'' cops to us, we will help you get rid of them.
Number two, the location of the Center. We believe that the Center for Rural Law Enforcement should be located closer to the geographic center of the southeastern United States, where most of the law enforcement agencies can be classified as ''rural.'' Reduced travel would lower expenses for those small jurisdictions we have already talked about.
Number three—and I won't make any friends with this—is the FBI influence. While the FBI can make contributions to the training of local officers, the present form of H.R. 1524 gives the FBI too much influence in the selection of personnel.
Let me try to put this into perspective. If rural officers are asked to investigate organized crime, or perhaps some type of computer crime, many would probably need the FBI's help. More often than not, however, rural crime is something like the theft of hogs in North Carolina, the theft of farm equipment in southern Georgia, or cattle rustling in Louisiana or Florida. In most of these local rural crimes, the FBI cannot have much experience. We respectfully suggest that they cannot be much help.
And please don't forget that local officers have to handle domestic violence situations, which account for more dead law enforcement officers than any other problem. What does the FBI know about handling domestic violence?
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Number four and final, utilize existing resources. We believe that an existing organization, the Southern Association of Criminal Justice, might be better qualified to select the personnel and develop the training programs to address the problems of rural law enforcement. Also, local law enforcement training academies, already in place, could be used for some of this training, further reducing the cost of a program such as this.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. Thank you.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Henson, you are recognized for 5 minutes or so to summarize.
STATEMENT OF HOBART M. HENSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STATE, LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL TRAINING, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER
Mr. HENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today representing the National Center for State, Local, and International Law Enforcement Training to address the proposed legislation before you, H.R. 1524, which would establish a private corporation to be called the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement.
We have reviewed the legislation and believe that there is duplication of effort with the proposed bill and what we are currently doing at the National Center. While we agree that providing training and technical assistance for rural law enforcement personnel is extremely important, we also believe that many of the points of the proposed legislation are currently being addressed by the National Center. Our primary concern, however, is that the formation of another organizational entity to conduct rural law enforcement training may cause us to compete for the scarce resources which are currently available.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to briefly outline the activities of the National Center, which I trust will demonstrate that we are using a methodical, systematic, and proactive approach to effectively address the training needs of State and local police officers throughout the United States, including rural law enforcement personnel.
The National Center is a component of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The National Center evolved in response to the findings of the 1981 Attorney General's Task Force on Violent Crime, which urged that more training programs be provided by the Federal Government to State and local law enforcement.
In 1983, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed by the U.S. Department of Treasury and the U.S. Department of Justice to initiate a joint endeavor to provide training for State and local law enforcement officers. Since its inception, the National Center has been dedicated to the improvement of law enforcement in the United States by providing quality training and services in advanced, technical, and specialized areas for State and local law enforcement and related professions.
The National Center has delivered training to over 40,000 State and local law enforcement officers throughout the United States, in a broad array of subjects, such as financial crimes, undercover investigations, and Medicaid fraud. Many of these officers attended ''train the trainer'' programs, which provide a multiplication of that training effort.
In addition to formalized training programs, National Center staff offer technical assistance to rural law enforcement in a variety of formats. Frequently, training is tailored, upon request, to meet individual geographic regions' training needs.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research sponsored by the National Center indicates that small town and rural agencies do not have the financial resources to send officers great distances for training, nor are they able to spare officers for long periods of time. These facts and others have influenced the direction of service that the National Center provides to State and local law enforcement throughout America.
In an era where State and local law enforcement is experiencing an impact from diminishing resources and additional responsibilities, the National Center is focusing its resources on reaching the largest number of officers in the most cost-effective manner.
In the Weisheit, Falcone, Wells research study, funded through the National Institute of Justice, ''Getting training to the rural police'' ranked fifth among 21 concerns from rural police about rural crime and rural policing. It is noted that ''many small municipalities are actually strapped for funds.''
To address these needs, the National Center has demonstrated its commitment to small town and rural America through the creation of a Small Town And Rural, which we're calling the STAR, training series. This training is delivered in multiple rural sites throughout five regions of the United States that have been established by the National Center.
The National Center's expertise in the development and delivery of law enforcement training was recognized as a critical component of the strategy to deal with crime in America when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Crime Bill, was passed. It directed the National Center to ''develop a specialized course of instruction devoted to training law enforcement officers from rural agencies in the investigation of drug trafficking and related crimes.''
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The STAR series, a by-product of that legislation, is currently comprised of the following programs: Airborne Counterdrug Operations Training, Advanced Airborne Counterdrug Operations Training, Community Policing Train-the Trainer, Drug Enforcement Train-the-Trainer, First Response Training, Gangs in Indian Country, Hate and Bias Crimes Train-the-Trainer, and Rural Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force Train-the-Trainer. These programs address identified needs. Qualified participants in the STAR series train-the-trainer programs are certified by the National Center as STAR instructors to deliver this training within their own geographical areas.
The National Center is also committed to adult learning methodologies which ensure that participants are involved and assume responsibility for their learning. The training programs in the STAR series were developed utilizing the FLETC adult learning methodology. Problem-solving exercises, group activities and practical exercises are designed to ensure that the training addresses those real-life law enforcement competencies.
Since its inception, the National Center has used a time-proven process for the development of curriculum, using a collaborative approach involving experts and practitioners from the target audience. Curriculum development is a natural process for the National Center, since it is a component of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, a law enforcement training agency with institutional expertise and over 70 participating Federal law enforcement agencies with which we network and collaborate on a daily basis.
In addition, the National Center is affiliated with universities throughout the United States and calls daily upon the combined resources of law enforcement practitioners and academicians.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a result, requests for the National Center to develop programs originate from numerous sources, including Federal agencies, State and local agencies, training committees of the major police membership associations, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Advisory Committee for the National Center, and the FLETC staff with particular interests or expertise.
Programs are also developed as a result of needs assessments conducted by National Center staff. Recently, the National Center was requested to assist the National Sheriffs' Association and the U.S. Marshals Service in the development and delivery of the Threat Management Training Program, which is designed for local and rural law enforcement officers charged with the protection of judicial officials. I attended one of the pilot programs two or 3 months ago. We had 65 officers in attendance, and it was really an outstanding program.
In developing training to be provided to State and local law enforcement, the National Center is guided by several principles. As an example, the National Center provides advanced and specialized training. It does not offer basic or recruit law enforcement training, which is better provided at the local or regional level. The National Center also makes every effort to ensure that training offered under its sponsorship is not duplicative of training already available through other institutions and law enforcement academies. Additionally, the National Center strives to provide a product which is a result of the joint development of State, local, Federal and other resources. In other words, the National Center asks its customers what is needed, rather than dictating the training that the Federal Government alone says is needed, and we include them in the development and delivery of that training.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Each of the STAR programs is directed toward either managers or trainers who can return to their jurisdictions with all of the materials necessary to replicate that training and techniques in their agencies and surrounding jurisdictions. This approach creates a multiplier effect which will expand the effectiveness of policing in small towns and rural areas throughout the United States. Training trainers is more cost effective than training a large number of officers directly.
For example, if training is provided during a given year for 30 students, in five sessions, of four STAR train-the-trainer programs, 600 trainers potentially would be able to share that training in their geographical areas. If each of those trainers subsequently provided training for a class of 30, then 18,000 officers throughout the United States would benefit from that funded training.
The National Center has identified thousands of down-link sites in America, at least one within 20 miles of every small town or rural officer. Through the already established STAR instructor network, the National Center has been able to present satellite broadcast training. Using the STAR instructors as on-site facilitators at selected satellite downlink locations, training can be delivered to the crossroads of America. A toll-free telephone number is in service during the hours of the broadcast, and questions from the audience to the instructors or to the National Center staff can be called in at that number.
In another effort to reduce travel costs for small town and rural officers, the National Center has targeted program delivery to be conducted at State and regional police academies and universities throughout America. The National Center is taking training where training has never gone before and breaking traditional barriers to ensure that training opportunities are available to those officers. At the present time, numerous sites have agreed to host these training sessions for State and local law enforcement, and through the efforts of our STAR instructors, that network is growing. Since State and local small town and rural area officers are customers of both the National Center and the hosting facility, the use of these facilities is provided at no cost.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Memorandum of Agreement establishing the National Center directed that an advisory committee would be formed to advise the Director of the National Center on training policies, training needs for State and local law enforcement personnel, training curriculum, course content, and evaluation, and student admission, performance, testing and evaluation.
The National Center's Advisory Committee is encompassing and provides a global view of the needs of State and local law enforcement throughout America.
The National Center receives guidance from the Advisory Committee, which is cochaired by Elisabeth Bresee, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement of the Treasury Department, and Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice. The Committee is composed of representatives from Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, national professional policing organizations, academia, public administration, and the private sector.
Among the members, who meet semi-annually with the National Center leadership, in a public forum, are the Director of the Arkansas State Police, the Director of the Department of Justice's Community Oriented Police Services, the Director of the Center for Public Policy at Temple University, the President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the City Manager of Plano, TX, the Sheriff of Bell County, TX, a representative from the Police Executive Research Forum, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
In addition to the Federal agencies mentioned above, the following are also represented on the Committee: the Assistant Director of the Training Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at Quantico, VA, the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Park Police, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. All members represent the interest of their disciplines on that committee.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Addressing the need for disseminating law enforcement training information, since 1983, the National Center annually has compiled a printed ''Catalog of Training Programs Presented by Federal Agencies to State, Local, and International Law Enforcement,'' and has made that catalog available to officers throughout the United States. This catalog is also available on diskette, and has been added to the FLETC web page and is available for downloading on the Internet.
In closing, I want to reiterate that we are very much in agreement with the concept of providing support to rural police officers through education and training. However, we believe that there is a mechanism currently in place at the National Center at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to do much of what is being proposed in this legislation. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Henson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HOBART M. HENSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STATE, LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL TRAINING, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today representing the National Center for State, Local, and International Law Enforcement Training (National Center) to address the proposed legislation before you, H.R. 1524, which would establish a private corporation to be called the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement. We have reviewed the legislation and believe that there is duplication of effort with the proposed bill and what we are currently doing at the National Center. While we agree that providing training and technical assistance for rural law enforcement personnel is important, we believe, too, that many of the points of the proposed legislation are currently being addressed by the National Center. Indeed, the formation of another organizational entity to conduct rural law enforcement training may be counterproductive and cause us to compete for scarce resources. I would like to briefly outline the activities of the National Center which I trust will demonstrate that we are using a methodical, systematic, and proactive approach to addressing the needs of State and local police officers throughout the United States, including rural law enforcement personnel.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HISTORY, BACKGROUND, AND EVOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL CENTER
The National Center is a component of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The National Center evolved in response to the findings of the 1981 Attorney General's Task Force on Violent Crime, which urged that more training programs be provided by the Federal government to State and local law enforcement. In 1983, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of Justice to initiate a joint endeavor to provide training for State and local law enforcement officers. Following an extremely successful pilot year of training offerings, the continuance of the Justice-Treasury effort was assured when President Reagan announced the creation of the National Center at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Since its inception, the National Center has been dedicated to the improvement of law enforcement in the United States by providing quality training and services in advanced, technical, and specialized areas for State and local law enforcement and related professions.
NATIONAL CENTER TRAINING DELIVERY
The National Center has been developing and presenting training to State and local law enforcement officers since 1983—over 15 years—and now offers more than 50 training programs in advanced topical areas for personnel from State and local law enforcement agencies. These programs develop specialized law enforcement skills through training not readily available from other sources and fill gaps in training for State and local law enforcement. Since 1983, the National Center has delivered training to over 40,000 State and local law enforcement officers throughout the United States in such subjects as financial crimes, undercover investigations and medicaid fraud. Many of these officers attended train-the-trainer programs, which provide a multiplication of the training effort.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to formalized training programs, National Center staff offer technical assistance to rural law enforcement in a variety of formats. Upon request, police managers in rural areas are provided with specialized training tailored to the need of rural agencies. National Center staff conduct workshops, serve on panels, and make presentations at numerous national, State, and local law enforcement association conferences. Frequently, training is tailored, upon request, to meet individual training needs of geographical regions. Also, National Center staff has developed and maintains a publication entitled, The Law Enforcement Resource Guide. This publication, which is distributed across the nation, provides information about low cost and no cost resources available to State and local law enforcement agencies.
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
The proposed legislation focuses on rural law enforcement needs. As it stands, it would duplicate many of the efforts already in place by the National Center. Through collaboration with a multitude of Federal, State, local, and private agencies, as well as research and studies, the National Center has determined that rural law enforcement does have unique needs.
For instance, one of the National Center's research findings identified that rural areas and small towns have very similar needs. These small town and rural agencies do not have the financial resources to send officers great distances to training, nor are they able to spare officers for long periods of time. These facts have influenced the direction of service that the National Center provides to State and local law enforcement throughout America.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In an era where State and local law enforcement is experiencing an impact from diminishing resources and additional responsibilities, the National Center is focusing its resources on reaching the largest number of customers in the most cost-effective manner. Without the kind of assistance provided by the National Center, law enforcement officers in rural and small towns often do not receive the training nor have the resources to adequately perform their duties. On the other hand, large cities and urban areas tend to better train their officers and have more resources at their disposal. Recent research has led to some interesting findings regarding the challenges faced by rural law enforcement officers. In the Weisheit, Falcone, Wells study (p. 101), a research study funded through the National Institute of Justice, ''Getting Training to Rural Police'' ranked fifth among 21 concerns about rural crime and rural policing. On page 96 of the same publication, it is noted that ''many small municipalities are strapped for funds.''
Small town and rural police are an important aspect of criminal justice, but compared with urban police they have received little attention. Of the nearly 17,000 police agencies in the United States, 90% serve a population of less than 25,000. (Reeves, 1992)
In addition, most police departments, regardless of whether they are in a metropolitan or a non-metropolitan area are small. Almost half (49%) of the local police agencies in the Untied States have fewer than 10 officers, and 91% have fewer than 50 sworn officers. (Weisheit, Falcone, & Wells, 1996)
In non-metropolitan counties the median number of full-time sworn officers in municipal departments is three, and in Sheriff's departments the median number of full-time sworn officers is eight. (Weisheit, p.1)
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SMALL TOWN AND RURAL TRAINING SERVICES
From this information, it can be concluded that there is a definite need for low cost or no cost training to be provided to small town and rural area law enforcement—training that meets their documented needs and training that is delivered to the crossroads of America, right to the doorsteps of these officers—either directly from the National Center, or by trainers who are trained by the National Center. While the proposed legislation also recognizes this need, it does not take into consideration the current activities of the National Center, which has demonstrated its commitment to small town and rural America through the creation of the Small Town and Rural (STAR) training series. This training is delivered in multiple rural sites throughout five export regions of the United States that have been established by the National Center.
The National Center's expertise in the development and delivery of law enforcement training was recognized as a critical component of the strategy to deal with crime in America when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Crime Bill) was passed. It directed the National Center to ''develop a specialized course of instruction devoted to training law enforcement officers from rural agencies in the investigation of drug trafficking and related crimes.''
The STAR series is currently comprised of the following programs: Airborne Counterdrug Operations Training, Advanced Airborne Counterdrug Operations Training, Community Policing Train-the-Trainer, Drug Enforcement Train-the-Trainer, First Response Training, Gangs in Indian Country, Hate and Bias Crimes Train-the-Trainer, and Rural Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force Train-the-Trainer. These programs address identified needs and could be expanded if additional resources were made available. Qualified participants in STAR series train-the-trainer programs are certified by the National Center as STAR instructors.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Center is also committed to adult learning methodologies which ensure that participants are involved and assume responsibility for their learning. The training programs in the STAR series were developed or are being updated utilizing the FLETC adult learning methodology, which identifies necessary competencies and then train to ensure those competencies are acquired by the students. Problem-solving exercises, group activities, and practical exercises are designed to ensure that the training addresses those real-life law enforcement competencies.
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The proposed legislation directs that a new corporation be established to develop education and training for rural law enforcement. Since its inception, the National Center has used a time proven process for the development of curriculum, using a collaborative approach involving experts and practitioners from the target audience. Curriculum development is a natural process for the National Center, since it is a component of the FLETC, a law enforcement training agency with institutional expertise and over seventy participating Federal law enforcement agencies with which we network and collaborate. In addition, the National Center is affiliated with universities throughout the United States and calls daily upon the combined resources of practitioners and academicians.
The process utilized by the National Center for program development has proven to be very effective, even in the most complex of situations. The broad capacity of the National Center staff to coordinate multi-agency and multi-disciplinary involvement in program development and delivery, as well as to provide a quality product, is well known in the law enforcement community. As a result, requests to develop programs originate from numerous sources: Federal agencies, State and local agencies, training committees of the major police membership associations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA), the Advisory Committee to the National Center, FLETC staff with particular interests or expertise, and the private sector. Programs are also developed as a result of needs assessments conducted by the National Center staff. Recently, the National Center was requested to assist the NSA and the U.S. Marshals Service in the development and delivery of the Threat Management Training Program, which is designed for local and rural law enforcement officers charged with the protection of judicial officials.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In developing training to be provided to State and local law enforcement, the National Center is guided by several principles. The National Center provides advanced or specialized training, it does not offer basic or recruit law enforcement training, which is better provided at the local or regional level. The National Center also makes every effort to ensure that training offered under its sponsorship is not duplicative of training already available through other institutions and law enforcement academies. Additionally, the National Center strives to provide a product which is the result of the joint development of State, local, Federal, and other resources. In other words, the National Center asks its customers what is needed rather than dictating the training that the Federal government alone says is needed, and includes them in the development and delivery of that training.
MULTIPLIER EFFECT
Each of the STAR programs is directed toward either managers or trainers/facilitators who can return to their jurisdictions with all the materials necessary to replicate the training and techniques in their agencies and surrounding jurisdictions. This approach creates a multiplier effect which will expand the effectiveness of policing in small towns and rural areas throughout the United States. Training trainers is more cost effective than training a larger number of officers directly. In fact, it will permit hundreds of State and local law enforcement agencies in small towns and rural areas to benefit at little or no cost.
For example, if training is provided during a given year for 30 students in 5 sessions of 4 STAR train-the-trainer programs, 600 training potentially would be available to share that training in their geographical areas. If each of those facilitators subsequently provides training for a class of 30, then 18,000 officers throughout the United States would benefit from the funded training.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SATELLITE BROADCAST TRAINING DELIVERY
Another component available through the National Center that is not addressed in the proposed legislation is the delivery of training right to the locations of rural officers throughout America. The National Center has identified thousands of downlink sites in America, at least one within 20 miles of every small town or rural officer. Through the already established STAR instructor network, the National Center has been able to present satellite broadcast training. Using the STAR instructors as on-site facilitators at satellite downlink locations across America, training can be delivered to the crossroads of America. A toll-free telephone number is in service during the hours of the broadcasts. Questions from the audience to instructors or to the National Center staff can be called in to that number.
REGIONAL EXPORT TRAINING SITES
In another effort to reduce travel costs for small town and rural officers, the National Center has targeted program delivery to be conducted at State and regional police academies and universities throughout America. The National Center is taking training where training has never gone before and breaking traditional barriers to ensure that training opportunities are available to these officers. At the present time, numerous sites have agreed to host these training sessions for States and local law enforcement, and through the efforts of our STAR instructors, that network is growing. Since State and local small town and rural area officers are customers of both the National Center and the hosting facility, the use of these facilities is provided at no cost.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE NATIONAL CENTER
The Memorandum of Agreement establishing the National Center directed that an Advisory Committee would be formed to advise the Director of the National Center on:
a. Training policies;
b. Training needs for State and local law enforcement personnel;
c. Training curriculum, course content, and evaluation; and
d. Student admission, performance, testing, and evaluation.
The proposed legislation suggests that a Board of Directors be set up to oversee the activities of the private corporation. While this Board's composition spans representation from geographic regions of the country, professional, residential, and one Federal law enforcement agency, in comparison, the composition of the National Center's Advisory Committee as described below, is more encompassing and provides a more global view of the needs of State and local law enforcement throughout America.
The National Center receives guidance from the Advisory Committee, which is co-chaired by Elisabeth Bresee, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Law Enforcement) of the Treasury Department, and Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs and the Department of Justice. The Committee is composed of representatives of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, national professional policing organizations, academia, public administration, and the private sector. Among the members, who meet semi-annually with the National Center leadership in a public forum, are: the Director of the Arkansas State Police, the Director of the Community Oriented Police Services, the Director for the Center for Public Policing at Temple University, the President of IACP, the City Manager of Plano, Texas, the Bell County Sheriff in Belton, Texas, and a representative from Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE). In addition to the Federal agencies mentioned above, the following are also represented on the Committee: the Assistant Director of the Training Division of the FBI at Quantico, Virginia, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Park Police, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. All members represent the interests of their disciplines on the Committee.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CATALOG OF TRAINING
Addressing the need for disseminating law enforcement training information, since 1983, the National Center annually has compiled a printed Catalog of Training Programs Presented by Federal Agencies to State, Local, and International Law Enforcement. The Catalog has descriptions of law enforcement training available from all Federal agencies for State and local law enforcement officers. For the past 3 years, this Catalog has been available also on diskette. Recently, the Catalog has been added to the FLETC web page and is available for downloading on the Internet. This Catalog is distributed upon request, and hundreds of copies are distributed to law enforcement attendees at several law enforcement conferences conducted annually throughout the United States.
CLOSING
In closing, I want to reiterate that we are in agreement with the concept of providing support to rural police officers through education and training. However, we believe that there is a mechanism in place at the National Center at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to do much of what is being proposed in this legislation.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Henson.
Sheriff Sexton, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF EDMUND M. ''TED'' SEXTON, SR., SHERIFF, TUSCALOOSA COUNTY, ALABAMA, AND EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SEXTON. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is truly an honor to testify before the committee this morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of H.R. 1524, the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act.
I am Edmund M. ''Ted'' Sexton, Sr., the Sheriff for Tuscaloosa County, AL. Tuscaloosa County is still a largely rural county, with a population of slightly more than 150,000, including two rural police departments. Our county is surrounded by seven other counties. Five of these seven counties employ an average of only six deputies. Yet these rural counties face the same problems of illegal drugs and increasing juvenile crime, vast service areas, 911 expectations, and domestic violence that urban law enforcement agencies face,but with far less manpower and budgeted resources.
In addition, rural law enforcement faces the handicaps of availability of qualified law enforcement candidates for hire, adequate equipment and technology, and most of all, a budget that allows for adequate pay, training, and use of available technology.
Mr. Chairman, fully one-third of all Americans live in rural areas, and it concerns me greatly to know that crime is on the rise in these areas of the country. In the recent past, demographics have shown that many urban dwellers have moved to rural areas in pursuit of a perceived better quality of life with the intent of leaving urban problems behind. This, too, brings additional problems, with the expectation of services to be continued at their previous urban level, even though the budgets drastically differ.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statistical data shows that violent crime in rural America has increased by 53 percent over the past 10 years. Ninety percent of the local law enforcement agencies throughout the United States serve a population of less than 25,000 residents. These rural law enforcement agencies need the availability of research and technical assistance to support their administrative and operational needs.
My testimony here today is not only as the Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County but to represent the rural sheriffs of the United States, since I am the Sergeant-At-Arms of the National Sheriffs' Association, serving on both the Executive Committee and Board of Directors for the Association. As a representative of the National Sheriffs' Association, I attended the Rural Executive Management Institute, conducted by the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement, in Little Rock, AK.
I submitted a written evaluation to the President of the National Sheriffs' Association, stating that, in my opinion—and I quote—''This was a first-class program which the National Sheriffs' Association should embrace. Accommodations, facilities, instruction and staff were of the highest caliber. I have attended numerous law enforcement schools and seminars and would rate my experience with REMI in the top three.''
The National Sheriffs' Association strongly supports this legislation. At our national conference in Atlanta this past summer, our Association passed a resolution in support of the National Rural Law Enforcement Center. I ask that the text of the resolution be included in the record.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I personally have attended the FBI National Academy, 11 weeks in length; the National Institute of Corrections, 1 week per, for a total of 3 weeks; and the National Sheriffs' Institute, 2 weeks. Often times rural law enforcement administrators have not had the opportunity or accessibility to needed management, budgeting, legal and liability courses which are needed by rural law enforcement administrators as much as their counterparts from larger agencies. The obstacles that these administrators face are due to the required minimum number of sworn personnel, budget, length of training programs requiring prolonged absence from their jurisdiction, and limited staff.
The National Center for Rural Law Enforcement considers these obstacles when scheduling the training programs. The course I attended was broken up into two 5-day sessions, over a 30-day period. These sessions both started on Saturday, enabling purchase of drastically reduced airfare and return to my community without the loss of an entire work week. This greatly benefits the rural law enforcement agency.
Rural law enforcement agencies are desperately in need of a clearinghouse for information about law enforcement policies, crime trends, new technologies, innovative ideas, and other programs tailored to the needs of rural law enforcement agencies. I believe strongly in the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement. As a graduate, I can assure you that support of this legislation will close the gap that exists between urban and rural law enforcement agencies by providing training, technology, and assistance to get the job done.
The National Center currently provides advanced training beyond minimum standard requirements required by State statutes in the areas of investigative, forensic, management, leadership, cultural diversity, and liability training. By supporting H.R. 1524, funding will be provided to maintain a high quality, advanced law enforcement training facility, tailored for the needs of rural law enforcement under the operational control and oversight of an advisory board, comprised primarily of sheriffs and chiefs of police from rural jurisdictions from throughout the United States.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On behalf of the National Sheriffs' Association, which represents the 3,000 sheriffs of America, I urge you to support H.R. 1524.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. [Presiding.] Thank you.
Mr. Carillo.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. CARILLO, CHIEF OF POLICE, DEMING, NEW MEXICO
Mr. CARILLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. My name is Michael A. Carillo. I am here today testify on behalf of and in support of the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1997.
I am a native of New Mexico, the great State of New Mexico, and currently the Chief of Police of the Deming Police Department. Deming, NM is located approximately 38 miles from the Mexican border, in southwestern New Mexico. The population is approximately 15,000. I have 28 sworn officers, including myself, and a very limited training budget.
In 1971, I began my law enforcement career in southern New Mexico. In 1987 I was elected Sheriff of Grant County, NM, and also elected for two terms to the New Mexico Sheriffs Association, as president, and also the legislative chairman for the Association of Counties.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The most requested item on the agenda for the sheriffs at that time was that of training and education. The only training available at the time was the post-entry level certification training being conducted by the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy. For this reason, I composed a bill, convinced a sponsor, and testified before the House Judiciary Committee of the New Mexico Legislature. The bill became law, requiring newly elected sheriffs who had not previously been certified by the Law Enforcement Academy to attend a 2-week management training course. That's all the training that we had.
In 1996, I was selected to attend the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement. I completed the training and conferences, and I can testify before you today, Mr. Chairman, that the training, leadership and technical assistance provided by the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement has been of the highest quality that I have ever received in my law enforcement career.
The National Center for Rural Law Enforcement has truly been a godsend for small departments. The focus of the National Center is to directly provide training, education, technical assistance, leadership, and act as a clearing-house for small rural departments across the United States. The National Center for Rural Law Enforcement is the lifeline between small departments and quality training and assistance. The National Center for Law Enforcement has provided these services to small departments, such as the Deming Police Department, and has done so in such a manner that we have not had to compete with the larger metropolitan and urban police departments, who have in the past had the funding mechanism available to them to acquire advanced training.
I ask that you please, Mr. Chairman, support H.R. 1524 and the concept that governs the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement. H.R. 1524 will have a direct and positive impact on small departments across the United States.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to testify before you in support of H.R. 1524, and I will remain here to answer any questions you may have concerning my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carillo follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. CARILLO, CHIEF OF POLICE, DEMING, NEW MEXICO
My name is Michael A. Carillo, Chief of Police of the Deming Police Department. Please accept the following as my testimony in support of the Rural Law Enforcement Act of 1997. I am native of New Mexico and have served in a law enforcement capacity since 1971, in southwestern New Mexico. I have had the privilege of serving the citizenry of southern New Mexico for the past 11 years as their sheriff and chief of police. Southwestern New Mexico is comprised of small communities, ranch areas and vast areas of sparsely populated rural locations, along with the bordering country of Mexico, all requiring law enforcement services.
Typical of the agencies in rural America, the agencies I have worked for and administered were composed of 25 or less personnel. Throughout the New Mexico area and the country, it is not uncommon to see department administrators wearing regular duty uniforms, answering routine calls and working shift work as I am presently doing. As an administrator, I have been able to reflect back on the years I experienced as a young patrol officer, and can now appreciate all the education and training assistance available to small departments. Early in my career the only education and training available was that which you learned on the street to survive, whatever you were able to grasp from older officers and the certification education and training that was mandatory by the state. Departments which I was employed by did not have the funding mechanism or resources to send their officers to any kind of formal or advanced education and training. Rural law enforcement officers have had to struggle with acquiring funding resources for training, equipment and other law enforcement needs, but must continue to deal with a changing society. I mention these examples because as an administrator in these changing times of our society, I am obligated to provide my officers the best education and training available and professional law enforcement services to the people we serve.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Deming Police Department currently consists of 28 sworn personnel, including myself. The calls for service each year have escalated, this is attributed to the increase of domestic violence, gangs (juvenile crime), narcotics, property crimes and the influence of illegal migration from Mexico, which has contributed to crime in our area. The population in Deming varies during the year from 13,000 to as many as 16,000, interstate 10 passes through the center of town adding to the need for our services. Along with the highest unemployment rate in the state, this department operates on a ''shoestring'' budget, as many other rural departments are required to do, and still provide adequate services.
In 1987, I was elected Sheriff in Grant County, New Mexico, 50 miles north of Deming. During this tenure as sheriff, I was elected president of the New Mexico sheriff's association, representing 33 other counties. Being the chair for this association, the most requested item on the agenda was that of education and training not only for the deputies, but also for the elected officials. As a newly elected sheriff, the only management education and training available was my attendance at the local university, funded by myself, striving to attain my Bachelor of Science degree. Other sheriffs who could not afford any management education and training went without. In 1988, I composed a bill, convinced a sponsor and testified before the Judiciary Committee at the house level of the New Mexico legislature. The bill was passed into law requiring a newly elected sheriff, if not currently certified by the new Mexico law enforcement academy, to attend a 2-week management education and training course, all of which was a start, but not nearly enough to prepare a newly elected sheriff for the problems he/she was about to encounter.
I mention these scenarios to bring to your attention the need for education and training resources for rural agencies. Upon being contacted by the state training coordinator for the FBI, I was selected to participate in the newly formed National Center for Rural Law Enforcement, I was excited and eager to attend. I attended the conferences and forums and was able to relate to and discuss my views with other sheriffs and chiefs from across the country, that in itself was a valuable learning experience. I could relate to a chief of police from Montana about the problems I was facing in Deming, New Mexico and was amazed that we faced the same challenges and obstacles. The center allowed us to prioritize our needs and find solutions. I can only relate to you through this report the inspiration, cohesiveness, cooperation and support Dr. Colwell and the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement have given the attendees since the conception of this center. Through the progression of education and training at the center, the Rural Executive Management Institute was formulated, again I was privileged to be one of those selected to attend. This education and training is superior to any other education and training I have participated in. Chiefs and sheriffs who have completed this education and training, and who have discussed their comments with me have indicated that their management capabilities have been dramatically enhanced, which improves the efficiency of their department and trust in the public they serve. The center funding sources allowed me to attend this quality education and training at a minimal cost to my department.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Center for Rural Law Enforcement education and training center has provided the best quality education and training, information clearinghouse for technical assistance, Internet service information critical to rural agencies, and management assistance equivalent to or better than any in the country.
I will continue to support the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement as a member, participant and grateful student. The National Center is currently seeking funding sources to permanently establish this center, of which I support. Upon establishment of the Center, a governing board comprised of chiefs and sheriffs will be established.
The NCRLE has proven to be a very valuable asset to rural departments across the country. I would ask that you support H.R. 1524, as this measure is extremely important to all the small law enforcement agencies that form the foundation for law enforcement in this country.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you very much.
And now Mr. Young.
STATEMENT OF HERMAN W. YOUNG, SHERIFF, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman W. Young. I am Sheriff of Fairfield County, SC. Fairfield County has a population of 23,000 citizens. Fairfield County has 693 square miles. We have made a test run from one end of the county to the other, and it takes 53 minutes to get from the western part of the county to the eastern part of the county.
Another problem we have, sir, is we have Columbia, SC, which is 30 minutes away, Greenville, SC, which is 1 hour and 15 minutes away, Charlotte, NC, which is 1 hour away, and we also have two interstates in Fairfield County. The two interstates will allow those drug users and dealers to come to Fairfield and have easy access to interstates to get away.
Also in Fairfield County we have three known gangs, and another gang which is called ''The Five Percenters.'' The gangs are on the rise and we have to do something about these gangs. In a rural area, the gangs have decided that they have to do twice as much as an urban gang to identify themselves and get noticed by others.
We also have unsolved murders in Fairfield County. I can honestly say, since being connected with the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement, had I had the knowledge then that I have now to pass on to my investigators and my administrative staff, I certainly believe within myself that some of these murders, if not all, would have been solved by now.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Colwell, his staff, his administrative staff and everyone connected with the National Center. I am a graduate of the Rural Executive Management Institute, Session 2, from Little Rock. I can honestly say, with the information that I gathered and was able to take back to Fairfield County, and not only pass on to my deputies and administrative staff, I was able to share this information with smaller police departments, smaller sheriffs offices, making copies, without any hesitation to share this information and just to know that they were so appreciative of this.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because, for example, Ridgeway, SC has two police officers. There is no way for either one of those to attend any sessions so that they can gain the knowledge that we have been able to. Even with my office, we have a problem with that. However, the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement has made it available so that the time can be split so that we can attend this without my being out of the office so much, or any of my deputies.
As was mentioned, I policed in New York City, so I have the urban experience and the rural experience. Sir, in the rural areas we need twice as much training, or more than twice as much, because we have to do all of it—the SWAT, the investigations, the forensics, which the National Center is offering. In the urban areas, they have all of this available to them, whereas we do not. Local funds are not available. I would ask you to please consider and give full support and pass H.R. 1524.
I thank you for allowing me this opportunity, and I will answer any questions if you have any.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HERMAN W. YOUNG, SHERIFF, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
My name is Herman W. young, Sheriff of the Fairfield County Sheriff's Office. I am pleased to offer my testimony in support of the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1997. For twenty-seven (27) years, I have served the citizens of Fairfield County in the Criminal Justice systems. Five (5) of those twenty-seven years as an elected Sheriff.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fairfield County is a rural county with a population of 23,000; however, we have a large county with a total of 693 square miles. The time it takes to travel from the county line on the western side of the county to the county line on the eastern side of the county is approximately fifty-three (53) minutes. With a limited number of deputies, you can see the length of time it takes for them to respond to calls.
Very often, we get call s that require back-up and very often, due to the increasing number of calls, back-up is not there because deputies are responding to other emergency calls. Quite often, I get involved with calls and drug busts; however, when I am home and a call is given out over the radio, tension runs through my body from the time the call is dispatched until the deputy gets on his or her radio and says everything is ''10–4.'' On the other hand, nothing is more frightening than to hear a fellow deputy or dispatcher ask, ''is everything 10–4?'', and I hold my breath for positive response.
I know rural areas are targeted as much or more than heavily populated areas because the ''bad guy'' knows it takes longer to respond; and in my county, we have two major interstate highways. We are the neighboring county to our capitol, Columbia, South Carolina, and a little more than an hour to Charlotte, North Carolina, driving the normal interstate speed limit.
In mid 1992, about 15 out buildings belonging to a local church group were set afire over a several week period. This church was used to host an annual meeting of African-Americans whose roots are in Fairfield County. An investigation was conducted and four white males were arrested and charged with this arson. Even though it was never confirmed, we feel this was race related.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Drug dealers have advertised in a national magazine, ''High times,'' about the quality of marijuana grown in areas of Fairfield County which happens to be close to Interstate I–77 and others close to county lines.
At present, law enforcement in Fairfield County have identified and have had experience in dealing with three (3) gangs in our area. The first one being ''They Lynch Mob,'' which is made up of white males ranging in age from approximately 14 to 17 years old. They basically operate in the middle and high schools. The second is called ''The Posse.'' The members in this gang are black and white males ranging in age from 16 to 20 years old. They mostly live in the South Winnsboro area. This area of town is predominantly white but is becoming diversified with African-Americans starting to move into the area. ''The Posse'' is operating mostly by using intimidation. The third gang is called ''The Five Percenters'' and actually is a spin-off from the penitentiary where it originated. This gang is made up of black males, their ages are from 19 years old and beyond. There is presently an on-going investigation of a homicide that happened in Winnsboro where the suspects are members of this gang.
A very short time ago, I had a deputy that was chasing a felon and then notified our Central Dispatch that he was then chasing the subject on foot. As the chase continued on foot, the deputy dropped his portable radio; however, the foot chase continued. The subject ran in a heavily wooded area and then picked up a huge stick which wound up being a stand-off, and the deputy had no contact with deputies or Central Dispatch. The deputy made the right decision not to use excessive force; however, the deputy was determined to arrest the subject before the day was over, and before the day was over, the subject was in custody.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The deputy went through a lot of changes after this incident, wondering if he should have used necessary force to make the arrest on the scene. Fellow deputies, administrative staff and I assured the deputy that he made the right decision. I feel the deputy was able to make the right decision because of good old common sense and education and training.
There are several other incidents that come to mind that I feel could have been better able to deal with had we had additional manpower, education and training.
Also, we have several unsolved murders in Fairfield County. With additional education and training for my investigators and more manpower out in the field, the investigators may have been able to solve some, if not all, of these murders by now.
Limited number of deputies and funds make it very difficult for me to get all the education and training I want for my deputies, my administrative staff, and myself. I'm sure we all know that County Council always finds a reason not to fund or cry funds are not available.
I feel so honored and enriched having gone to the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement, attending the Conferences and Forums. The forming of the Rural Executive Management Institute (REMI) under the direction of Dr. Lee Colwell was another major step in the educating and training of rural chiefs and sheriffs across the country. Much needed management education and training is now being provided to rural chiefs and sheriffs. The best part is that it takes six (6) days and is presented in two, three-day segments and the cost to their departments is minimal.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Please give us your full support to H.R. 1524 and pass this bill.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Young. I appreciate all of the panel and their testimony today. I did want to ask some questions to follow up and give everyone a chance to respond perhaps to some of the issues that have been raised.
First of all, Mr. Young, you mentioned that you graduated from the Executive Management Institute—is that the right word for it?
Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir, the Rural Executive Management Institute, Session No. 2.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Is it difficult for rural law enforcement officers in your position to get management training?
Mr. YOUNG. Sir, very much so. I have attended many conferences, workshops and seminars. Certainly they always look for the best presenters that they can get, and they are good. However, I have also noticed that these presenters usually focus on urban areas. About the only time that we in the rural areas will gather information and share information is usually during a break or at lunch. We just go one-on-one and discuss our problems.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Henson, of course, you testified in support of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco?
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HENSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Now, in reading the material that you provided, and I think we got it off your web site, as well, your Center is geared toward training. Does it address, though, the management issues that Mr. Young was talking about?
Mr. HENSON. Not like what the FBI is doing. I'm not that familiar with the 2-week program that was discussed here. However, I will tell you that we do have a Management Institute at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and the management training that we provide is more in the operational area, or specialized area.
We made a conscious decision to——
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Give me an example of a specialized area.
Mr. HENSON. One example would be in the STAR series. We have a multijurisdictional task force managers program that teaches how to set up, create, manage and conduct the operations of a task force.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Do you address the management of the rural law enforcement officials? You don't have any training for that, do you?
Mr. HENSON. We do not have a specialized leadership or management program. We made a conscious decision not to do that when the Center was created since the FBI National Academy, the Southern Police Institute, Northwestern University Traffic Institute, and the Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute provided management training. One of our principles was not to duplicate that training.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Henson.
Mr. Sexton, would you just respond, from your standpoint, as to whether you believe the training that is offered at Glynco is sufficient for rural law enforcement, and if you do not believe it is, explain why.
Mr. SEXTON. I'm not familiar with training at Glynco. Currently we have officers that have been waiting to go to, for example, the firearms training program, and also I believe drivers training. We have folks on a waiting list there.
As a matter of fact, last month at the National Sheriffs' Conference in Florida, I was advised that due to the number of Federal officers being trained at Glynco, those programs were in high demand and full.
I just received a few weeks ago the applications of my persons who were waiting to go to classes, and update on those individuals. So——
Mr. HUTCHINSON. You're saying that these are people in your office that are waiting to go to class at Glynco?
Mr. SEXTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. So is there a backlog?
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SEXTON. My understanding is that the Federal government is expanding the number of Border Patrol agents, the number of persons that are there, so therefore, it's been difficult.
If I might address one other thing that's a parallel to this, we have talked about the FBI National Academy, and I'm a graduate of that, also. The FBI National Academy is 11 weeks long and it deals with a broad brush—it's an excellent school. We appreciate the assistance of the Federal Government in any way that they can. But when it comes to targeting the issues of, for example, animal problems—I've yet to see an FBI agent roll up on animal problems, a 911 call, burglaries, thefts, domestic violence, problems with juveniles, auto accidents, mutual aids, street level dealers, that type of thing.
We're out there dealing with the local problem, and I know that my counterparts next to me, that only employ six deputies, it is a problem for them, too, to try to get out and look at the vast variety of paint brush training. They're looking for specifics that will help them in their rural environment, whether it be management, and how to expand that dollar even further than what normally would be done.
I can honestly say, after going through REMI and seeing the quality of training there, and also the feedback of the individuals there, they accomplished that mission.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Dr. Colwell, do you want to address the issue that Mr. Henson raised, that really the training program at Glynco is sufficient for rural law enforcement?
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COLWELL. I think it's not a question of either/or. I think the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Glynco, GA provides a very critical and essential service for what it was designed to do in the Federal law enforcement community.
Their mission, as was testified, was extended in 1982, and Mr. Henson also mentioned that they had elected specifically, if I understood it correctly, not to address the needs in the rural areas, which the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement is designed to do. So I don't see a duplication there.
Our program is tailored specifically for rural chiefs, small town chiefs, and rural sheriffs. It is not an off-the-shelf program that is patterned after the urban models. So I see a clear distinction between the quantity and content of our courses and that which is offered elsewhere.
The Northwest Traffic Institute, the Southern Police Institute, and other agencies were mentioned, as delivering management, education and training for law enforcement. Those courses are high-quality courses, and the only problem with them is that they have to charge a fee of up to $8,000 per student for those courses.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Who charges $8,000 per student?
Mr. COLWELL. I don't know which one. It's either the Northwest Traffic Institute or—I can get that specific information for you.
We have done a survey on that, on what's available around the country. There are programs available. But the problem is, in small town, rural areas, they don't have a training budget. They can't afford the time to be away from their agencies.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other problem is, the programs that are available do not specifically address, based on what we've been told in our studies, the needs of the small towns and rural sheriffs.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. How does the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement address that problem, that the rural agencies do not have a training budget? If they don't have a training budget, how are they going to attend the training sessions at six regional centers?
Mr. COLWELL. Thus far we've paid the expenses of all of the attendees, their hotel bill, the mileage on their car, or in some cases when they have flown. We do set the program up to where we can take advantage of the Saturday night stay, and you get a much reduced airfare.
The in-kind contributions are the salaries that are paid to the individuals who attend our courses. Our courses are not designed for the line officer. They're designed for those who supervise others in law enforcement, in order to equip them with the competencies to enhance their ability to better manage existing resources.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. My time is up. Maybe I'll have a chance a little bit later to ask more questions.
Mr. Buyer.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BUYER. Thank you.
If those weren't ''soft balls'', I've never seen them, all right? So let's take it to the ''major league'' and we'll do some ''hard ball'' hitting, okay?
I took Mr. Hutchinson's legislation and I sent it off to my District. Gentlemen, I have 20 counties of northern Indiana. There are 92 counties in Indiana, so I have a predominantly rural district, a lot of corn fields where I am.
We have also seen, I think, the changes in my district that are very similar to other rural areas across America. You turn on the nightly news and we would see crime out of the urban centers, and all of a sudden, it has now found it's way to our front porches. So we have some very similar concerns. Little did we ever dream that in Kokomo, IN we would have the crack cocaine problems. It's rather stunning to a lot of us, where life is at a different pace.
I had a lot of responses when I took Mr. Hutchinson's legislation and sent it off to all the sheriffs of my 20 counties, and sent it off to the Indiana Sheriffs Association, the Indiana State Police, and the police chiefs.
I did not get a consensus, which was rather interesting, because I thought I would get a consensus. Because if you have something that will go to the benefit or rural America, you would think everybody would say, ''Well, let's support it.'' They didn't. It was quite interesting.
Perhaps some—and this is rather conservative country—are saying ''Well, what's this? More Federal solutions? We're local out here. We first look at ourselves and then we turn to our State, and then we look beyond that.''
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In Indiana, as pointed out by the Indiana Sheriffs Association, there are 45 Sheriffs serving in counties of less than 30,000 in population, and there are 24 Sheriffs serving in counties of 60,000. The Indiana Sheriffs Association are asking me to support this legislation and support the funding. I shouldn't be too surprised about that, I suppose.
But some of the other individual sheriffs that wrote me—and let me give you one in particular. All right, strike that. It wasn't a sheriff. This comes from the Kokomo Police Department, which is one of the largest cities in my district.
It says, ''I have carefully examined H.R. 1524, the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act. I have found that in no way does the $12 million expenditure for a National Center for Rural Law Enforcement help us with our training needs. Having a training center located in northwestern Arkansas meeting the needs of specific problems to deal with does little for us in our training needs.''
Obviously, this is an executive already that's dealing with his own training problems, he's dealing with recruiting, attrition, retention, those types of problems.
The headquarters of the Indiana State Police Association says, ''Officers from our department, as well as personnel from the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy, offer basic and in-service training for officers of the Academy in five regional centers throughout Indiana. Management training is required under the Indiana statute and is conducted for all new chiefs and sheriffs at the Police Academy. Unfortunately, training for local town marshals is not as in depth, due in large part to the smaller jurisdictions not wanting the additional training.''
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''It also seems that the need for a center for law enforcement training is redundant, since the local, county and State law enforcement personnel may attend the FBI National Academy and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to receive specialized and management training.''
I'm kind of seeing cross-currents here. I am not going to take the prism of my own district or Indiana and say, okay, this is how I measure the country as a whole. I suppose Mr. Hutchinson is looking at this as a country and saying we have a lot of different jurisdictions that are struggling out there and this can be most helpful.
If anybody has any comments on that, please feel free. Then I've got some other questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Certainly, Mr. Buyer. I don't believe I have a copy of that letter. Could you attach that to the record and perhaps provide us a copy?
Mr. BUYER. Sure, I'll include all these in the record.
Mr. BUYER. Since no one wants to comment on the comments of the sheriffs and police officers from Indiana——
Mr. SEXTON. I would like to comment. I went to high school in Indiana, and as I recall, when we went to Kokomo to some athletic events there, Kokomo was a fairly large community; is that correct?
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BUYER. Yes.
Mr. SEXTON. Over 25,000?
Mr. BUYER. Oh, yes.
Mr. SEXTON. So the rural enforcement center is designed for the smaller agencies. I would imagine that the larger agencies, again, have the opportunity to go to the FBI Academy, have the opportunity to go to Leeds, have the opportunity to go to these various places just as I have. But I'm a considerably larger agency than the agencies around me.
However, it's a 3-year wait, on average, to get to the FBI Academy. I just received a letter the other day from our SAC in our area about a deputy I'm trying to send to the FBI Academy, and I got a letter back saying it's a minimum of 3 years.
I can also speak on Alabama and I can also speak on some of the other States I have visited in regard to the National Sheriffs' Association, that don't have the requirements that Indiana has, as far as management training. In Alabama, we have just now gone to where chiefs have to maintain a minimum of 40 hours of management training a year, but sheriffs are exempt. So the State regulations go all over the board.
However, the opportunity to go to local seminars, as the Sheriff from South Carolina mentioned, are ample. But what type of training are you getting there? This is specifically—I've been there and would say—and I went for the sole purpose to evaluate this for the National Sheriffs' Association. But the program does address the problems that rural sheriffs are telling us that they would like to have addressed, specific problems.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BUYER. I would like to also include, Mr. Chairman, this letter from the Lake County Sheriff. I was tickled by it because I think it is what most people would anticipate.
''If there was little or no cost to my department, I would participate.''
Let me tell you what I like. First of all, I'm very hesitant about the Federal hand, okay? So that's where I cross the threshold about the Federal Government. I support copays, cost sharing, that type of thing, because it makes someone have a stake in something.
I had a conversation with Dr. Colwell about this in my office at some point, and you were going to get back to me on it. But if this legislation comes up to a mark, I'll let you know that I'll bring an amendment for a cost share somehow.
Now, if you can give me a recommendation on what would be the best arrangement in cost sharing, do it now. What's your recommendations?
Mr. HENSON. I can tell you how we do it.
Mr. BUYER. Please.
Mr. HENSON. When the National Center was created, it was created with that idea in mind. When you're looking at State and local law enforcement officers that don't have a training budget, or a very minimal training budget, they still need the training. So what we have done is seek, whenever possible, funding either through various Federal agencies or through legislation to cover the development of the program, the program materials, and the tuition.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The officers generally can get into a squad car, drive to a location, if their agencies can afford to lose that officer for that period of time for the program, and attend the training. Even for a local program, they can get into a squad car and drive to a local academy and attend the training, if they don't have to pay the tuition and buy the books. That's how the government can best help those agencies, because they will find a way to get into that training. The agencies are giving up the time and the officer's salary, and providing the transportation, whether it's a short distance or long distance. The government is sharing by providing the expertise and the cost of tuition.
I think that's a nice cost share, and it's something that the small towns and rural agencies can afford.
Mr. BUYER. Dr. Colwell.
Mr. COLWELL. Thank you, Congressman.
You mentioned that this is more Federal solutions. We talked about this when I had the privilege of visiting with you in your office. I think my disagreement with you still exists, or your disagreement with me, on the philosophy of this. You pointed out, I believe, that the Indiana Sheriffs Association had passed a resolution in support of this bill—I believe you mentioned that.
You mentioned the Indiana State Police Association was not in favor of this——
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BUYER. No, this is a letter from the headquarters of the Indiana State Police, the superintendent.
Mr. COLWELL. Who was not in support of the——
Mr. BUYER. Oh, he put all kinds of different questions out there.
Mr. COLWELL. Well, my view of the dilemma faced by small town and rural law enforcement agencies is not necessarily that there is no consensus in the larger departments about the seriousness of that dilemma, nor how it should be met. Insofar as your comment about more Federal solutions, I think that the bill is designed in a way that it is controlled by those for whom it serves, the small town and rural sheriffs.
I am not for more Federal solutions. To the contrary, that is some of the problems that I see at the State level. The Federal Government, with all of its wisdom and all of the essential services it provides, is not the answer. I would suggest, respectfully, that the Federal law enforcement community and some of the ways that grants are channeled to the States ignores small town and rural departments.
The whole context of this testimony this morning has been that there is a difference in the attention that's been afforded and the opportunities that are available to small town and rural agencies. It is not a mandatory program, so it's not another mandatory Federal mandate. To the contrary, it is to those who need the service and want the service.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are over 17,000 agencies in the country. You mentioned there are 45 sheriffs in your state that have a population of 30,000, and then you mentioned another amount. I have no quarrel with that. This is not for everyone, but it is for a very defined, very specific group of people who head small town and rural law enforcement agencies.
To ignore that need is just a continuation of——
Mr. BUYER. Dr. Colwell, if I may for just a moment, I will stand corrected when I say Federal solution, because you're right. It includes mandates and a lot of other things.
You want the best of both worlds. You say leave your wisdom in Washington, DC. because we don't like it or agree with it. Just send us the money. This is basically it, you just send us the money. So when I said Federal solution, I guess that's what I mean. You want us to fund a particular program, we're going to do it our way—and I'm not necessarily being insulting by saying it that way.
What I'm referring to is—and here's my specific question, Mr. Chairman—is I like cost sharing. So I'm going to give you an opportunity now to say how can we best move toward some type of cost share or, in fact, educate these commissioners across America that it's such a worthy cause for them to be funding their new sheriffs to go to this type of——
Mr. MCCOLLUM. [Presiding.] Let's do it very quickly, because we have votes on and we're about 4 minutes away. Please.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COLWELL. Quickly, my answer to that today is the same as it was when I had the privilege of meeting with you in your office, when you gave me a great deal of time to speak about the bill.
The costs simply cannot be borne by these small town and rural agencies. They don't have a training budget. The costs that can be borne is their share of the salary that's incurred while they are attending a management session.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. I wish, Mr. Buyer, I had more time to give you, and I really don't have more time to ask questions myself. I apologize for being out when I was.
We have a vote on now, and I'm told there are three more votes to follow it immediately, which means we're going to be tied up for quite a while on the floor. That's not fair to you or probably to the Members to bring you back here.
Let me tell you that this is not an issue we take lightly. We're going to have another hearing on the subject next week, as some of you may know. I greatly appreciate Chief Young, Chief Carillo, that you've come quite a distance, and Sheriff Sexton, to be here with us. I want to be sure we have the full understanding that we're taking this up quite seriously.
Before I let you go, I'm told we have another 1 minute or something, so I can ask one question of you, Mr. Henson, one I've been wanting to know.
How long a waiting list, if any, do you have for your program? We don't have that on the record. Is there a waiting list? They talked about Quantico.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HENSON. We do have a waiting list for the drivers training program. That's an extremely popular program. Most driver training instructors within the States——
Mr. MCCOLLUM. That's the only program with a waiting list?
Mr. HENSON. I think the two that would have a pretty large waiting list would be our firearms training, as well as the drivers training.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. We want to do the right thing by rural law enforcement. The issue here is how can we avoid duplication, how can we enhance the situation, and I hope you all talk to each other a little bit about this. It would be mighty helpful.
Thank you very much for coming today. I'm sorry we can't protract the questioning because I have about 17 more questions I would like to ask. Thank you very much for coming.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1997 AND BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT OF 1997
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1998
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill McCollum [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bill McCollum, George W. Gekas, Stephen E. Buyer, and Asa Hutchinson.
Staff present: Paul J. McNulty, Chief Counsel; Glenn R. Schmitt, Counsel; Nicole R. Nason, Counsel; Aerin Bryant, Professional Staff Member; Kara Norris, Staff Assistant, and David Yassky, Minority Counsel.
Mr. MCCOLLUM [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Crime will come to order.
This morning the Subcommittee will continue to examine issues related to the bill H.R. 1524, the ''Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1997''. The Subcommittee will also hear testimony regarding H.R. 2829, the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997,'' which is a bill that establishes a matching grant program to help State and local communities purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last week, the Subcommittee heard testimony about the need for law enforcement training for rural police officers. We learned that one-third of all Americans live in non-urban areas and almost 90 percent of the police departments serve rural populations of less than 25,000 residents. At last week's hearings, State and local law enforcement witnesses testified to the fact that rural law enforcement agencies face unique crime-fighting challenges. Rural law enforcement officers often work with lower budgets, less staff, less equipment, and fewer written policies to govern their operations—more so than their urban counterparts. Moreover, many programs and services available to urban law enforcement agencies don't exist in rural areas.
In the view of rural law enforcement officials, training is desperately needed and can be very hard to come by. While training programs for State and local law enforcement are offered at Federal, State and local levels, the extent to which these programs are available to rural agencies is unclear. As I mentioned last week, the FBI, DEA, ATF, Bureau of Prisons, and several offices within the Department of Justice currently offer a wide variety of training programs to State and local law enforcement. Moreover, several Federal grant programs currently exist which allow State and local agencies the flexibility to use the funds for the purposes of law enforcement training.
Which brings me to the subject of grants for the purpose of purchasing bulletproof vests by State and local law enforcement. There is no doubt that soft body armor has become a vital piece of life-protecting equipment required by police. Experts agree that street cops who value their lives should be wearing soft body armor as part of their regular uniform. According to a recent Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms report, over 2,000 law enforcement officers' lives have been saved as a direct result of officers wearing bullet-resistance vests. An analysis of an FBI study concludes that officers who do not wear protective armor are 13-and-one-half times more likely to be killed or shot in an armed confrontation.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I strongly believe that soft body armor should be issued as a standard part of a police officer's uniform. The question is what is the most appropriate way for Congress to aid State and local police departments which have an ever-growing need for equipment but don't have ever-growing budgets to match.
Today, we'll discuss the extent to which the Federal Government currently assists State and local law enforcement through training and grant programs. Hopefully, we'll get a clear picture as to what the Federal Government is already doing in this area so we can responsibly evaluate the need for a new Federal assistance program, whether that be one for rural law enforcement as the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act proposes or one with regard to additional grants or special grant programs for bulletproof vests as is proposed by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grants Act.
[The bill, H.R. 2829, follows:]
105TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2829
To establish a matching grant program to help State and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement departments.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 5, 1997
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. VISCLOSKY (for himself, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, Mr. BERRY, Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. BUYER, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. COYNE, Ms. CARSON, Mr. DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. DICKS, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mrs. EMERSON, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. EVANS, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. FAZIO of California, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. FROST, Ms. FURSE, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. GORDON, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. HORN, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. KILDEE, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. KLUG, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. LAZIO of New York, Mr. LIPINSKI, Ms. LOFGREN, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. MANTON, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. MATSUI, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. MCINTYRE, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. MCNULTY, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr. NEY, Mr. OLVER, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PAPPAS, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. REYES, Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO, Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. SANCHEZ, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SKEEN, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. STOKES, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. STUPAK, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr. VENTO, Mr. WELLER, Mr. WHITFIELD, Ms. WOOLSEY, AND Mr. YATES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To establish a matching grant program to help State and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement departments.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 'Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.
(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds that——
(1) too many law enforcement officers die, while protecting the public, as a result of gunshot wounds;
(2) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, 709 law enforcement officers in the United States were feloniously killed in the line of duty;
(3) more than 92 percent of such law enforcement officers were killed by firearms;
(4) the number of law enforcement officers who die as a result of gunshot wounds has declined significantly since the introduction of modern bulletproof material;
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(5) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, bullet resistant materials helped save the lives of more than 2,000 law enforcement officers in the United States; and
(6) the number of law enforcement officers who are killed in the line of duty would significantly decrease if every law enforcement officer in the United States has access to an armor vest.
(b) PURPOSE- The purpose of this Act is to save lives of law enforcement officers by helping State and local law enforcement departments provide officers with armor vests.
SEC. 3. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
(a) GRANT AUTHORIZATION- The Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance is authorized to make grants to States or units of local government to purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers.
(b) USES OF FUNDS- Awards shall be distributed directly to the State or unit of local government and shall be used for the purchase of not more than 1 armor vest for each police officer in a jurisdiction.
(c) PREFERENTIAL CONSIDERATION- In awarding grants under this Act, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance may give preferential consideration, where feasible, to applications from jurisdictions that——
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(1) have the greatest need for armor vests based on the percentage of officers in the department who do not have access to a vest;
(2) have a mandatory wear policy that requires on-duty officers to wear armor vests whenever feasible; and
(3) have a violent crime rate at or above the national average as determined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(d) MINIMUM AMOUNT- Unless all applications submitted by any State or unit of local government pursuant to subsection (a) have been funded, each qualifying State or unit of local government shall be allocated in each fiscal year pursuant to subsection (a) not less than 0.25 percent of the total amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to that subsection.
(e) MAXIMUM AMOUNT- A qualifying State or unit of local government may not receive more than 5 percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal year for grants pursuant to subsection (a).
(f) MATCHING FUNDS- The portion of the costs of a program provided by a grant under subsection (a) may not exceed 50 percent, unless the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance determines a case of fiscal hardship and waives, wholly or in part, the requirement under this subsection of a non-Federal contribution to the costs of a program.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(g) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS- At least half of the funds awarded under this program shall be allocated to units of local government with fewer than 100,000 residents.
SEC. 4. APPLICATIONS.
(a) STATE APPLICATIONS- To request a grant under this Act, the chief executive of a State shall submit an application to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, signed by the Attorney General of the State requesting the grant, in such form and containing such information as the Director may reasonably require.
(b) LOCAL APPLICATIONS- To request a grant under this Act, the chief executive of a unit of local government shall submit an application to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, signed by the chief law enforcement officer of the unit of local government requesting the grant, in such form and containing such information as the Director may reasonably require.
(c) RENEWAL- A State or unit of local government is eligible to receive a grant under this Act every 3 years.
(d) REGULATIONS- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance shall promulgate regulations to implement this section (including the information that must be included and the requirements that the States and units of local government must meet) in submitting the applications required under this section.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF PRISON INMATE LABOR.
Any State or unit of local government that receives financial assistance provided using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may not purchase equipment or products manufactured using prison inmate labor.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act——
(1) The term 'armor vest' means——
(A) body armor which has been tested through the voluntary compliance testing program operated by the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and found to comply with the requirements of NIJ Standard 0101.03, or any subsequent revision of such standard; or
(B) body armor which exceeds the specifications stated in subparagraph (A), and which the law enforcement officer's agency or department permits the officer to wear on duty.
(2) The term 'State' means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(3) The term 'qualifying State or unit of local government' means any State or unit of local government which has submitted an application for a grant, or in which an eligible entity has submitted an application for a grant, which meets the requirements prescribed by the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the conditions set out in section 3.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for each fiscal year to carry out this program.
SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
In the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and products.
I want to say again that I'm looking forward to this hearing. I would call on either of my colleagues who are here this morning—Mr. Buyer, Mr. Gekas—if they wish to make opening comments.
Mr. GEKAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply want to echo the concerns that you've stated in your opening remarks and to look to the witnesses to give us an idea where they might think that some of the programs might be already overlapping with existing funding and existing programs. To the extent that they're duplicative, to give us suggestions as to how we can tailor and focus on the objects of the bills in question. Now with that in mind, I have nothing further to say in my opening statement.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Buyer has no opening statement. So we'll move on to our first witness today. Our first panelist is a single witness, Ms. Laurie Robinson, if you would come forward please and join us.
Ms. Robinson was appointed by President Clinton to the position of Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs in September 1994. As the Assistant Attorney General, she is responsible for overall management and oversight of OJP ensuring that OJP policies and programs reflect the priorities of the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress. She coordinates the work of OJP's five program bureaus, which I'm sure is quite a large job. She is also responsible for administering more than $3.5 billion in annual Federal grants to State and local law enforcement.
Prior to joining the Department of Justice, Ms. Robinson served for 14 years as the Director of the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice section, where she founded the ABA's Juvenile Justice Center and was instrumental in the effort to implement the ABA Criminal Justice standards. We welcome you today, Ms. Robinson. Your testimony will, in its entirety, be admitted into the record, and you may summarize as you see fit. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAURIE ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. Good morning and thank you for inviting me to talk with you today about the assistance which the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs provides to State and local jurisdictions and particularly our outreach to rural communities. We want to help provide the tools to rural America to ensure public safety and justice in various jurisdictions.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OJP's history of assistance to rural communities actually goes back almost 30 years, when for the first time, the Federal Government focused on providing financial and technical assistance to reduce crime and improve our Nation's system of justice. Since those early days, we've provided literally billions of dollars through our funding programs, as well as technical assistance, training, research, and evaluation and information—all with the one, singular purpose of helping State and local law enforcement and criminal justice do their jobs more efficiently and more effectively. We're finally seeing the impact of these and so many other efforts, as you know, in reduced crime rates across the country. But despite this progress on crime rates, rural areas are still suffering from the crime-related problems that spill over from their urban and suburban neighbors.
Problems, like gangs and drug trafficking, things that were all but unknown in most rural areas a decade or two ago. We know, too, that rural communities often face geographic and other barriers to combating crime and delivering justice services. They often lack, as well, the financial and human resources their urban neighbors take for granted. My own family, Mr. Chairman, comes from rural North Dakota. My father was one of the early leaders of the rural electrification program. So I grew up very familiar with the special needs and problems faced by rural communities.
Since coming to OJP almost 5 years ago, I've tried to place a high priority on reaching out to rural jurisdictions, to find out from rural justice practitioners how OJP can best meet their needs; and then try to shape our programs to better respond. So, as an example, last year I set up a rural criminal justice working group within OJP—with representatives from all of our bureaus and offices to focus on rural issues and to make recommendations on how we can best improve our work in this area. That group just finished a monograph on rural crime, which describes OJP and other resources available for rural practitioners and which we'll publishing and disseminating much more widely very shortly. We've provided copies of that report, Mr. Chairman, for the subcommittee.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information referred to follows:]
Office of Justice Programs
Ensuring Public Safety and Justice in Rural America
March 1998
FOREWORD
Regardless of their size, communities across the United States cannot escape crime or its consequences. This is as true in our smallest towns as it is in our largest cities. We know from the latest data that rural crime, while still below the rates for urban areas, is still a significant problem. Rural areas face enormous problems—like gangs and drug traffficking—which were all but unknown there a decade or two ago. We know, too, that the nature ofthe rural landscape is affected—both positively and negatively—by our highly mobile society. As cities struggle with urban spread, smaller towns find their protective ''buffer zone'' shrinking. And we know that small town and rural America have the same needs as any community: safe schools and neighborhoods, and a responsive system of law enforcement and justice services. But while the basic needs are similar, rural communities often face unique hurdles, such as geographic isolation, scarce resources, and limited access to criminal and civil remedies.
At the Of lice of Justice Programs (OJP), we recognize the special problems and needs of rural America. As the Justice Department's primary provider of financial and other assistance for states and local governments, we're working to help rural jurisdictions overcome these hurdles and ensure the safety of their communities. This document discusses OJP's funding, demonstration programs, research, training, technical assistance, and other resources to help rural communities address crime and improve their justice services.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to thank Fred Garcia and the members of the OJP Rural Task Force, as well as editor Anne Voigt, who contributed so much to create this first-of-a-kind document. I hope it will prove useful to policy makers and justice practitioners as we work—together—to ensure public safety and justice in rural America.
| Laurie Robinson |
| Assistant Attorney General |
57225a.eps
INTRODUCTION
All too often, the challenges of controlling crime in rural communities are ignored when we talk about solutions to crime in America. While there is growing awareness about the nature of crime in this country in general, there continue to be myths and misconceptions about crime in rural America. One of those myths—and it is a myth—is that rural jurisdictions don't have a crime problem.
One of the least understood topics in the field of criminal justice today is that of rural crime, and the effects that crime has on small town neighborhoods, individual victims, and the community as a whole. In rural areas, law enforcement units are expected to perform more varied activities than their urban counterparts—and with fewer resources. For example in rural Alaska, where social services are scarce, law enforcement officers are expected to fight fires, provide transportation in medical emergencies, and perform rescue operations.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the same time, rural communities' small tax bases translate to fewer dollars for justice services. In many communities, justice services are provided by part-time prosecutors, a circuit judge, or a police or sheriff's department that operates only part of the day. And rural communities often lack staff with expertise in applying for state, federal, and other grant monies that could help meet the need for additional resources.
In many rural areas, this scarcity of resources means that law enforcement officers often do not have the equipment or training to do their jobs as efficiently as possible, judges have few sentencing options other than traditional incarceration, and crime victims find services either do not exist or are too far away for them to use.
Even the term ''rural'' means different things in different contexts. For the purposes of this document, ''rural'' is defined as an area with a population of S0,000 or less that is outside of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Through its research and data collections, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is learning more about the impact of crime on rural America. Through its training and technology programs, OJP is helping to meet the needs of criminal justice practitioners, program providers, and victims' advocates who serve rural jurisdictions. Through its program demonstrations and evaluations, OJP is learning more about what works in combating crime in rural areas. And, through its publications, clearinghouses, and other outreach efforts, OJP is sharing this knowledge about what works with state and local policy makers and practitioners throughout the nation. This report describes these efforts and how rural communities can take advantage of OJP's many resources.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OJP Overview
OJP is comprised of five program bureaus, three Crime Act program offices, the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, the American Indian and Alaskan Native Desk (AI/AN), and the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO).
The BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE (BJA) provides funding, training, and technical assistance to state and local governments to combat violent and drug-related crime and help improve the criminal justice system. It also administers the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, State Criminal Alien Assistance, Public Safety Officers' Benefits, Regional Information Sharing Systems, and Church Arson Prevention Grant programs.
The BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (BJS) is the principal criminal justice statistical agency in the nation. BJS collects and analyzes statistical data on crime, criminal offenders, crime victims, and the operations of justice systems at all levels of government. It also provides financial and technical support to state statistical agencies and administers special programs that aid state and local governments in improving their criminal history records and information systems, including grant programs that implement the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the National Child Protection Act.
The NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE (NIJ) is the principal research and evaluation agency in the Department of Justice. NIJ supports research and development programs, conducts demonstrations of innovative approaches to improve criminal justice, develops new criminal justice technologies, and evaluates the effectiveness of justice programs. NO also provides primary support for the National Criminal Justice Reference Service a clearinghouse of criminal justice-related publications, articles, videotapes, and on-line information.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION (OJJDP) provides federal leadership in preventing and controlling juvenile crime and improving the juvenile justice system at the state and local levels. OJJDP also provides grants and contracts to states to help them improve their juvenile justice systems and sponsors innovative research, demonstration, evaluation, statistics, replication, technical assistance, and training programs to help improve the nation's understanding of and response to juvenile violence and delinquency. In addition, OJJDP administers the Missing and Exploited Children's program and four programs funded under the Victims of Child Abuse Act.
The OFFICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME (OVC) provides federal leadership in assisting victims of crime and their families. OVC administers two grant programs created by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA). The Victims Assistance Program gives grants to states to support programs that provide direct assistance to crime victims. The Victims Compensation Program provides funding to state programs that compensate crime victims for medical and other unreimbursed expenses resulting from a violent crime. OVC also sponsors training for federal, state, and local criminal justice officials and other professionals to help improve their response to crime victims and their families.
The three Crime Act Offices—the VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN GRANTS OFFICE (VAWGO), the CORRECTIONS PROGRAM OFFICE (CPO), and the DRUG COURTS PROGRAM OFFICE (DCPO)—administer major programs authorized by the 1994 Crime Act.
VAWGO administers one formula and four discretionary grant programs. The grant programs are designed to help prevent, detect, and stop violence against women, including domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CPO provides financial and technical assistance to state and local governments to implement the corrections-related programs created by the Crime Act. CPO administers two formula and two discretionary grant programs.
DCPO administers the discretionary drug court grant program authorized by Title V of the Crime Act. The purpose of the grant program is to provide support for the development, implementation, and improvement of drug courts through grants to local or state governments, courts, and tribal governments, as well as through technical assistance and training.
OJP's AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKAN NATIVE DESK (AI/AN) improves outreach to tribal communities. AI/AN works to enhance OJP's response to tribes by coordinating funding, training, and technical assistance and providing information about available OJP resources. An overview of OJP's response to preventing and controlling crime in Indian Country is provided in the February 1997 report, Office of Justice Programs Partnership Initiatives in Indian Country. The report is available at no cost from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 1–800/851–3420 or online through OJP's home page at www.ojp.usdoj.gov.
The EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR WEED AND SEED (EOWS) is dedicated to building stronger, safer communities through the Weed and Seed strategy, a community-based, multi-disciplinary approach to combating crime. BOWS works closely with United States Attorneys and OJP's bureaus to implement Operation Weed and Seed in communities throughout the country.
Also within OJP is the VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE (VAWO), which coordinates the Department of Justice's legislative and other initiatives relating to violence against women, including intradepartmental activity.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OJP Grant Information
The following chapters describe OJP's major grant, training, and technical assistance initiatives. More specific information—such as funding levels, application requirements, eligibility, and deadlines—is published annually in the Office of Justice Programs Program Plans and Office of Justice Programs At-A-Glance. These documents—as well as application kits, program guidance, solicitations, program announcements, and a wide variety of other information—also are available online from OJP's Internet home page at www.ojp.usdoj.gov. In addition, through the Department of Justice Response Center (1–800/421–6770) callers can talk to information specialists about OJP grant programs.
Other sources of information are listed in Appendix B. Also included as Appendix C is a bulletin prepared by Me President's Crime Prevention Council, which describes other federal resources for rural communities.
OFFICE THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Since 1984 the Office of Justice Programs has provided federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime and delinquency, improve the-criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge about crime and related issues, and assist crime victims. OJP's senior management team—comprised of the Assistant Attorney General (AAG), the Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG), and five Bureau Heads—works together with dedicated managers and line staff to carry out this mission.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Assistant Attorney General is responsible for overall management and oversight of OJP. The AAG sets policy, ensures that OJP policies and programs reflect the priorities of the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress, and coordinates the work of OJP and its five program bureaus. The AAG also is responsible for administering the Crime Act and Weed and Seed programs and supervising the award of more than $3.5 billion in grant funds. The Deputy Assistant Attorney General assists the OJP/AAG in carrying out these responsibilities.
Violence Against Women Grants Office
The Violence Against Women Grants Office (VAWGO) was created within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to establish policy and administer the formula and discretionary grant programs authorized under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Through its efforts, VAWGO serves as a catalyst for bringing about fundamental change in the way communities across this country address crimes of violence against women and ensure victim safety. Working in partnership with state, local, and tribal governments—as well as private, nonprofit organizations—VAWGO encourages the development and support of innovative, effective programs for preventing, identifying, and stopping violence against women.
Public awareness of the prevalence of violence against women, particularly domestic violence and sexual assault, has increased dramatically in recent years. However, the resulting attention has focused largely on urban areas, making them the primary beneficiaries of enhanced victim services and comprehensive research in this area. Although there is little information specifically about violence against women in rural areas, results of the National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that there is little variation in the extent to which urban, suburban, and rural women experience violence by intimates. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey, August 1995.)
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rural battered women often face challenges not encountered by their urban sisters. The geographic isolation and stronger social and cultural pressures faced by rural victims of intimate violence can significantly compound the usual problems faced by most battered women. The unique features of rural environments, along with a scarcity of available resources, can impede the criminal justice system's ability to investigate and prosecute domestic violence and sexual assault cases and create difficulties service providers in treating and counseling victims. Likewise, these characteristics of rural environments may hinder battered women's ability to seek and obtain assistance from the criminal justice system and social services agencies.
Effective Responses to Rural Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Aggressive and thorough investigation and prosecution of domestic violence and sexual assault cases are driven by policies and protocols that provide clear guidance to police of ricers and prosecutors. To expand the capacity of rural law enforcement agencies to respond to and investigate these crimes in a timely and consistent manner, the protocols must be designed to make optimum use of all available resources and facilities within the community. Specialized training for law enforcement officers on domestic violence and on the implementation of the various protocols is critical to ensure the safety of women, their children, and the officers themselves.
Effective prosecution is shaped by the level of priority that domestic violence and sexual assault cases receive in the community or on an Indian reservation, the availability of a judge to hear the case, the pretrial release and trial considerations that reflect the characteristics of the community, and appropriate sentences for abusers. The perception and understanding of the crimes of domestic violence and sexual assault shared by the community may affect jury selection or the willingness of a victim or witness to testify.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The ability of service providers to advocate for and counsel victims in a rural setting depends on their personal understanding of the phenomenon of domestic violence and sexual assault and their familiarity with the rural or tribal culture and local resources available to assist victims. Even protecting the confidentiality of a victim's address and telephone number or the location of a shelter may be more difficult in rural jurisdictions, because of the lack of anonymity in many small communities and the close, personal relationships residents within such communities often develop from generation to generation.
Through its grant programs and other assistance, VAWGO helps rural jurisdictions implement effective responses to domestic violence and sexual assault victims.
Current VAWGO Programs
To carry out its mandate, VAWGO is implementing five grant programs that encourage grant recipients to adopt coordinated, multi-disciplinary approaches to addressing domestic violence and sexual assault. Predicated on the belief that no one entity can solve the problem alone, these grant programs promote integrated strategies uniting law enforcement, prosecution, the judiciary, probation/parole, and victim advocates and service agencies. This unified approach envisions the creation of seamless services supporting women who have sought the protection of the criminal justice system, as well as outreach to potential victims of domestic violence.
RURAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD VICTIMIZATION ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM. This program attempts to improve and increase services available to rural women and children by encouraging community involvement in developing a coordinated response to domestic violence and child abuse. Police, prosecutors, judges, nonprofit, nongovernmental victim service agencies, and community organizations in rural jurisdictions are required to collaborate in the development and implementation of programs designed to reduce and prevent violence against women and children in rural areas.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grant Program seeks to:
Develop and implement policies, protocols, and services intended to promote early identification, intervention, and prevention of domestic violence and child victimization:
Increase victims' safety and access to treatment and counseling;
Strengthen the investigation and prosecution of domestic violence and child abuse cases; and
Develop and implement innovative, comprehensive strategies that draw on a rural jurisdiction's unique characteristics and resources to enhance understanding of the complexities of domestic violence and child victimization.
Rural grants were awarded for the first time in FY 1996 to support domestic violence and child victimization programs in 20 rural communities. Congress appropriated $8 million for this grant program for FY 1997, and 26 rural grants were awarded. In FY 1998, available funding more than tripled—to $25 million. Examples of projects funded under this program include:
The Maine Department of Human Resources to support its Rural Health Family Violence Initiative. The project coordinates services for battered women and abused children using health care providers as the first line of defense. The project fosters collaboration between service providers and law enforcement, provides onsite intervention, and is developing training that will be tested in four settings, including two Native American health clinics and the state's largest hospital. Further information about this project is available from Sandra Hodge, Director, Division of Child Welfare, at 207/287–5060.
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Council on Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Aid Center, Sioux City, Iowa to develop the Greater Rural Assistance and Intervention Network (GRAIN), a comprehensive program to respond to domestic violence and child victimization in seven rural counties in northwest Iowa. The project provides direct services, training for agencies involved in providing services to victims, develops protocols for law enforcement and prosecutors to promote victim safety and offender accountability, and sponsors prevention education for young people. For more information, contact Margaret Sanders, Executive Director, at 712/277–0131.
STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN FORMULA GRANTS. The STOP (ServicesTrainingOfficersProsecutors) Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program awards funds to states and territories to restructure and strengthen the criminal justice system's response to address violence against women. The program requires states and territories to develop coordinated strategies with input from all participants in the system, including victim advocates.
Each STOP grantee must allocate 25 percent of its funds to law enforcement, 25 percent to prosecution, and 25 percent to nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services, with the remainder to be distributed at the grantee's discretion, within the established guidelines.
In FY 1995, the STOP program was allocated $26 million. VAWGO awarded 56 STOP grants to states and territories, which in turn awarded more than 650 subgrants. Reflecting the diversity of needs around the country, states awarded STOP subgrants to support programs ranging from those seeking to enhance victim services to those attempting to improve the supervision of perpetrators of violence against women. Communities served range from rural Wyoming to New York City; from children who witness domestic violence to senior citizens who are victims of domestic violence; and from students to farm workers.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congress appropriated $130 million for the STOP Program in FY 1996 and $145 million in FY 1997 and again in FY 1998. Consistent with the objectives established in the first year of the program, STOP grant recipients were encouraged in FY 1996 and FY 1997 to build on the foundation laid with previous years' investments by continuing their coordinated, multi-disciplinary response system; to strengthen programs enforcing protection orders both within and among states; and to increase the number and types of services and criminal justice programs supported with STOP funds, including judicial education and court-related projects.
Rural recipients of STOP program funds include:
The Farm Worker Women Leadership Project in California to develop a model for identifying farm worker women in California communities to receive training in sexual assault and domestic violence awareness, prevention strategies, and available resources. In turn, these women will train others in their communities about these issues. For further information, contact Linda Luckey at the California Office of Criminal Justice Planning at 916/324–9210.
The Self-Help Center in Wyoming, which lends cellular phones to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking who have an active protection order to enable them to communicate quickly with emergency dispatchers. The phones are programmed to call 911. As part of its outreach and prevention efforts, the center—in cooperation with the district attorney's office, the department of probation and parole, the sheriff's office, and local police departments—has also developed referral cards. Police officers responding to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking calls encourage victims to complete these referral cards, which are forwarded to the center for follow-up contact with victims to provide them with support, legal advocacy, and services. Additional information is available from Barbara Boyer at the Wyoming Of rice of the Attorney General at 307/777–7841.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Forensics Services Bureau in Idaho to provide DNA analysis, expert testimony, and training to assist local authorities in managing sexual assault cases more effectively. For further information, contact Steve Raschke at the Idaho Department of Law Enforcement, 208/884–7042.
The State Supreme Court in Montana to develop a manual for prosecutors and bench books for judges to encourage consistent handling of domestic violence and sexual assault cases. Funds will also be used for developing additional training opportunities for judges and prosecutors. For more information, contact Wendy Sturnat, the Montana Board of Crime Control at 406/444–3604.
STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST INDIAN WOMEN DISCRETIONARY GRANTS. The Violence Against Women Act mandates that 4 percent of the amount budgeted each year for the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program be awarded to Indian tribal governments. In FY 1995, the STOP Violence Against Indian Women (VAIW) Discretionary Grant Program awarded nearly $1 million to 11 tribal governments and 3 consortia representing 35 villages, 9 pueblos, and 5 tribes. In FY 1996, the program funded 68 grants totaling $5.2 million. With awards to 50 Indian tribes across the country, FY 1997 funding to tribal governments totaled more than $4.9 million. Almost three-quarters of these tribes received STOP funding for the first time in FY 1997. In FY 1998, $6.8 million is available. Grant funds may be used for the same broad purposes outlined above for the formula program.
The VAIW Discretionary Grant Program seeks to reduce and prevent violence against Indian women by encouraging tribal governments to design and carry out innovative, effective approaches that are sensitive and responsive to the needs of Native American women. Grantees are required to implement a coordinated and integrated program developed in collaboration with the various offices of the tribal justice system and nonprofit, non-governmental victim service providers. Examples include:
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Osage Ration in Oklahoma has developed written policies and procedures on domestic violence for law enforcement officers; the prosecutor and courts are establishing a more specific domestic violence code; the Osage Nation Counseling Center hired a domestic violence/sexual assault counselor who is available during non-business hours; and the counseling center and the tribal court are collaborating to set up a treatment group for offenders. For further information, contact RoseMary Shaw at 918/287–2773.
The Oglala Sioux Tribe received a VAIW grant to strengthen its existing efforts to reduce and prevent violence against Lakota women. Grant hinds are being used to train representatives of various tribal agencies, including mental health and alcoholism programs. The Tribe has developed a model domestic violence code to be shared with other tribes across the country. For more information, contact Karen Artichoker at 605/455–2244.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina is using grant funds to establish a new shelter, hire a criminal investigator, and provide battered women with court advocacy to help them navigate the tribal justice system. Further information is available from Darlene Bradley at 704/488–9038.
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota launched a campaign to raise awareness about domestic violence. The tribe also made policy and legal changes to stiffen sanctions against offenders and improve services for battered women. For more information, contact Tillie Black Bear at 605/856–2317.
Over the next several years, the STOP Violence Against Indian Women Discretionary Grant Program will continue to devote resources to restructuring and strengthening the Indian tribal governments' response to the needs of Indian women who are, or could become, victims of violence.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE ARREST POLICIES. Traditionally, police officers responding to a domestic violence incident were reluctant to become involved, preferring to dismiss the dispute as a private, family matter to be resolved internally by the couple or through informal counseling and mediation. This hesitation by law enforcement to treat domestic violence like any other violent crime not only deferred to social custom, but also sprang from an absence of police protocols for addressing these types of situations. To fill this void, many police departments around the country began implementing policies that encourage or even mandate arrests. Currently, at least 27 states and the District of Columbia have adopted laws that encourage or mandate arrest of an individual who assaults a family member or violates a domestic violence protection order. The overarching purpose of these policies is to ensure victim safety and bring perpetrators to justice.
However, mandatory arrest and pro-arrest policies are only the first step in ensuring victim safety and offender accountability. Successful interventions require arrests to be part of a coordinated and integrated response by the entire criminal justice system. The Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies provide resources and support to help states, local governments, and tribal governments treat violence against women as a serious crime requiring the coordinated involvement of the entire criminal justice system to ensure the victim's safety.
Congress appropriated $28 million for arrest grants in FY 1996, $33 million in FY 1997, and $59 million in FY 1998. A total of 150 jurisdictions were selected to receive FY 1996 and FY 1997 funding. With these resources, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors' offices, and the courts will collaborate with each other and with nonprofit, non-governmental victims' services agencies to develop and implement programs strengthening the community response to mandatory and pro-arrest policies. To ensure the effectiveness of arrest policies in rural areas, grant funds are being used by:
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The State of Alaska to develop an automated registry to track protective orders for use by the courts, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and probation officers; to train rural Village Public Safety Officers in the mandatory arrest law; and to enable small police departments to gather evidence necessary for prosecution. For further information, contact the project coordinator, Jayne Andreen, at 907/465–4356.
The Osage Nation of Pawhuska, Oklahoma to establish a partnership between the Osage Police Department and all tribal and local law enforcement agencies in Osage County to respond to domestic violence cases and to create a reservation and county-wide information and tracking system for domestic violence offenses that will be used by the police, the courts, and probation and parole officials. For further information, contact Ron Revard at 918/287–1202.
The Dakota Territory Chairmen's Counsel, Eagle Butte, South Dakota to launch an inter-tribal program to address the growing problem of domestic violence. The Chairmen's Council and its 16 member tribes are working together to develop uniform laws and policies for all the tribes regarding the mandatory arrest and prosecution of primary aggressors in domestic violence cases. The project also is developing a computer network to link all the tribes. Furrier information is available from Steven Emery at the Dakota Territory Chairmen's Council, 605/964–6686.
Through its commitment to provide resources and attention, VAWGO is dedicated to supporting efforts by communities around the country to implement mandatory or pro-arrest policies for perpetrators of violence against women. Support will also be extended for efforts devoted to implementing mandatory or pro-arrest policies for those who violate protection orders.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CIVIL LEGAL ASSISTANCE. For Fiscal Year 1998, Congress created a new grant program within VAWGO to strengthen civil legal assistance programs for domestic violence victims. Law school legal clinics assisting battered women, as well as legal clinics operated by other entities, and domestic violence victim assistance programs will be eligible to receive funds through this program. An application kit, available early in 1998, will specify the purposes for which grant funds may be used, eligible applicants, and the deadline for submissions. The application kit will be available online from OJP's home page at www.ojp.usdoj.gov or by calling VAWGO at 202/307–6026.
Drug Courts Program Office
The emergence of crack cocaine in the mid-1980s had an unprecedented and dramatic impact on the nation's criminal justice system. In an effort to stem street drug dealing and crime and violence associated with illegal drug use, the arrest and prosecution of drug offenders was sharply escalated. At the same time, penalties for the possession and sale of drugs were toughened, and greater numbers of drug offenders were charged with drug felonies that carried prison sentences. As a result, a greater number of drug offenders were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted; however, drug offenders received few if any treatment services. The result was a revolving-door, in which drug offenders cycled in and out of the justice system.
This influx of drug offenders into the system severely strained the courts. To address the growing caseloads, courts employed traditional delay reduction strategies, including establishing specialized court dockets to expedite drug case processing. However these approaches did little to stem the tide of drug offenders into the system, to rehabilitate drug offenders already in the system, or to reduce recidivism of offenders being released back to the streets.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1989, troubled by the devastating impact of drugs and drug-related crime on their criminal justice systems, a few communities began experimenting with a new approach to nonviolent drug offenders that brought significant change to key aspects of the court system. This new approach integrated substance abuse treatment with case processing in diverting nonviolent defendants arrested on drug possession charges into a judicially supervised rehabilitation program.
This approach was a significant departure from traditional court practice, and at least initially, was not always widely supported by members of the judiciary and by line prosecutors. Gradually, however, judges, prosecutors, and others who were struggling with similar issues involving drug offenders began to examine the drug court approach to assess whether replication or adaptation might offer them a better response to drug cases.
Since 1989 over 370 communities have implemented or are planning to implement a drug court to address the problem of substance abuse and crime. Local coalitions of judges, prosecutors, attorneys, law enforcement officials, others are using the coercive power of the court to force abstinence and alter behavior with a combination of intensive judicial supervision, escalating sanctions, mandatory drug testing, treatment, and strong aftercare programs to teach responsibility and to transition offenders back into the community. Drug courts started at the local government level and now, with federal assistance, have spread across the nation.
In 1997, the Drug Courts Program Office supported the implementation and enhancement of 24 drug courts in rural communities. In addition, over 50 percent (40 of 78) of the drug court planning grant awards were to rural areas. Approximately $8.5 million, or 30 percent, of 1997 funds supported drug court activity in rural communities.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Drug Courts Grant Program
In enacting Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103–322), Congress joined with local communities in acknowledging the promise of drug courts in rehabilitating offenders, in holding offenders accountable for their actions, and in reducing victimization by intervening early after arrest to place offenders in treatment. Congress authorized the Attorney General to make grants to states, state courts, local courts, units of local government, and Indian tribal governments to establish drug courts. This authority has been delegated to the OJP Assistant Attorney General.
The OJP Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) was established to administer the Drug Court Grant Program and to provide financial and technical assistance, training, related programmatic guidance, and leadership. In FY 1995, Congress appropriated $29 million for the Drug Court Grant Program, but then reduced the funding level to $ 11.9 million through a rescission. In FY 1996, Congress approved reprogramming of $ 15 million for drug court grants, and in FY 1997, the appropriation doubled—to $30 million, which was again appropriated in FY 1998.
Single jurisdictions may apply for one of three types of drug court grants:
Placarding Grants—Awarded to jurisdictions interested in establishing drug courts that are in the early planning stages. These are 1-year grants of up to $30,000 each.
Implementation Grants—Awarded to jurisdictions that have already made a commitment to develop a new drug court program, have identified the target population to be served, and have identified the case processing procedures that will be used. These are 2-year grants of up to $400,000 each.
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Enhancement Grants—Awarded to jurisdictions to improve or enhance services in an existing drug court. These are 2-year grants of up to $300,000 each.
In FY 1998, DCPO also will award grants for statewide, regional, and multijurisdictional projects. These include 1-year planning grants of up to $50,000 and 2year implementation grants of up to $600.000. DCPO will award 1-year grants of up to $50,000 for training, management information systems, or program evaluation development projects. In addition, DCPO will make 1-year supplemental awards of up to $200,000 for FY 1996 grantees.
The OJP Drug Courts Program Office has attempted to work with all communities interested in drug court activity and has not placed special priorities on population size. Based on awards and data collected by the Drug Court Clearinghouse, the communities now seeing the greatest increase in drug court activity are rural. In FY 1995, 28 percent (15 of 52) of the DCPO planning grants—a total of about $500,000—were awarded to rural communities. In FY 1997, over 50 percent (40 of 78) of the first-round planning grants went to rural communities, and another 14 grants were awarded for either the implementation or enhancement of a rural drug court. This was the first time that rural communities received either an implementation or enhancement grant. In the second round of funding in July 1997, an additional 47 jurisdictions received drug court grants totaling over $12 million.
Technical Assistance to Rural Communities
To assist communities in developing or implementing a drug court, DCPO—through an cooperative agreement with the National Association of Drug Court Professionals—established the Mentor Court Network. This referral system links selected drug courts to requests for assistance from jurisdictions interested in learning more about drug courts. Two of these—Stillwater, Oklahoma and Louisville, Kentucky—were selected as mentor courts because of their unique ability to meet the needs of rural communities. The Stillwater Drug Court spans two rural communities and coordinates services in both. The Louisville Drug Court, while not in a rural community, faces many of the same challenges as a rural community and serves a small number of drug court participants. These two courts are significant resources for furthering the development of successful rural drug courts.
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Each planning grantee sends a team to a 3-day workshop on the key components of a drug court. Also, each planning grantee sends a team to visit a mentor court to learn from, observe, and talk with drug court practitioners. Teams participate in team building exercises, visit established drug courts, and develop an action strategy for planning their drug courts. For further information about the Mentor Court Network, contact Lolita Curtis, Vice President for Training and Technical Assistance Services, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, at 703/706–0565.
Grantees and any community interested in drug court activity may also access the Drug Court Clearinghouse. DCPO established the Clearinghouse through a cooperative agreement with The American University in Washington, D.C. to provide information and technical assistance to communities planning or operating drug courts. Rural and other communities can access the Clearinghouse for publications, information, and on-site technical assistance on all aspects of drug court activity. The telephone number is 202/885–2875 and the e-mail address is justice@american.edu.
Corrections Program Office
The Corrections Program Office (CPO) encourages states, units of local government, and Indian tribes to develop strategies that will assist corrections agencies in dealing with the challenges confronting the nation's prison system. CPO provides leadership on corrections issues and policy direction for We implementation of congressionally mandated grant programs.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CPO administers two major grant programs: the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) Incentive Grant Program, created under Title II, Subtitle A of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994; and the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program.
Prison Construction Grants
Through this program, OJP provides much-needed funding to states—for subaward to state agencies and units of local government—to increase secure confinement space for adult and juvenile violent offenders. Half of appropriated funds are available for Violent Offender Incarceration (VOI) grants, and half for Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS) grants. States may apply for both grant categories. Funds may be used to:
Build or expand correctional facilities to increase the bed capacity for the confinement of persons convicted of a Part 1 violent crime or adjudicated delinquents for an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a Part 1 violent crime;
Build or expand temporary or permanent correctional facilities, including facilities on military bases, prison barges, and boot camps, for the confinement of convicted nonviolent offenders and criminal aliens, for the purpose of freeing suitable existing prison space for the confinement of persons convicted of a Part 1 violent crime; and
Build or expand jails.
VOI grant funds are allocated to states using a three-tiered formula—85 percent for the first two tiers and 15 percent for the third. Each tier has graduated criteria relating to sentencing, time served, and court commitments for VOI awards under Tiers One, Two, and Three, and for TIS, implementation of truth-in-sentencing laws. Eligible states may receive funding under all three tiers. States may pass-through up to 15 percent of grant funds to counties or other local jurisdictions. A small percentage (0.3%) of the overall appropriation is set aside for discretionary grants to Native American tribes. A total of $670 million was appropriated for this program in FY 1997, and another $720.5 million was appropriated for FY 1998. In FY 1998, $5 million of the overall appropriation is set aside for discretionary grants to Native American tribes.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Grants
OJP research has found that substance abuse treatment—particularly prison-based treatment—can be effective in preventing recidivism and in reducing drug use and dealing, gang activity, riots, and inmate violence in correctional facilities. Under the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program, OJP's Corrections Program Office awards formula grants to states for programs that provide individual or group substance abuse treatment for offenders in residential facilities operated by state and local correctional agencies. Each state receives 0.4 percent of available funds, with the remainder allocated according to state population.
In FY 1997, a total of $30 million was appropriated RSAT, and in FY 1998 $63 million is available. To be eligible for funding, states must agree to require drug tests for treatment participants and to give priority funding to projects that provide aftercare services. The FY 1998 Application Kit is available from OJP's Web site at www.ojp.usdoj.gov or by calling 1–800/851–3420.
Technical Assistance
The Corrections Program Offices makes technical assistance and training available to aid states and local jurisdictions with program implementation and correctional and sentencing issues related to violent offenders. Assistance is provided through national and regional workshops, as well as on-site technical assistance to address specific needs.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In cooperation with the National Institute of Corrections, CPO has established a toll-free technical assistance line to facilitate a quick response to requests for assistance. To request assistance, jurisdictions should call the Corrections Technical Assistance Line at 1–800/848–6325 or within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area at 202/305–4866.
Executive Office for Weed and Seed
Operation Weed and Seed, a Department of Justice community-based initiative, is an innovative and comprehensive multi-agency approach to law enforcement, crime prevention, and community revitalization. Weed and Seed is a strategy to prevent, control, and reduce violent crime, drug abuse, and gang activity in targeted high-crime neighborhoods of all sizes nationwide.
The Weed and Seed strategy involves a two-pronged approach to a neighborhood's crime problems. Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors cooperate in ''weeding out'' criminals participating in violent crime and drug abuse, while attempting to prevent these offenders from returning to the targeted area. Simultaneously, the ''seeding'' aspect brings human services to the area focusing on prevention, intervention, treatment, and neighborhood revitalization. A community-oriented policing component bridges the gap between the weeding and seeding components. Residents aid the weeding efforts, while police officers help in community restoration.
Every site is created through the efforts of concerned community residents. A Steering Committee is created with members from the United States Attorney's Office (USAO), city officials, local law enforcement officers, local business people, community leaders, and site individuals. They are the ones responsible for bringing together the various components of the Weed and Seed strategy and implementing the local plan. The Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS) is responsible for overall coordination and other assistance to the Weed and Seed sites.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Becoming A Site
Neighborhoods interested in implementing the Weed and Seed strategy should work with their U.S. Attorney's Office to develop a strategy and apply for Official Recognition as a Weed and Seed site. Once a site receives Official Recognition status, it also becomes eligible to receive:
Discretionary resources from participating federal agencies,
High priority for participation in federally sponsored training and technical assistance,
Use of the official Weed and Seed logo, and
Weed and Seed funds.
Eighty-eight sites received $28.5 million in Weed and Seed funding during FY 1996, and approximately 120 Weed and Seed sites were awarded approximately $22 million in grant funding in FY 1997. Each of these sites has formulated its strategy and demonstrated its ability to obtain financial and in-kind resources from various public and private sources. Qualified sites may also apply for supplemental funding as described below:
Asset Forfeiture Funds are available to selected sites to enhance their joint federal-local task forces.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Special emphasis awards are available to further promote efforts in such areas as: gun abatement, community empowerment, truancy prevention, conflict resolution, justice innovations, jobs for at-risk youth, anti-gang initiatives, Prevention Through the Arts, and mentoring programs.
Technical assistance and training for Weed and Seed personnel and communities is available through numerous sources, including EOWS grant funds and Asset Forfeiture Funds.
Peer to Peer Training is currently being developed in which selected veteran sites will allow visiting Weed and Seed site staff to review a successful program.
Weed and Seed in Rural America
The Weed and Seed strategy is a framework adaptable to any size neighborhood, with any size population, each with its unique problems. Weed and Seed sites exist in both urban and rural communities, and are extremely successful in both areas. The following are two examples of the Weed and Seed response in rural America:
Dyersburg, Tennessee. In February 1996 Dyersburg, Tennessee, in the northwest part of the state, became an officially recognized Weed and Seed site. Dyersburg police and citizens were concerned about increased amounts of drugs and the number of young adult and juvenile gang members involved in drug trafficking. In addition, because juvenile court was held only two days a month, juvenile cases often waited months before processing.
To resolve these problems, the Dyersburg Weed and Seed project established mini-precincts in troubled areas. Police instituted community policing. Condemned buildings were torn down, and over half have been replaced by new dwellings. Volunteers mobilized and spend their Saturday afternoons enhancing the community.
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Volunteers also built a Safe Haven—a safe place for young people to go and participate in recreational and other activities after school and on weekends. Prevention and intervention are the key elements of the Safe Haven strategy.
On the enforcement side, the Dyersburg Police Department investigators and DEA personnel target individuals bringing methamphetamine into the Dyersburg area. Enforcement efforts also target gang members involved in narcotic trafficking. For further information about this site, contact Captain Stan Cavness, Dyersburg Police Department, at 901/286–7611.
New Bern, North Carolina. New Bern was named a Weed and Seed project site in 1996. The target is a one square mile area adjacent to the city's historical district with a population of 3,624. The high school drop-out rate is 31.2 percent. In 1996, New Bern received $119,790 in Weed and Seed funding.
In its first year community policing officers helped establish a better-sense of security in the target area. An anti-drug task force and an effort to remove guns from the streets are the primary focus of the enforcement strategy. Community officers participate in community meetings and organize and assist neighborhood watches.
The prevention component includes the development of the Safe Haven building into an activities center and comprehensive service provider. Resources for building renovation have been obtained from federal, state, local, and private sources. For example, a local building supply company donated $2,000 worth of goods and services to the Safe Haven. The Safe Haven makes referrals for mental health, health, and social services and serve as a location where service providers can work with citizens.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Neighborhood restoration is another priority for the New Bern Weed and Seed program. Projects are being developed with the New Bern Planning Department to address the problem of deteriorating housing. Community-based organizations will provide services such as painting, landscaping, and general clean-up. For more information about this site, contact Lawrence Suggs, Weed and Seed Coordinator, at 919/636–4117, ext. 27.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) provides leadership and assistance in support of state and local criminal justice strategies to achieve safe communities. BJA's overall goal is twofold: reduce and prevent crime, violence, and drug abuse; and improve the functioning of the criminal justice system.
Three primary funding streams enable BJA and the nation to work toward realization of these goals. These programs are the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program (Byrne Formula Grant Program), the Byrne Discretionary Grant Program, and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program.
BJA estimates that approximately 20 percent of its FY 1995 allocation was used in the most rural sections of the country. However, determining the actual amount of BJA funding being used for rural programs proved problematic in that, although funding was going to a rural area, it did not guarantee that the program was designed to address a rural problem. Particularly in the case of discretionary grants, some of the programs that were ''national in scope'' were headquartered in what was classified as a rural jurisdiction.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program
Through the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program (the Byrne program), BJA provides leadership and guidance on crime and violence prevention and control, and works in partnership with state and local governments to make communities safe and to improve criminal justice systems. BJA develops and tests new approaches in criminal justice and crime control, and encourages replication of effective programs and practices by state and local criminal justice agencies. The Byrne program, created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100–690), places emphasis on violent and drug-related crime, serious offenders, and multijurisdictional and multi-state efforts to support national drug control priorities.
BJA makes Byrne program funds available through two types of grant programs: formula and discretionary. Formula grant funds are awarded to the states, which then make subawards to state agencies and local units of government. Discretionary funds are awarded directly to public and private agencies and organizations.
Byrne Formula Grant Program
The Byrne Formula Grant Program is designed as a working partnership among federal, state, and local governments to provide safer communities and a high quality of justice. BJA is authorized to make grants to states, for use by states and units of local government, to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system with emphasis on violent crime and serious offenders, and to enforce state and local laws that establish offenses similar to those found in the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Grants may provide personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance, and information systems for more widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention, and rehabilitation of persons who violate such laws, and may provide assistance (other than compensation) to their victims. There are 26 legislatively authorized purpose areas for which assistance may be provided. Information about the availability of Byrne formula funds and application procedures are available from each state administering agency. A list of these agencies is available on OJP's home page at www.ojp.usdoj.gov or by calling the Department of Justice Response Center toll-free at 1–800/421–6770.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although purpose area 4 specifically addresses ''special programs for rural jurisdictions,'' some level of funding has been provided to rural locations for virtually all of the purpose areas. In June 1997, BJA conducted an analysis to ascertain the amount of the FY 1995 Byrne formula allocation being used at the rural level. Fiscal Year 1995 was selected as the test year due to the probability that the majority of the funds would have been subgranted. Funding under the Byrne Formula Grant Program is available for the year of the allocation plus two additional years. Routinely, a fourth year extension is also granted.
The FY 1995 Byrne formula allocation was $450 million, and the total subawarded as of the date of the analysis was $365,611,241. This analysis found that over $67 million (approximately 20 percent) of FY 1995 Byrne formula funds were being used in the most rural sections of the country. One explanation for why rural areas do not have a greater share of Byrne formula funds may be the inability of the more rural jurisdictions to generate the 25 percent match required for all grants.
BJA also examined the types of programs funded at the rural level. A review of the data revealed that multijurisdictional task force activities dominated all other initiatives. The choice of states to operate such task forces reflects the vast geographic areas and limited law enforcement resources in rural areas.
With FY1995 Byrne Formula funding currently going to 1,007 rural jurisdictions, it would be unrealistic to try and describe all exemplary programs. However, during a Rural Criminal Justice Issues Forum in Nashville in July 1997, attendees received information about successful rural programs across the United States. The following represent some of these programs:
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Gallatin County Victim Witness—Bozeman, Montana. This project has become a model for the delivery of justice services in rural Montana. It has been disseminated statewide and has formed the framework for the creation and expansion of victim/witness projects in communities throughout the state. The project works to: improve the involvement of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system by providing a full time coordinator to serve as a liaison between victims and witnesses and the criminal justice system; increase community awareness by providing education to law enforcement and the judiciary; expand the number of victims and witnesses served through recruitment and training; and encourage increased cooperation in the areas of law enforcement and judicial cooperation through joint sponsorship of the position. For further information, contact Cathy Kendall at the Montana Board of Crime Control at 406/444–3604.
Hiawathans Offering Positive Environments (HOPE)—Hiawatha, Kansas. The goal of this program is to blend law enforcement crime and drug prevention efforts with a community coalition effort to create a healthier community for children, as well as to strengthen families. This very active citizen coalition is made up of parents, teachers, students, city and county law enforcement, local government, business leaders, health care providers, and others. The group helps set social policy, conducts youth and family activities, and sponsors a youth center. Additional information is available from Ronald McVeigh at the Kansas Criminal Justice Coordinating Council at 913/296–0926.
Triad—Bismarck North Dakota. Triad focuses on reducing unwarranted fear of crime and improving the quality of life for seniors. It consists of a three-way effort among sheriffs, police, and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), who work together to reduce the criminal victimization of older citizens and enhance the delivery of law enforcement services to seniors. A key component of Triad is the senior advisory council—Seniors and Law Enforcement Working Together (SALT). The council advises law enforcement groups and advocates for the needs of older adults in the community. In addition, the SALT council provides forums for seniors and law enforcement officials to exchange information. Council members help determine the concerns of the community's elderly residents, assess the availability of existing services and programs for the elderly, and recommend additional strategies for serving their needs. More than 500 Triads are being implemented in 46 states. Of these, 75 percent are in rural areas. For more information, contact Tammy Becker at the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation at 701/328–5500.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
South Central Multi-jurisdictional Drug Task Force—Texurkana, Arkansas. This task force is located in a nine-county, three judicial district region, where the largest town has a population of 10,000. The task force provides narcotics enforcement and prosecution services that would be unavailable on an independent city or county basis. It reduces the volume of illegal narcotics and the incidence of use and abuse by providing for the detection, arrest, prosecution, and conviction of illegal narcotics traffickers by organizing and operating a cooperative speciality law enforcement function in this large rural area. For further information, contact Gordon Burton at the Arkansas Office of Intergovernmental Affairs at 501/682–1074.
Byrne Discretionary Grant Program
The Byrne Discretionary Grant Program awards grants to public and private agencies and organizations for national-scope demonstration, training, and technical assistance programs in support of state and local criminal justice systems. Each year Congress directs BJA to award a portion of the appropriated Byrne Discretionary Program funds to specific programs and organizations, which in some years have resulted in ''earmarks'' of more than 80 percent of available funding. The remaining Byrne Discretionary Funds are used to continue existing demonstration programs, establish new programs, or establish or continue technical assistance programs that address the needs of states and local jurisdictions. The BJA Discretionary Grant Program usually has an appropriation of $50 to $75 million. An analysis of discretionary grants active as of June 1997 (including the Church Arson Program, which is supported by reprogramming of other Justice Department funds) revealed that $11.5 million is being used for programs in rural areas. Examples of these programs include:
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since October 1995, BJA has awarded $925,000 to the Rural Law Enforcement Center (RLEC), based at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, to provide training and technical assistance to rural law enforcement agencies. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture also provide funding for RLEC. The funds are being used to expand the center's electronic information clearinghouse, develop new software for felony case management, and provide an Internet access point for these law enforcement agencies. Technical assistance is provided via the Internet and toll-free dial-up terminals. Additional information about RLEC is available by calling its toll-free telephone number at 1–800/635–6310 or via the Internet at www.cji.net/rlec.htm.
The Center for Effective Public Policy provides technical assistance on community justice to rural and tribal communities. The Center, in collaboration with appropriate subcontractors, provides peer assistance with an emphasis on issues that are unique to rural and tribal communities. The Center may be contacted at 301/589–9383.
Technical assistance, for general rural issues and other topics, is available from Community Research Associates (CRA) on an ''as needed'' basis. CRA may be contacted at 615/399–9908.
As of January 1998, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (B&GCA) served 2.6 million youth in nearly 2,000 clubs nationwide, of which more than 930 were located in rural communities. BJA provides $20 million to B&GCA to establish new clubs and outreach initiatives for residents of public housing, distressed communities, major urban centers, rural jurisdictions, and Indian Country. Where appropriate, clubs work to support jurisdiction-wide crime control and prevention strategies and emphasize the development and implementation of programs involving violence and substance abuse prevention, conflict resolution, and parental involvement and training. For further information, contact Tim Flaherty at 404/815–5748.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
National in scope but local in implementation, the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign uses BJA Byrne discretionary funds to reach out to children, families, public and private service providers, and elected officials to reduce and prevent crime, violence and substance abuse. The Campaign produces and disseminates television, radio, and print ''McGruff and Scruff'' crime prevention public service announcements (in English and Spanish), as well as a full range of crime, violence, and drug prevention informational materials; provides technical assistance and training workshops. For more information, contact the BJA grantee, the National Crime Prevention Council at 202/466–6272 or online at www.ncpc.org.
BJA provides Byrne discretionary funds to the National Association of Town Watch (NATW) to coordinate National Night Out (NNO) at the national, state, and local levels by disseminating information, materials, and providing technical assistance to federal and state agencies, local units of government, civic and neighborhood organizations, and residents. This year-long program involves the community-building efforts of 30 million people in 9,250 communities (including more than 6,000 in rural areas) across the United States. In many cities and towns, NNO activities are cosponsored by businesses, private sector corporations, and local utility companies. These activities culminate in National Night Out, which is held one night each August. For more information, contact Matt Peskin, NATW Executive Director, at 610/649–7055.
FY 1997 Open Solicitation
In Fiscal Year 1997, to stimulate and support innovation among practitioners, BJA announced an open solicitation competition in four topic areas: adjudication, law enforcement, rural criminal justice, and American Indian and Alaska Native communities. The Issues in Rural Communities solicitation requested applications addressing the following topic areas:
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Strategies that focus on community-based partnerships and coalitions to control and prevent crime and violence.
Strategies in which criminal justice agencies address regional problems through consolidation or sharing of resources, or through technology.
Strategies to provide cost-effective alternatives to incarceration for selected defendants and offenders.
Funding under the Issues in Rural Communities initiative was restricted to units of government (including tribal governments) serving rural communities with populations of less than 25,000 residents outside a metropolitan area or that have been designated by the federal government as Rural Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, or Champion Communities.
In October 1997, BJA awarded $3.7 million to 37 jurisdictions to test approaches to reducing crime and encouraging collaboration in the criminal justice system under all four topic areas.
The following are examples of programs funded under the Rural Issues initiative:
5th Judicial District, Des Moines, Iowa. Sex offenders in rural areas of Iowa's 5th Judicial District currently have to travel up to 200 miles to receive treatment or to comply with supervision conditions. For this reason, judges have been reluctant to order an offender into a treatment program knowing the difficulties of accessing services. This grant to the 5th Judicial District's Department of Corrections will support replication of Des Moines' sex treatment program in rural areas. The program focuses on offender responsibility, empathy for victims, and relapse prevention. It employs clinical and polygraph assessments and progressively less-restrictive sanctions as offenders work toward program completion. Program partners include local mental health and victim services organizations, as well as county attorneys, public defenders, and the courts. The program's effectiveness will be measured by tracking recidivism through Iowa's community-based corrections data system. For further information, contact James Hancock at 515/242–6582.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Office of the District Attorney, Vidalia, Louisiana. Increased levels of crime in rural Vidalia have overtaxed local law enforcement and the criminal courts. Local correctional resources are crowded. Defendants released prior to trial are often rearrested on new charges before their previous cases have been adjudicated. To help alleviate this pressure on the local criminal justice system, the Of lice of the District Attorney will create an alternative to incarceration program for first-time offenders in rural areas. The program will emphasize aggressive supervision and restitution to victims. Program partners include the Seventh District Court, the Macon Ridge Economic Development Region, the Louisiana Department of Welfare and Human Resources, and local law enforcement agencies. The program's success will be measured by the number of offenders who voluntarily enter and complete the program and by the cost savings achieved through diversion. For more information, contact Madaline Gibbs at 318/336–5526.
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, Montana. Problems created by youth from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes are commonly referred to the police, courts, and schools. To create a positive force for youth within the community, the Salish and Kootenai Tribes are implementing a rural diversion project tailored to the needs of tribal youth. The initiative will employ sanctions through a deferred prosecution program and rely on traditional tribal elder guidance to reach at-risk youth. Partners include the community's police, public defender, housing authority, mental health center, and addiction treatment program, as well as parents groups, schools, and tribal elders. The program's effectiveness will be assessed using offense referral statistics and community surveys. For further information, contact Jacque Morigeau at 406/675–2700.
For Open Solicitation '98, BJA will solicit concept papers under one or more of the following topic areas:
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Community Justice Hate Crimes
Juveniles in Adult Systems Victimization of the Elderly
Criminal Justice Challenges for Rural and Tribal Communities
Obstacles to Justice
Indigent Defense
Integrated Information Systems
For a copy of Open '98, when available, or to be added to the mailing list for this and other program announcements, contact the BJA Clearinghouse toll-free at 1–800/688–4252.
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants
Under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) Program, BJA provides funds to local jurisdictions, states, and eligible territories for efforts to help them reduce crime and improve public safety. Grants are distributed using a formula based on violent crime data covering the last three years that the FBI collected from the states and localities. BJA makes direct awards to units of local government that qualify for $10,000 or more. Jurisdictions that do not receive direct awards are eligible to receive funds or increased services from the state, which receives a base amount in addition to the funds allocated for jurisdictions that did not qualify for at least $10,000.
Local jurisdictions can use their grants to hire police officers or pay existing officers for overtime; establish multijurisdictional task forces, particularly in rural areas; purchase equipment directly related to basic law enforcement functions; prosecute violent offenders, particularly youthful violent offenders; fund drug courts; implement crime prevention measures; or defray the cost of indemnification insurance for law enforcement officers.. Funds cannot be used to acquire tanks or armored vehicles, fixed-wing aircraft, limousines, real estate, yachts, consultants, or any vehicle not primarily used for law enforcement.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In FY 1996, the program's first year, over 2,600 local jurisdictions, every state, and several eligible territories received grants totaling approximately $405 million. Almost $395 million was awarded directly to local jurisdictions, and of the $32 million awarded to states in FY 1996, 55 percent (over $17 million) was subgranted to units of local government. States awarded the remaining $14 million to state police departments that provide law enforcement services to units of local government. In FY 1997, BJA awarded $523 million under the LLEBG Program, the same amount available in FY 1998.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is the nation's primary source for criminal justice statistical information. As the statistical arm of the Justice Department, BJS collects, analyzes, publishes, and disseminates timely and accurate statistical data on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of justice systems at all levels of government. BJS also provides technical and financial assistance to state statistical and operating agencies responsible for the collection and analysis of state criminal justice statistics and administers special programs to help state and local governments improve their criminal history records and information systems.
National Crime Victimization Survey
Each year, BJS conducts the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). the largest annual survey of crime in the nation. NCVS measures personal and household offenses, including crimes not reported to police, by interviewing all occupants age 12 or older in a nationally representative sample of U.S. households.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BJS data show that crime in rural areas over the past several years has followed the same general downward trend as crime in urban or suburban areas. Between 1993 and 1995, nonfatal crimes of violence against rural residents declined 17 percent.
BJS also found that—with one exception—crime rates in rural areas were lower than in suburban or urban areas. In 1995, for nonfatal crimes of violence—rapes, sexual assaults, robberies, aggravated and simple assaults—there were about 35 crimes per 1,000 rural residents in 1995, compared with 42 per 1,000 for suburban residents, and 56 per 1,000 for urban residents. Overall property crimes—household burglary, motor vehicle theft, property theft—also occurred at a lower rate among rural residents than their urban or suburban counterparts. However, rural residents experienced household burglaries at significantly higher rates than suburban residents, although lower than those in urban areas.
National Criminal History Improvement Program
The National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) provides funds to states to improve their criminal history record systems, keep felons from purchasing handguns, prevent sex offenders from working with children and the elderly, and identify repeat offenders who may be subject to ''three strikes'' laws. NCHIP implements the provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the National Child Protection Act of 1993, the Stalking and Domestic Violence Reduction provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, and related legislation focusing on improving state criminal history records and implementing the National Instant Background Check System.
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1994, BJS designated five states as ''priority'' states because they had little or no automated criminal history records. These five states—Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia—received additional funding for several years of NCHIP activity to enable them to plan and contract for major expenditures to enhance their systems.
Since 1995, BJS has awarded $163 million directly to states under the NCHIP program. BJS made FY 1997 awards to 48 states totaling approximately $50 million. To date, states have spent approximately 6 percent of the funds distributed through the NCHIP program to develop methods to collect and flag records of persons convicted of offenses against children, the elderly or the disabled and persons subject to a domestic violence protective order. Each state that submitted an application received an award. In FY 1998, $45 million is available under this program.
Tribal Case Management System
With funding from BJA's Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, BJS provides funds to Native American tribal jurisdictions to develop and implement automated criminal case tracking systems. These systems help the tribes better manage criminal justice resources, track offenders through the justice system, and enhance decision making.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) was created by Congress in 1968 to find new and better ways to fight crime. It does this through administering grants for research in the criminal justice field, providing technical assistance to law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies throughout the country, developing new innovations in technology, and by gathering and disseminating criminal justice information.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Providing justice services in rural areas poses special challenges, such as geographical problems, lack of public transportation, limited criminal justice personnel and resources, lack of sentencing options, and lack of information. As part of its mission, NIJ works to find ways to improve rural policing and criminal justice practices, and seeks to expand its role in this area.
NIJ's rural projects have included a broad range of activities—from grants for research reports to technical assistance, conferences, and interagency cooperation. NIJ personnel also participate in conferences to share information about its research findings, program evaluations, and other resources.
Research Reports
NIJ is one of many federal and non-federal agencies that conduct research on rural crime and policing. NIJ-supported research projects related to rural justice:
An NIJ sponsored study examined research issues in the study of drugs in rural areas, drawing on the author's own experience in studying domestic marijuana production. The research is reported in an article appearing in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, ''Studying Drugs in Rural Areas: Notes From the Field.'' (1993)
An NIJ Research In Action report, Rural Crime and Rural Policing (October 1994), discussed rural crime and rural policing with respect to crime patterns and the distinctive elements of the rural environment that affect both crime and policing.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The NIJ Research Report, Crime and Policing in Rural and Small-Town America: An Overview of the Issues (September 1995), examines what is known about crime and policing in rural areas and small towns and how they are shaped by the rural environment.
Copies of these and other NIJ or criminal justice reports can be ordered from NIJ's National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) by calling its toll-free telephone number, 1–800/851–3420. One of the most extensive sources of information on criminal and juvenile justice in the world, NCJRS also provides access to its publications database via the Internet at www.ncjrs.org.
Police-Research Partnerships
NIJ also assists the development of rural policing strategies by awarding research grants to various interest groups and universities. One unique program pairs researchers with police agencies to examine issues departments face in implementing community policing. Police-researcher teams have been established in 65 jurisdictions in 39 states. The following are examples of NIJ supported programs for studies of crime in rural areas:
Council Grove-Kansas State University Law Enforcement Team Project. This program has formed a partnership between law enforcement officials in Council Grove, Kansas and Kansas State University to provide data on the public's perception of the area's community policing style and capacity.
Increasing the Effectiveness of Rural Police Departments. Alfred University is conducting a study to determine how local police departments in two of its neighboring towns can be made more effective by using community service, policing strategies, and sharing available resources.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A Partnership for Research in Community Policing Strategies in a Rural County and Three Small Cities. The University of Alabama is conducting research to demonstrate the benefits of cooperation between small and rural law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice faculty of an urban university.
Police-Community Initiatives for Effective Law Enforcement. This project follows the development of a cooperative, rural community policing program in two North Carolina counties to better understand the organization of such programs and to explore the possibilities of establishing similar programs in other rural areas.
Comprehensive Analysis of Community Policing Strategies. The Police Executive Research Forum is conducting this project to help fill the information gap on community policing strategies by identifying a set of operating strategies for urban, suburban, and rural areas.
Indian Country Justice Initiative Evaluation. This is a pilot project supported by several Justice Department agencies. The project's goal is to improve the responsiveness of the Department to criminal justice needs in Indian country and to increase law enforcement efforts to target violent and other major crimes.
A Partnership for Research in Community Policing Strategies in a Rural County and Four Small Cities. The University of South Alabama is demonstrating how a university can collaborate with law enforcement agencies in a rural county. The goal is to help the agencies plan community policing strategies and then study the impact of the strategies on crime and citizen satisfaction.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Demonstrating a Cost-Effective Approach for Locally Initiated Police Research in Small and Medium-Sized Cities. This project will link police departments in small and medium-sized cities in three states with researchers and other specialized consultants. The project sites are: Redwood and Eureka, California; Pocatello, Idaho; and Rapid City, South Dakota. The project is testing and evaluating interactive methods for linking police departments and researchers through surveys, case studies, and Internet communications analysis.
DI-LEARN: Downstate Illinois Law Enforcement Research Network. This project will connect 20 or more municipal police agencies serving populations of less than 50,000. Researchers from Southern Illinois University will then facilitate the development of shared research priorities based on the opinions of these police agencies and conduct one or more specific projects.
A Partnership Proposal: The Ada County Sheriff's Office and Boise State University. This partnership is developing a research strategy to address the need for information about demographic transformations in the county and the implications of traditional and contemporary community policing. The project also is developing data retrieval and imaging systems and an Internet ''home page'' for the sheriff's department.
For further information about any of these projects, contact Dr. Phyllis McDonald at NIJ at 202/616–3653.
Transferring Technology
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Through the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) in Rockville, Maryland and five regional centers, NIJ provides technical information and assistance to local and state criminal justice agencies. Each center has a specific core function and is designed to leverage existing resources in its area.
The center in Rome, New York focuses on weapons and weapon safety. The Charleston center develops and tests security technologies, while the El Segundo center provides investigative and surveillance technology support. The Rocky Mountain center in Denver works on finding ways to help law enforcement and corrections departments communicate across jurisdictional lines. And the center in San Diego develops new technology relating to the control of border-related crime.
NLECTC information specialists are available by calling a toll-free hotline—1–800/248–2742. Information also is available through the Internet-based Justice Information Network (JUSTNET), which provides information on new technology, equipment, and services available to the criminal justice community through NLECTC. The Internet address is www.nlectc.org.
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended, established the Office Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to support local and state efforts to prevent delinquency and to improve their juvenile justice systems. In accordance with this mission, OJJDP leads the national initiative to promote a comprehensive and coordinated strategy to meet the challenges facing America's children.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OJJDP coordinates its diverse and comprehensive initiatives through a cycle of planning, research, program development, demonstration, replication, training, technical assistance, evaluation, and information dissemination.
Formula Grants Program
Through its Juvenile Justice Formula Grants Program, OJJDP provides grants to states to assist state and local jurisdictions in preventing and treating delinquency and improving their juvenile justice systems. Each state and territory is required to develop and implement a comprehensive juvenile justice plan that sets priorities for the expenditure of OJJDP formula grant funds.
In 1992, the JJDP Act was modified to require state plans to include an analysis of services for preventing and treating juvenile delinquency in rural areas, including the need for such services, the types of services available in rural areas, and geographically unique barriers to providing services. The plan also must include a strategy for providing needed services to prevent and treat juvenile delinquency in rural areas.
OJJDP also administers the State Challenge Activities Program, which provides incentives for states participating in the Formula Grants Program to develop, adopt, and improve policies and programs in one or more of 10 specified ''challenge'' areas. These include: providing access to counsel for all juveniles in the juvenile justice system, establishing a state ombudsman office for children and families, developing alternatives to school suspension, increasing aftercare services, and developing policies and procedures to reduce the size of state training schools.
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Community Prevention Grants
Under the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program, OJJDP provides funds to assist and encourage communities to focus on preventing juveniles from entering the juvenile justice system. The program supports local comprehensive delinquency prevention planning and prevention activities for youth who have had or are likely to have contact with the juvenile justice system. OJJDP awards funds to states through State Advisory Groups to qualified units of general local government selected through a competitive process. Training and technical assistance in developing prevention models and strategies is provided. Over the past four years, more than 400 communities, including many rural areas, in 47 states and 5 territories have received Title V Community Prevention Grants and are beginning to see positive changes in the factors associated with juvenile crime and delinquency.
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG)
For FY 1998, the Congress created a new block grant program to address the growing problem of juvenile crime by encouraging accountability-based reforms at the state and local level. OJJDP has been delegated authority to administer this new program.
Funds will be awarded to states based on their juvenile population. Units of local government will receive 75 percent of the amount awarded to states based on a combination of law enforcement expenditures and the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data on Part 1 violent crimes, unless the state can demonstrate it bears the primary financial burden within the state for juvenile justice.
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Funds may be used for 12 purposes:
1) Building, expanding, renovating, or operating temporary or permanent juvenile correction or detention facilities, including training of correctional personnel;
2) Developing and administering accountability-based sanctions for juvenile offenders;
3) Hiring additional juvenile judges, probation officers, and court-appointed defenders, and funding pretrial services for juveniles to ensure the smooth and expeditious administration of the juvenile justice system;
4) Hiring additional prosecutors, so that more cases involving violent juvenile offenders can be prosecuted and backlogs reduced;
5) Providing funding to enable prosecutors to address drug, gang, and youth violence more effectively;
6) Providing funding for technology, equipment, and training to assist prosecutors in identifying and expediting the prosecution of violent juvenile offenders;
7) Providing funding to enable juvenile courts and juvenile probation offices to be more effective and efficient in holding juvenile offenders accountable and reducing recidivism;
8) The establishment of court-based juvenile justice programs that target young firearms offenders through the establishment of juvenile gun courts for the adjudication and prosecution of juvenile firearms offenders;
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
9) The establishment of drug court programs for juveniles so as to provide continuing judicial supervision over juvenile offenders with substance abuse problems and to provide the integrated administration of other sanctions and services;
10) Establishing and maintaining interagency information-sharing programs that enable the juvenile and criminal justice system, schools, and social services agencies to make more informed decisions regarding early identification, control, supervision, and treatment of juveniles who repeatedly commit serious delinquent or criminal acts;
11) Establishing and maintaining accountability-based programs that work with juvenile offenders who are referred by law enforcement agencies, or that are designed, in cooperation with law enforcement officials, to protect students and school personnel from drug, gang, and youth violence; and,
12) Implementing a policy of controlled substance abuse testing for appropriate categories of juveniles within the juvenile justice system.
At least 45 percent of any grant provided to a state or unit of local government must be used for purpose areas 3–9, and at least 35 percent must be used for purpose areas 1, 2, and 10. In addition, the federal share of construction costs of permanent juvenile corrections facilities is limited to no more than 50 percent of the total cost.
In FY 1998, $250 million is available under this program. The JAIBG Program Guidance Manual is posted on OJP's home page at www.ojp.usdoj.gov. To receive a copy, contact the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 1–800/638–8736.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Discretionary Grant Program
OJJDP also awards discretionary grants directly to research, nonprofit, or other organizations or agencies to conduct research and demonstration programs, or to provide services related to juvenile justice to local and state agencies. Each year, OJJDP publishes in the Federal Register the programs and priority areas it will support. The following discretionary grant programs are of particular interest to rural communities.
Studies of Violence Committed By or Against Juveniles. Through its Institute for Families in Society, the University of South Carolina is analyzing county-level data to test the significance of community factors (including socioeconomic changes and proximity to interstate highways) in violent juvenile crime in rural counties in three southern states—South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida—and, for comparison, Nebraska. The Institute is conducting surveys of intermediate and middle school youth about their experiences of bullying or being bullied and using these data to develop and evaluate a school-based prevention program. For further information about this project, contact Charlotte Kerr at OJJDP on 202/616–2605.
SafeFutures—Partnership To Reduce Youth Violence and Delinquency. SafeFutures seeks to prevent and control youth crime and victimization by creating a continuum of care in communities to respond to the needs of youth at critical stages during their development. This continuum of care provides a range of prevention, intervention, treatment, and sanctions.
In 1997 OJJDP awarded grants of approximately $1.4 million a year for five years to each of six communities (four urban, one rural, and one tribal government) to assist with existing efforts to reduce youth violence and delinquency. Boston, Seattle, St. Louis, Contra Costa County and Imperial County, California, and Fort Belknap, Montana were selected competitively based on their substantial progress toward community assessment and strategic planning to address delinquency.
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Each of the six sites is implementing a unique set of services that will build on community strengths, services, and supports and fill in gaps within their existing continuum. These services include family strengthening, after-school activities, mentoring, treatment alternatives for juvenile female offenders, mental health services, day treatment, and graduated sanctions for violent and chronic offenders.
The rural site is Imperial County, California. Imperial County's Office of Education is building upon local planning efforts begun in 1992 and its existing rural Enterprise Community. Most services provided by SafeFutures will be housed in a new Family Resource Center (FRC) located in a local high school. Imperial County's SafeFutures initiative includes a program for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders; an education, health, and personal growth curriculum for at-risk girls in grades 7 through 12; and a Family Preservation and Family Support Program for abused or delinquent girls.
Imperial County's SafeFutures also is supporting a mobile mental health team to provide services—including public education and outreach—to youth who have been involved in the juvenile justice system, at-risk youth, and their families. Other components include drug and alcohol education, mentoring, and programs to prevent gang violence. For more information about this project, contact Kristen Kracke at OJJDP on 202/616–3649.
The Urban Institute is evaluating the effectiveness of each SafeFutures initiative, and OJJDP is providing technical assistance and training to each site through the National Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC). For more information about the center, contact Michael Goodnow at OJJDP on 202/307–3676.
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Juvenile Mentoring Program
OJJDP's Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) supports one-to-one mentoring programs for youth at risk of educational failure, dropping out of school, or involvement in delinquent activities, including gangs. JUMP is administered either by a local education agency or a public or private nonprofit organization. In either case, both entities must collaborate to achieve the program's goals of improving academic performance and reducing the dropout rate. Programs must target at-risk youth in high crime areas that have 60 percent or more of their youth eligible to receive Chapter I funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and that have a considerable number of youth who drop out of school each year.
The following are examples of how JUMP is being implemented in rural communities.
Fort Pierce, Florida—Operated by Big Brothers/Big Sisters of St. Lucie County, this program matches an adult volunteer with a child ranging in age from 6 to 17 years old. The Core Program focuses on delinquency, dropout prevention, school attendance, and the importance of self-concept. Mentors spend one to three hours per week fostering a caring relationship while the child participates in recreational activities, youth leadership, academic tutoring, and a violence prevention program. Another program component matches children with a school resource officer.
The program also operates a Mini-Policing Academy each summer covering such topics as drugs and gangs, personal safety, conflict resolution, problem solving, self-esteem, law enforcement careers, crime scene investigations, the courtroom, 911, and neighborhood watch efforts. Another program partner, the St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce, promotes business partnerships with students by involving youth in corporate mentoring/shadowing, leadership, and entrepreneurship opportunities.
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Marks, Mississippi—The Boyz-to-Men and Girls-to-Women (BMGW) mentoring program's major goals are to prevent juvenile delinquency and gang participation and reduce the dropout rate of at-risk youth in Quitman and Tallahatchie Counties. Fifty at-risk youth from each county are paired with adult mentors. The program includes alternative education for mentees who have already dropped out of school, education on conflict resolution techniques and coping with peer pressure, and parent counseling for mentees who are teen parents. The program also provides entrepreneurial career training, sport and recreational experiences, and cultural and education programs.
Parental involvement is encouraged and child care services are provided so that parents and mentees can participate in all program activities. Monthly parent training sessions help parents learn skills for managing their children and building a better relationship with them.
Rapid City, South Dakota—The ATEYAPI (which means ''fatherhood'' in Lakota) mentoring project matches Native American adults with at-risk native teens to provide guidance, companionship, and academic assistance. The program's goal is to reduce delinquency and high school dropouts and increase academic achievement, self-esteem, cultural knowledge, and social/relationship skills for participants.
ATEYAPI is a school-based model where mentors work 32 hours-per-week in school and another 8 hours in after-school, evening, and weekend activities. A coordinator recruits mentors and matches them with at-risk youth in four targeted schools. Students are referred by school administrators and counselors. Mentors develop case plans for each student, which are reviewed and updated with each 9-week report card. Mentors also make monthly home visits to inform parents of student progress and provide field trips, Lakota drumming, pow-wow dancing, traditional crafts, Lakota language, and talking circles. Parents are recruited to help with these activities.
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For further information about JUMP projects, contact Travis Cain at OJJDP on 202/307–1205.
Safe Kids/Safe Streets
Safe Kids/Safe Streets is a unique program involving collaboration among OJJDP and other OJP bureaus. The program's goals are to:
Encourage localities to restructure and strengthen their criminal and juvenile justice systems to make them more comprehensive and proactive in helping juveniles and their families who have been or are at risk of being abused and neglected;
Implement or strengthen coordinated management of abuse and neglect cases by improving the policies and practices of the criminal justice, child welfare, family services, and related systems; and
Develop comprehensive community-wide, cross-agency strategies to reduce child and adolescent abuse and neglect and resulting child fatalities.
Burlington, Vermont is demonstrating the Safe Kids/Safe Streets program in a rural area. The program is managed by the Community Network for Children, Youth, and Families of Chittenden County, a community-wide collaborative to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect. The program goals are to: broaden access to available resources and services; strengthen primary prevention efforts; improve services and treatments for families experiencing abuse and neglect; improve interagency collaboration and communication among service providers, police, court and corrections personnel, and other stakeholders; and strengthen system capacity and accountability. For more information about Safe Kids/Safe Streets, contact Robin Delaney-Shabaz at OJJDP on 202/307–9963.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Drug and Alcohol Prevention
In FY 1998, Congress has designated $5 million to OJJDP for a new Drug Prevention Program that will make direct awards to develop, demonstrate, and test programs to increase perceptions among children and youth about the unappealing aspects and danger of drug use. Another $25 million was provided in FY 1998 for a new Combating Underage Drinking Program. Each state will receive $360,000, another $5 million is available in discretionary grants, and $1.64 is available for training and technical assistance to enforce state laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors and to prevent minors from purchasing or consuming alcoholic beverages. These efforts include:
Statewide task forces of state and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies to target establishments suspected of a pattern of violations of state laws governing the sale and consumption of alcohol by minors;
Public advertising programs to educate establishments about statutory prohibitions and sanctions;
Innovative programs to prevent and combat underage drinking.
OJJDP is developing guidelines for these two new programs. As information becomes available, it will be posted on the OJP home page at www.ojp.usdoj.gov. Information also will be available from the Department of Justice Response Center at 1–800/421–6770.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OFFICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME
The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) was created by the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) of 1984 to improve our nation's response to crime victims. It fulfills this mission through the administration of state victim assistance and compensation formula grant programs; the management of training, technical assistance, and demonstration grant programs designed to benefit crime victims; and the creation of programs that result in crucial direct services for victims of federal crimes. OVC's state crime victim assistance and compensation formula grant resources, as well as the training and technical assistance programs and demonstration projects, are open to communities and agencies in rural areas.
Crime Victim Assistance Program
OVC's victim assistance formula grant program supports state efforts to fund local programs that provide direct services to crime victims. Such services include crisis intervention, group therapy, court accompaniment, transportation, emergency shelter, counseling, and other critical services. OVC awards funds to states to pass through to public and private nonprofit organizations, such as domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, child abuse treatment programs, and survivors of homicide programs. State administrators managing the VOCA victim assistance formula grant programs are required to target 10 percent of grant awards to efforts that meet the needs of underserved crime victims, including those living in rural areas.
OVC encourages states to be responsive to crime victims in rural and remote areas by making training, information, and other program resources available to victim assistance providers, dispatchers, law enforcement officers, and other professionals. OVC recently revised the program guidelines for the VOCA victim assistance grant program to encourage states to identify gaps in available services—not only by the types of crimes committed—but also by victims' demographic characteristics. Now, OVC asks states to consider redefining an ''underserved'' victim, for purposes of funding eligibility, to include, among other traits, residence in a rural or remote area.
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
From FY 1986 through FY 1997, states and territories received more than $1 billion in VOCA victim assistance grant funds. Of the almost $77 million subgranted in FY 95, for example, almost $16.5 million, or 21.4 percent, went to rural communities.
Crime Victim Compensation Program
OVC awards annual formula grants to states to supplement state compensation programs that reimburse victims for crime-related expenses, such as lost wages, funeral and burial costs, and medical and mental health counseling costs. The state crime victim compensation program is a major resource for victims of crime living in rural areas, covering such expenses as transportation to receive medical and mental health services. These funds, for which crime victims may apply directly to the states, may be the only source of support in remote areas where victim services are scarce or non-existent. From FY 1986 through FY 1997, OVC distributed more than $637 million in VOCA compensation grant funds to the states.
Demonstration Programs
In addition to its Victim Assistance and Victim Compensation formula grant programs, OVC provides direct awards to demonstrate or test innovative approaches to serving crime victims. The following OVC demonstration programs are of special interest to rural jurisdictions:
Rural Victim Services 2000. Through this program, OVC will demonstrate an integrated comprehensive victim service system within a rural community. Two rural sites were selected to serve as a laboratory for other communities wishing to develop similar victim-centered systems. Early in FY 1998, grants were awarded to the State of Vermont and Medina County, Ohio to demonstrate this program.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The goal of Vermont's program is to develop a statewide comprehensive victim services system that can serve as model for other jurisdictions. The project is assessing victim services currently available in the state, and will then explore ways in which victims and communities can become more involved in the criminal justice process. Project staff also are working to more effectively integrate the use of technology into the state's victim services network. For more information, contact Lori Hayes at 802/241–1250.
Medina County is developing a county-wide comprehensive victim services system. Project staff will explore ways to overcome barriers to serving victims in rural communities and improve collaboration among agencies that interact with crime victims. The project will work closely with members of the community. For more information about this project, contact Evelyn Bun Khart at 330/836–2940.
Implementing Customized Victim Notifcation Technologies. Victim notification of key criminal justice proceedings is a crime victim's basic right and a cornerstone of victim participation. It is also an area where emerging technologies can benefit crime victims. Recently a number of states and jurisdictions have implemented automated systems that give victims timely notification of court dates, case decisions, and information regarding any change in offender status. These systems replace absent or inconsistent victim notification procedures that, in some cases, have resulted in tragedy.
To assist jurisdictions in implementing customized, automated victim notification systems, OVC awarded a grant in early FY 1998 to the National Victim Center (NYC) to develop a resource package that outlines the various options available for automated victim notification (i.e., currently available software systems), the basic components of a system to meet local needs, and technical assistance resources. NVC will then use the resource package to provide intensive technical assistance to three to five jurisdictions that are legislatively mandated by their state legislatures to provide victim notification. These jurisdictions may be states, counties, or judicial districts.
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NVC will develop an application process; criteria for selecting jurisdictions; procedures for assessing their specific needs; and a method for designing, implementing, and training agency staff on the customized victim notification system. In order to receive the training and technical assistance, applicant agency heads will be required to provide signed agreements committing staff time and equipment to the project and good faith assurances that resources will be dedicated to maintaining the system. Rural communities are eligible to apply for this assistance. For further information, contact David Beatty at the National Victim Center at 703/276–2880
Promising Strategies and Practices in Rural Areas. Under an OVC grant, California State University is identifying promising victim assistance programs, practices, and strategies in rural areas through a survey of criminal justice system policies and practices; private nonprofit agency programs and services; and financial, medical, and psychological assistance that is available for rural crime victims. The project will publish and distribute descriptions of those practices in a compendium and a bulletin. These materials will emphasize multi-disciplinary and multi-system approaches to serving victims in rural areas. Further information is available from Harvey Wallace at 209/276–4223.
Training and Technical Assistance
OVC sponsors a wide variety of training and technical assistance to implement innovative practices in victims services in jurisdictions throughout the country. Examples of these include:
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regional System of Sexual Assault Forensic Examination Units Connected by a Video Camera Network. Through an interagency agreement with OJJDP, OVC made $100,000 available to the National Network of Children's Advocacy Centers for a project that demonstrates comprehensive, multi-disciplinary, state-of-the-art medical services for child victims living in rural areas. The overall goal of this project is to assure that children living in rural areas receive good medical care by knowledgeable medical professionals when they must undergo forensic examinations because of suspected child sexual abuse. The project will:
Use technology to make consultation from medical centers available to physicians in rural areas through the use of a portable video networking system;
Train sexual assault nurse examiners and pediatric emergency medicine specialists in rural areas in diagnosing and treating child sexual abuse; and
Showcase the use of off-site medical experts to advise and consult with practitioners in rural areas through use of a computer link-up.
Further information about this project is available from Nancy Chandler at the National Network of Children's Advocacy Centers on 202/836–7827.
Victim Assistance in Community Policing. OVC awarded a grant to the National Organization for Victim Assistance and the International Association of Chiefs of Police to develop basic protocols, training materials, and other training products to encourage the integration of victim services as an essential component of community policing. The training materials were evaluated in one rural police department—Charlotte-Mecklenberg, North Carolina. A continuation grant of $100,000 will support training and technical assistance in setting up a law enforcement-based victim assistance program. A portion of the resources will be targeted to rural police departments. For more information about this project, contact John Stein at 202/232–6682.
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Promising Strategies and Practices in Using Technology. OVC awarded $100,000 to the National Victim Center for a project to identify ways that emerging technologies can be used to inform and assist crime victims and to enhance communications within the field of victim services. The project will survey the field for promising practices that use technology to serve crime victims and will produce a summary report of these practices. It will conduct a two-day transfer of knowledge symposium that convenes a select group of crime victim advocates, criminal justice practitioners, and experts in technology. Participants will discuss service needs of victims and how new technologies can be directed to address those needs and will produce an action plan of strategies to implement their ideas and recommendations. In addition, the project will produce a monograph highlighting the findings of the survey and the symposium and recommending future action in the use of new technologies for the benefit of crime victims. One focus of the project will be improving the response to victims in rural areas through the use of innovative technologies. Further information about this project is available from David Beatty at 703/276–2880.
Hate and Bias Crime Regional Training Seminar Series. OVC awarded $150,000 to the Education Development Center (EDC) to train law enforcement officers and community service providers on responding to victims of hate and bias crimes. The training addresses the dynamics of relationships between diverse populations and the impact on communities, rural as well as urban, of crimes motivated by negative attitudes toward race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. Trainers will conduct four regional training seminars across the country using A Model Protocol and Training Curriculum to Improve the Treatment of Victims of Hate and Bias Crimes, which EDC developed under a previous OVC grant. For more information about this project, contact Karen McLaughlin at 617/969–7100.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Trainer's Bureau. OVC's Trainer's Bureau provides funding support for victim assistance consultants, experts, and speakers to travel to rural areas. OVC's Trainer's Bureau is often called on to train multi-disciplinary teams, the clergy, law enforcement officers, and others in a community on meeting the needs of crime victims. For example, OVC recently assisted board members in Tippecanoe County, Indiana and the surrounding nine-county rural area to develop a training manual on coordinated responses to domestic violence and other crime victimization. For further information, contact Donna Ray at OVC by telephone at 202/616–3572 or by e-mail at rayd@ojp.usdoj.gov.
Full Faith and Credit Training and Technical Assistance Project. The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence received $90,000 for this training and technical assistance cooperative agreement. Its goal is to develop effective law enforcement, prosecution, court, and advocacy practices to promote accessible, consistent enforcement of civil and criminal protection orders in appropriate state and tribal courts throughout the country, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This project is cosponsored by OVC and VAWGO. For further information, contact Barbara Hart at 610/373–3697.
Across State Lines: Collaborating to Keep Women Safe. OVC awarded the Battered Women's Justice Project $100,000 to convene—along with VAWO,VAWGO, and the Justice Department's Office of Policy Development—a national conference aimed at improving the implementation of the Full Faith and Credit provisions of VAWA. The conference, held in October 1997 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, brought together multidisciplinary teams of law enforcement, judges, judicial administrators, prosecutors, and victim services providers from 48 states and the U.S. territories. The conference provided team and skills-building training on establishing systems for enforcing the Full Faith and Credit provisions of VAWA. Further information about the conference is available from Marry Hofford at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges on 702/784–1966.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Cultural Considerations in Assisting Victims of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. The American Bar Association (ABA) Commission of Domestic Violence and AYUDA, a grassroots assistance agency for Latina victims of domestic violence, have received a $75,000 grant for a project to Lain victim advocates, law enforcement officers, and attorneys in how to assist battered immigrant women who are eligible for relief under VAWA. They will develop training materials that address the most up-to-date information about VAWA's recently issued regulations, cultural issues, background on immigration law, and assistance for women petitioning for residency. Training will be delivered at four sites, one of which will be rural. Additional information about this project is available from Rohini Anand at 202/483–0700.
Direct Assistance to Victims in Crisis
In addition to supporting training to improve community responses to crime victimization, OVC awards funds to provide direct and immediate assistance to victims in crisis through two programs:
The Community Crisis Response program enables teams of trained crisis responders to be on the scene within 48 hours of a multiple-victim crime to help victims and family, as well as community members cope with the trauma. For example, through this program, OVC dispatched a six-member crisis response team from Mothers Against Drunk Driving to a community on the Ramah Navajo reservation in the aftermath of a drunk driving crash that killed eight community members.
OVC also deployed a Community Crisis Response Team to Spotsylvania County, Virginia, a rural county 60 miles south of Washington, D.C., following the abduction and murder of three teenage girls between the &11 of 1996 and the spring of 1997. The team met with local care givers and provided them training and technical assistance in helping young people and others in the community recover in the aftermath of these still unsolved murders. The team also held a community forum to allow residents to air concerns following the tragic events.
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Federal Crime Victim Assistance Fund makes funding available through U.S. Attorneys' Offices and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assist victims of federal crime. OVC used funds from this program to provide crisis response services to three communities in Gibson, Iowa (population 64) following a robbery of the Gibson Savings Bank that left two residents dead. There were no victim assistance services within 200 miles of the communities. Through its Emergency Fund, OVC arranged for trained homicide survivor and crisis response team counselors to be sent to the scene. Within days, crisis counselors had set up in a church in Gibson, had spoken with at least 50 surviving family members of the two victims, and had debriefed bank employees. Arrangements were made for crime scene clean-up and for funeral bills to be sent directly to the State Victim Compensation Board.
For further information about these programs, contact OVC at 202/307–5983 or OJP's home page at www.ojp.usdoj.gov.
Promising Approaches
The active involvement of community residents is a critical factor in addressing crime, and the needs of crime victims, and for building an effective response to crime and its prevention. Official criminal and juvenile justice agencies can often deal more effectively with crime if they share some of the responsibility for maintaining public peace and safety with concerned citizens and other public and private agencies. Some communities have developed restorative or reparative programs that concentrate on helping to repair the harm caused by crime to the victim and the community, and that involve citizens as active participants in the justice process.
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rural communities have developed other innovative responses to assisting crime victims. One promising service model is the centralized administration of victim services in a county agency, where office is made available for staff of private victim service agencies. Technology can also offer some helpful new resources for victims, such as the monitoring via closed-circuit television of sexual assault exams by a physician in a nearby city, and cellular telephones battered women or stalking victims can use to report to police when they are in danger. Basic and advanced training for victim service providers can be made available via satellite downlinks at community colleges and police agencies. The Office of Victims of Crime has identified the following promising approaches to providing victim services in rural areas:.
Sheridan County Crime Victim Assistance Program
Sheridan, Wyoming
The Prosecuting Attorney and the Women's Center have combined resources to develop a comprehensive crime victim assistance program in Sheridan County, Wyoming. Established with VOCA funding, the Sheridan County Crime Victim Assistance Program has been in existence in this rural setting for just over two years. Prior to its establishment, there were no services for crime victims in Sheridan County, other than those offered by the Women's Center for family violence, sexual assault, and child abuse victims. For the most part, these crisis services ended when the victim went to court. The Women's Center and the County Attorney felt that victims would be more consistently and thoroughly served with the unique combination of services provided by the Women's Center's experienced staff and the information and space made accessible by the County Attorney's office.
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Even though the Crime Victim Assistance Program is housed in the prosecutor's office, it functions as a separate entity. This arrangement allows the program coordinator and Center staff to keep their interactions with victims confidential, unless the victim signs a release or gives verbal permission to discuss his or her case. The victim assistance coordinator, staff, and volunteers are hired by the Women's Center as sexual assault and family violence advocates, thus qualifying under Wyoming's confidentiality statute, which establishes confidential communications between qualified advocates and victims.
The program has increased the range of victim services in Sheridan County. Advocacy services are now available to all victims of violent crime. Victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or child sexual abuse have the added benefit of advocates trained to provide criminal justice system information, court escort, and other services. Victims of arson, burglary, homicide, or elder fraud also have a place to turn to for further assistance and support. Further information about this project is available from Sylvia Bagdonas, Program Manager, Wyoming Crime Victims Compensation Commission, at 307/633–4030.
The Rape Crisis Center
Paducah, Kentucky
Founded to serve a single county, the Rape Crisis Center in Paducah, Kentucky has gradually evolved into a multi-county rape crisis program. The Rape Crisis Center now responds to the needs of the ''Purchase Area'' communities of Western Kentucky—an area encompassing several rural counties and communities. The Center's roots go back to 1984, when nurses at Western Baptist Hospital recognized the need to provide specialized services to victims of rape who came to the emergency room seeking treatment. Prior to this, no local organization existed to assist the hospital in its efforts to meet the unique needs of sexual assault victims, as the nearest rape crisis center was located several counties away. The only support for victims of sexual assault in the county was a toll-free crisis line in Louisville.
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To better serve area sexual assault victims, an Advisory Board of hospital employees, representatives from social services, mental health, spouse abuse, and other interested individuals in the community was formed to develop and implement local services. Through the efforts of this motivated group, a 24-hour crisis line was installed in the Western Baptist Hospital emergency room and volunteers were recruited and trained to provide supportive services.
The Rape Crisis Center is supported by the Western Baptist Hospital, the Paducah Cooperative Ministry, United Way agencies in five counties, the State Division of Mental Health, and the Justice Cabinet. In addition to the 24-hour crisis line, the Center provides legal and medical advocacy services, as well as community awareness and education programs. It also provides a wide array of free and confidential services to victims of rape, sexual abuse, sexual assault, and incest and their families.
The Crisis Center has developed a comprehensive volunteer program to staff its many services, such as the 24-hour a day crisis line and hospital advocacy. With over 50 trained volunteers donating over 30,000 hours annually, the program is able to provide victim support at all hospitals in the region. The Rape Crisis Center has developed an impressive volunteer training manual, as well as a law enforcement training manual to sensitize law enforcement to victim needs. For more information, contact Donna Langley, Manager of the Kentucky Victims of Crime Act Program, at 502/364–7554.
Malheur County Family Violence Program
Malheur County, Oregon
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Malheur County, population 30,000, is the second largest county (by area) in Oregon, and has the largest Hispanic population in the state. The county has developed a multi-disciplinary, multi-agency approach for handling child abuse and domestic violence cases. Components include a batterers intervention and treatment program, a prosecution-based victim assistance program, and services for abused children. Extensive outreach efforts have been developed to provide programs for Hispanic victims. For example, a representative from the Mexican-American league is a member of the child abuse and domestic violence multi-disciplinary teams.
The Malheur County Child Abuse and Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Program includes a Family Crisis Coordinator (FCC) to follow the child and family from the time the case is founded until the end of treatment. The coordinator is a direct advocate for the victims, assisting with appointments, transportation, court requirements, and other needs of the child and family.
Creative planning is part of the service program. For example, domestic violence victims must attend peer counseling and/or mental health counseling, and prepare safety plans before the court will lift a no contact protection order. Food, clothing, shelter, medical services, and transportation also are provided for domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse victims to aid in preventing secondary victimization. The FCC, the Deputy District Attorney, victim advocates, guardians ad [item, shelter advocates, and other team members are available to support victims through the intervention, prosecution, and treatment process. Bilingual specialists also are available. For more information about this project, contact Mary Ellen Johnson, Director of the Crime Victims Assistance Section, Oregon Department of Justice, at 503/378–5348.
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CONCLUSION
The Office Justice Programs is committed to improving its outreach and programming to assist rural jurisdictions in providing comprehensive criminal and juvenile justice services, as well as victims assistance. In addition to the programs described in this publication, OJP is working to identify new ways to address issues related to crime and juvenile justice, drug and gangs, corrections, violence against women, and the needs of crime victims in rural areas.
For example, OJP is hosting a RURAL SYMPOSIUM ON CRIME AND JUSTICE in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on May 27–29, 1998 to discuss criminal justice issues of greatest concern to rural practitioners and to recommend program directions for OJP to better assist rural jurisdictions. Results of this symposium, as well as information about other ongoing OJP efforts related to ensuring public safety and justice in rural America, will be posted on OJP's homepage at www.ojp.usdoj.gov.
Officials from rural jurisdictions are encouraged to contact OJP for information about any of these resources or to provide input on OJP's programming related to rural issues. The Appendices of this publication list telephone numbers and Internet addresses for the OJP bureaus and offices, as well as additional resources for rural jurisdictions.
APPENDIX A: MAIN OFFICE NUMBERS
Office of Justice ProgramsExecutive Office for Weed and Seed
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Laurie RobinsonStephen Rickman
Assistant Attorney GeneralDirector
810 Seventh Street, NW202/616–1152
Washington, DC 20531
202/307–5933Violence Against Women Grants
Office
Bureau of Justice AssistanceKathy Schwartz
Nancy GistAdministrator
Director202/307–6026
202/514–6278
Corrections Program Office
Bureau of Justice StatisticsLarry Meachum
Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.Director
Director202/307–3914
202/307–0765
Drug Courts Program Office
National Institute of JusticeMarilyn Roberts
Jeremy TravisDirector
Director202/616–5001
202/307–2942
American Indian and Alaska Native
Office of Juvenile Justice Affairs Desk
and Delinquency PreventionNorena Henry
Shay BilchikDirector
Administrator202/616–9053
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
202/307–5911
Office of Congressional
Office for Victims of Crime and Public Affairs
Reginald L. RobinsonHarri j. Kramer
Acting DirectorDirector
202/307–5983202/307–0703
Violence Against Women Office
Bonnie Campbell
Director
202/616–8894
APPENDIX B: OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RESPONSE CENTER
1–800/421–6770 or in Metro Washington, D.C. 202/307–1480
Staffed by specialists who answer questions and provide information about Justice Department funding programs. Also distributes OJP Resource Guide, which describes OJP programs and other resources.
OJP HOMEPAGE
www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Information about OJP and links to individual homepages of each of its program bureaus and offices. Also links to homepages of OJP's administrative offices and other criminal justice websites, including the Justice Information Center, the homepage for NIJ's National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFERENCE SERVICE (NCJRS)
1–800/851–3420 or in Metro Washington, D.C. 301/251–5500
www.ncjrs.org
Publications clearinghouse and library services for all OJP bureaus and offices, as well as the Of lice of National Drug Control Policy. Maintains document database of more than 135,000 resources related to criminal justice. Also operates individual clearinghouses for the OJP bureaus:
BJA CLEARINGHOUSE
1–800/688–4252
JUVENILE JUSTICE CLEARINGHOUSE
1–800/638–8736
BJS CLEARINGHOUSE
1–800/732–3277
NATIONAL VICTIM RESOURCE CENTER
1–800/627–6872
PARTNERSHIPS AGAINST VIOLENCE NETWORK (PAVNET)
www.pavnet.org
A unique online resource for information about anti-violence programs, including technical assistance programs and federal and private funding sources. PAVNET is a joint effort ofthe Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Labor.
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JUSTICE INFORMATION NETWORK (JUSTNET)
www.nlectc.org
Internet-based service that provides information on new technology, equipment, and services available to the criminal justice community through NIJ's National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC).
RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER
1–800/635–6310
www.cji.net/rlec.htm
Based at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and supported by BJA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Provides training and technical assistance to rural law enforcement agencies.
CORRECTIONS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE LINE
1–800/848–6325 or in Metro Washington, D.C. 202/305–4866
Responds to requests for technical assistance related to the planning, design, construction, or implementation of a boot camp or other correctional program. Staffed by program specialists from OJP's Corrections Program Office.. Assistance provided through the National Institute of Corrections (NIC).
APPENDIX C: FOCUS ON PREVENTION
THE PRESIDENT'S CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FOCUS ON PREVENTION
CRIME PREVENTION IN RURAL COMMMUNITIES AND SMALL TOWNS
Although no longer in operation, the President's Crime Prevention Council was chaired by Vice President Al Gore and the Vice-Chair was Attorney General Janet Reno. Members included: the Secretaries of Treasury, Interior, Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Education; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.
By bringing together information in this brief, easy-to-read bulletin, the Council hoped to cut the bureaucratic redtape and provide rural communities with information on how to obtain the tools and resources they can use to help prevent crime.
THE NEED FOR PREVENTION
Nearly one-quarter of Americans live in rural communities or small towns. Once stereotyped as enjoying a quiet life in the country, rural residents now witness crime at an all-time high. Their communities are facing rising crime, particularly juvenile, violent and property crimes. School dropout rates have increased, the proportion of children living in poverty has grown, gang activity and violent crime have migrated from urban areas, and substance abuse has become a dominant factor in domestic abuse cases. These signs make clear that the need for rural communities and small towns to develop and implement aggressive crime prevention strategies has never been more urgent.
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHALLENGES FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES
The influx of crimes never experienced before presents rural communities with distinct challenges. Small towns must develop a wide-scale, tailored crime prevention response for the f rsttime. Crafting this response can be difficult because these communities often have fewer financial resources available for additional prevention and enforcement activities and may not have a well-established infrastructure to support the wide range of activities that would comprise a comprehensive, reinforcing prevention strategy (e.g. domestic violence counseling, drug and alcohol treatment, tutoring and supervised after-school activities). Small towns also may lack the financial, human and institutional resources to obtain the training required to implement an effective crime prevention strategy.
In addition, rural communities may be disadvantaged at times when competing with urban areas for federal support. For example, rural communities sometimes find that federal grant applications may not be tailored to meet their particular crime reduction needs. Rural applicants with fewer resources are often competing with urban applicants with more resources, including specialists who prepare their grant applications. As a result, and because crime has been traditionally viewed as an urban problem, significantly larger proportions of federal and state grant funds have been dedicated to metropolitan areas.
Sometimes distinctive characteristics of rural communities increase their vulnerability to crime. For example, rural law enforcement agencies are responsible for and must respond to large rural jurisdictions. Residents living in areas of lower population density and larger distances between homes are more isolated. Longer commutes to urban areas for employment leave homes vacated for long periods of time. These are the types of characteristics of rural living that can make prevention and protection more difficult. Any community's organized and coordinated prevention and enforcement strategy must take such factors into account to be effective.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The evidence shows—and law enforcement officials across the country agree—that aggressive crime prevention, in combination with law enforcement, strengthens a community's ability to confront crime problems. It is imperative that comprehensive strategies and approaches be tailored to address the particular challenges facing rural communities in their efforts to reduce crime.
PLANNING STRATEGIES
By taking a systematic, methodical approach to planning a crime prevention strategy, a community can create a tailored, comprehensive approach to its crime problem(s). The basic steps for planning a strategy are to:
identify the planners and stakeholders;
set clear goals based on identified crime and violence;
target the population bleeding help;
tailor activities to help achieve the goals and to help the targeted population;
refine choice of activities; and
take action and evaluate.
For more details about these planning steps, call the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NC]RS) at 1–800/851–3420 to request a free copy of the Council publication, Helping Communities Fight Crime, a catalog of crime prevention strategies, techniques, programs, models and resources. It also may be obtained by calling the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Information (NCADI) at 1–800/729–6686.
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FEDERAL RESOURCES
There are two types of programs that rural areas should consider when looking for federal help to accomplish their crime prevention goals: 1) programs directly tailored for rural applicants; and 2) general programs open to all, including rural applicants.
The following resources—informational and financial—are available specifically for rural areas and small towns, and include the best sources for more general information. This section will help communities quickly locate federal resources that can help design and implement a comprehensive, rural crime prevention strategy.
CLEARINGHOUSES
ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools
Appalachia Educational Laboratory
P.O. Box 1348
Charleston, WV 25325–1348
1–800/624–9120
http://aelvira.ael.org/erichp.him
Call for personal assistance in locating the most appropriate resources on education and schooling in rural areas.
National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Information
P.O. Box 2345
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rockville, MD 20847–2345
1–800/729–6686
http://www.health.org
Provides resources on drug and alcohol education, prevention and treatment for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Clearinghouse's web site, PREVLINE, features federal drug prevention resources, including information for rural areas by keyword search.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849–6000
1–800/851–3420
http://www.ncjrs.org
http://www.pavnet.org
A clearinghouse for various divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice, NCJRS disseminates information on law enforcement, courts, corrections, crime prevention, and victim/witness services. Call to request rural materials or search the web sites for rural information.
National Rural Crime Prevention Center
Attn: Domingo Herraiz
Attn: Joseph F. Donnermeyer
6543 Commerce Parkway, Suite R
Dublin, OH 43017
614/761–0500
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
http://www.ncrle.net
Distributes 21 brochures on home and farm crime prevention in small towns and rural areas. Studies rural gangs, violence, crime, victimization, law enforcement and drug use.
National Rural Law Enforcement Center
Criminal Justice Institute
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
2801 South University Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72204
501/570–8000
Provides education, training, technical assistance, clearinghouse services and networking opportunities for rural law enforcement agencies.
Rural Information Center
National Agricultural Library
10301 Baltimore Boulevard
Room 304
Beltsville, MD 20705–2351
1–800/633–7701
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/
Provides specialized information on youth development programs involving agriculture, substance abuse prevention, after-school programs, 4–H, parenting and other services operated out of land grant university and cooperative extension efforts.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PUBLICATIONS
Annual Report on Rural Health to the Secretary of Health and Human Services—Office of Rural Health Policy, HHS. Available on-line at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/pmfcjs.htm.
Crime and Policing in Rural and Small Town America, Ralph A. Wisheit, David N. Falcone, L. Edward Wells, 1996 Waveland Press, Inc. Call the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) at 1–800/851–3420. Available on-line at www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/crimepol.txt.
Crime and Violence in Rural Communities. Available only on-line at www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/v1donner.him.
Directory of Services for Migrant Seasonal Farmworkers and Their Families: Harvests of Hope, 1997, Office of Migrant Education, U.S. Department of Education. Write to: Office of Migrant Education, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202–6135 or fax requests to 202/260 0089.
Federal Funding Sources for Rural Areas: Fiscal Year 1998, 1997, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Call the National Agricultural Library at 1–800/633–7701.
Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in Rural Communities: A Program Planning Guide, August 1994, Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S Department of Justice. Call the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) at 1–800/851–3420. Available on-line at www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/neio.txt.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Rural Crime and Rural Policing, Falcone, D.N., Weisheit, R.A., Wells, L.E., 1994. Normal, IL: Department of Criminal Justice, Illinois State University. Call the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) at 1–800/851–3420. Ask for NCJ 150223.
GRANTS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Office Local and International Training
Glynco, GA 31524
912/267–2100
http://www.ustreas.gov/fletc/index.htm
Funds are available for training state and local law enforcement in drug enforcement, community policing and small town and rural enforcement.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Migrant Education
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
600 Independence Avenue, SW
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Room 4100, Portals Building
Washington, DC 20202–6135
202/260–1164
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/mep.html
Assistance provided to migrant laborers in obtaining quality education for their children. Call to request the Guide to Program Services that describes programs on family literacy, state formula grants, higher education, and child and adult basic education.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative Extension Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue
Room 344–S
Washington, DC 20250–0900
202/720–2920
http://www.reeusda.gov
Services provided by county extension offices include nutrition, education, after-school, substance abuse prevention, parenting, food safety and referrals to local services. Call for the local contact information as extension offices are operational in every county in the country. Cooperative Extension also makes resources on children, youth and families available through the Internet at CYFERNet at http://www.cyfernet.mes.umn.edu/
Office of Rural Housing and Community Development Service
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Room 5014, Mail Stop 0701
Washington, DC 20250–0701
202/690–1727
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/agency/rhs/rhs.html
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov
Information on rural development including housing, business and utilities services available to rural communities.
Regional Rural Development Centers
The Rural Development Centers are part of the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES). The broad array of services provided to rural communities includes: methodologies for asset-based curricula; participatory community development models and curricula that involves youth and adults; referrals and links to expertise within respective states; research on issues regarding building community strengths; and information and resources through various web sites.
North Central Rural Development Center
Iowa State University
317D East Hall
Ames, IA 50011–1070
515/294–8321
http://www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Southern Rural Development Center
Box 9656
Mississippi State, MS 39762
601/325–3207
http://www.ext.msstate.edu/srdc/
North East Rural Development Center
The Pennsylvania State University
7 Armsby Building
University Park, PA 16802–5602
814/863–0586
http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/casconf/nercrd/nercrd.html
Western Rural Development Center
307 Ballard Extension Hall
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97330–3607
541/737–3621
http://osu.orst.edu/Dept/WRDC
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
202/307–0703
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Provides grants, training, and technical assistance to states and local communities to prevent and control crime, improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge about crime and related issues, and assist crime victims.
Violence Against Women Grants Office
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street, NW
6th Floor
Washington, DC 20531
202/307–6983
office: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawgo
Funding is available for domestic violence, child victimization, and arrest policy support.
Drug Courts Program Office
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street, NW
6th Floor
Washington, DC 20531
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
202/616–5001
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo
Funding is available to plan, implement, or enhance drug courts for adult and juvenile lowlevel drug-abusing offenders.
Corrections Program Office
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street, NW
6th Floor
Washington, DC 20531
202/307–3914
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cpo
Provides funds, training, and technical assistance to states and local jurisdictions to build prisons and jails and to implement drug treatment programs in correctional facilities.
Executive Office for Weed and Seed
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
202/616–1152
http://www.ojp.usdoj/eows
Provides funding and other assistance to communities implementing Weed and Seed, a community-based, multi-agency approach to law enforcement, crime prevention, and community revitalization.
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Bureau of Justice Assistance
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
202/514–6278
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA
Local law enforcement block grants program for which rural eligibility is emphasized.
National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
202/307–2942
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/
Funds research grants for crime studies in rural areas.
Office for Victims of Crime
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
202/307–5983
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc
Funding is available for rural services for sexual assault, victim assistance in community policing, hate and bias crimes, training, victims' compensation, and domestic violence.
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street, NW
8th Floor
Washington, DC 20531
202/307–5911
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/
Administers programs to reduce rural youth violence and delinquency through programs for mental health, family strengthening, mentoring and gang prevention.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
370 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington DC 20447
202/205–8347
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov
Provides funding for employment services; family violence counseling and prevention; and child support, care and welfare.
Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF)
Administration for Children and Families
350 C Street SW
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Room 2026
Washington DC 20201
202/205–8347
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/acyf
ACYF administers numerous programs to rural areas that promote positive development of children, youth and families including Head Start, migrant programs, child care, and transitioning from public assistance.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
600 Fishers Lane, Rockwall II
Rockville, Maryland 20857
301/443–0365
http://www.samhsa.gov/csap/csapmiss.htm
CSAP's mission is to provide national leadership in the federal effort to prevent alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug problems.
GrantsNet
http://www.hhs.gov/progorg/grantsnet
GrantsNet is a tool for finding and exchanging information about HHS and selected other federal grant programs. It is part of the much-publicized national movement toward providing government resources to the general public in a more accessible and meaningful manner.
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS
Partnership, Planning and Stabilization
National Endowment for the Arts
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20506
202/682–5429
http://arts.endow.gov/guide/
Partnership Agreement and competitive grants are awarded to state arts agencies to assist rural and underserved arts organizations expand their audiences or develop excellent arts programming. Additionally, NEA's Grants to Organizations program awards grants to many organizations in rural communities.
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE
1207 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20525
1–800/942–2677
http://www.cns.gov
The Corporation for National Service administers the AmeriCorps program. AmeriCorps is the national service program that allows people of all ages and backgrounds to earn help paying for education in exchange for a year of service. AmeriCorps members meet community needs with services that range from housing renovation to child immunization to neighborhood policing.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY (ONDCP)
750 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20503
202/395–6700
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov
The principal purpose of ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities and objectives for the nation's drug control program, the goals of which are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing and trafficking; drug-related crime and violence; and drug-related health consequences.
Ms. ROBINSON. We also be distributing copies at a major conference we're hosting in May in Albuquerque focusing on rural crime issues. We're bringing together about 125 criminal justice practitioners from rural jurisdictions to help us determine how we, at OJP, can best provide assistance. We've been working on a number of other fronts, as well, to target funding, training, and technical assistance for rural communities.
For example, last year during trips to North Dakota and Tennessee, I saw firsthand the critical importance of training for rural and small town law enforcement on domestic violence and sexual assault. So we developed a new partnership effort with FLETC to provide training for State and local law enforcement in this critical area. We're also providing funds—$25 million this year—specifically targeted for violence against women efforts in rural jurisdictions.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Through our Bureau of Justice Assistance and our open solicitation program, we're enabling rural criminal justice practitioners to get funding for programs they designed to meet the special needs of their communities. Through the local law enforcement block grant program, as you know, we're providing literally millions of dollars to small rural jurisdictions for manpower, equipment, and other law enforcement needs. There's been tremendous interest, as you know, in this program from jurisdictions across the country.
Through our program demonstrations and evaluations, we're also learning more about what works in combating rural crime. We've clearly learned that there's no one size fits all solution to crime in this country. We've learned that we've got to tailor the assistance to meet the specific needs of individual communities. That means that we've got to recognize that the needs of rural communities are often very different from those in urban and suburban areas. So, as an example, our National Institute of Justice is funding police researcher teams in 10 rural communities to examine issues police and sheriff's departments face in implementing community policing there.
Through our technology and technical assistance efforts, we're helping to meet the needs of criminal justice practitioners, program providers, and victim advocates who serve rural jurisdictions. For example, over the past 4 years, BJA has awarded a total of almost $1 million to help support the rural law enforcement center in Arkansas, which provides as you know, information, training, and technology development for rural law enforcement agencies. Through our publications clearinghouse and other information-sharing efforts, we're making knowledge about what works accessible to State and local policymakers and practitioners in even the most remote areas of the country.
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On the issue of information sharing, I'd like to share with you that our OJP home page is now getting up to 24,000 hits-a-day. Our home page now has a special function, too, where users can e-mail questions or requests for information and then we'll e-mail back with that information the following day. It seems to me that the Internet serves as a tremendous resource for rural justice practitioners because it gives them access 24 hours-a-day to information about Federal resources.
We've also established a Justice Department Response Center with a toll-free telephone number practitioners can call with questions about funding programs and other resources. The Center is staffed by information specialists. So callers reach an actual person who can get them the information they need without having to plow through the maze of the Federal bureaucracy. We're continuing to build on these efforts, to expand our resources for rural jurisdictions, and to improve our outreach to State and local justice officials in rural areas.
For example, we've increased the opportunity for participation in many of our conferences by making them available by a satellite hookup. So that now instead of a just a few hundred people in a meeting room, we can literally have thousands of participants at sites across the country. For example, in one recent satellite training session, we had 30,000 participants. We've been told that many of the sites tape these events and then turn around and use them again as training tools for other audiences, thereby greatly expanding the outreach.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and we look forward very much to working with you and others in the Congress, as well as our State and local partners to improve public safety and justice services in rural America. I'd be happy to answer your questions.
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Ms. Robinson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LAURIE ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the Office of Justice Programs' (OJP) assistance to state and local jurisdictions, and, in particular, our assistance to rural America. Since the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) opened its doors on October 21, 1968, OJP and its predecessor agencies have had a singular mission: to assist state and local criminal justice agencies in reducing crime and improving their justice systems. With almost 30 years of this federal assistance, we have seen policing become more professional and more effective. We have seen improved collaboration and coordination among criminal justice system components. We have seen the critical role research and statistics can play in informing crime policy and planning. We have seen the importance of innovation and technology in improving criminal justice operations. And we have seen the impact of this progress on reducing crime. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we now see crime rates at their lowest level in over 25 years.
Nevertheless, we know from the latest data that rural crime, while still below the rates for urban areas, is still a significant problem. We know, too, that rural communities often face geographic and other barriers to combating crime and delivering justice services. And we know they often lack the financial and other resources their urban neighbors take for granted.
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since coming to OJP almost four years ago, I have placed a priority on reaching out to rural jurisdictions, to find out from rural justice practitioners how OJP can best meet their needs, and shaping OJP programs to better respond. For example, I established a Rural Criminal Justice Assistance Working Group with representatives from all the OJP bureaus and program offices to focus on rural issues and to make recommendations on how OJP could improve its work in this area. Part of that group's work was to produce a rural monograph describing OJP and other resources for rural justice practitioners, which will be published soon and then widely disseminated to the field. I am pleased to have provided the Subcommittee with copies of this report. We will also distribute copies of the report at a major conference OJP is hosting in May focusing on rural issues.
I would like to briefly describe some of OJP's major efforts to ensure public safety and justice in rural America.
OJP Overview
As you know, Mr. Chairman, OJP was created in 1984 to help develop the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime and delinquency, improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge about crime and related issues, and assist crime victims. OJP carries out this mission through the work of five program bureaus, three Crime Act Offices, and several other program offices. The OJP program bureaus are:
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), which provides funding, training, and technical assistance to state and local governments to combat violent and drug-related crime and help improve the criminal justice system.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collects and analyzes statistical data on crime, criminal offenders, crime victims, and the operations of justice systems at all levels of government.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) supports research and development programs, conducts demonstrations of innovative approaches to improve criminal justice, develops new criminal justice technologies, and evaluates the effectiveness of justice programs.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) provides grants and contracts, sponsors research and demonstration programs, and provides training and technical assistance to help improve the nation's understanding of and response to juvenile violence and delinquency.
The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) provides federal leadership in assisting victims of crime and their families. OVC also administers the Victims Assistance and Victims Compensation programs created by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA).
OJP's three Crime Act Offices—the Violence Against Women Grants Office (VAWGO), the Corrections Program Office (CPO), and the Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO)—administer major programs authorized by the 1994 Crime Act.
OJP's American Indian and Alaskan Native Desk (AI/AN) improves outreach to these communities. AI/AN works to enhance OJP's response to tribes by coordinating funding, training, and technical assistance and providing information about available OJP resources.
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS) also is within OJP. EOWS is dedicated to building stronger, safer communities through the Weed and Seed strategy, a community-based, multi-disciplinary approach to combating crime. EOWS works closely with United States Attorneys to implement Operation Weed and Seed in communities throughout the country.
In addition, OJP oversees the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO), which coordinates the Department of Justice's policy and other initiatives relating to violence against women, including intradepartmental activity.
In Fiscal Year 1998, OJP will provide over $3 billion primarily to states and units of local government to reduce crime, improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems, and assist crime victims. OJP also conducts a broad range of training, technical assistance, information-sharing, and other activities to assist state and local law enforcement efforts. This includes specialized assistance for rural jurisdictions.
Although our Rural Report provides a more detailed description of OJP resources for state and local law enforcement and other justice officials in rural communities, I would like to provide a brief overview of what we know about crime in rural America and how OJP is providing outreach and assistance to help ensure public safety and justice in rural communities.
Crime in Rural America
BJS data show that crime in rural areas over the past several years has followed the same general downward trend as crime in urban or suburban areas. Between 1993 and 1995, nonfatal crimes of violence against rural residents declined 17 percent. However, rural crime remains a significant problem. In 1995, there were about 35 violent crimes—rapes, sexual assaults, robberies, aggravated and simple assaults—per 1,000 rural residents. And rural residents experienced household burglaries at significantly higher rates than suburban residents.
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Moreover, rural areas face enormous problems—like gangs and drug trafficking—which were all but unknown there a decade or two ago. To help rural jurisdictions combat these problems, OJP has developed a range of resources.
Improving Rural Law Enforcement
Law enforcement agencies often face shortages in funding, advanced equipment, and personnel. To assist rural law enforcement, OJP provides funding, technical assistance, training, information sharing, and other resources.
For example, BJA's BYRNE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM makes grants to states, for use by states and units of local government, to provide personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance, and information systems for state and local criminal justice agencies. In a recent analysis of FY 1995 allocations, BJA found that about 20 percent of Byrne formula funds were being used in over 1,000 of the most rural sections of the country. And BJA formula funds support over 700 multijurisdictional task forces, many of which serve primarily rural areas. One explanation, Mr. Chairman, for why rural areas do not have a greater share of Byrne formula funds may be the inability of the more rural jurisdictions to generate the 25 percent match required for all grants.
BJA also administers the LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS (LLEBG) PROGRAM. In its first two years, LLEBG has provided funding to thousands of local jurisdictions and every state and eligible territory for efforts to help them reduce crime and improve public safety. Local jurisdictions can use their grants to hire police officers or pay existing officers for overtime; establish multijurisdictional task forces, particularly in rural areas; purchase equipment directly related to basic law enforcement functions; prosecute violent offenders, particularly youthful violent offenders; fund drug courts; implement crime prevention measures; or defray the cost of indemnification insurance for law enforcement officers.
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In FY 1996, the program's first year, over 2,600 local jurisdictions, every state, and several eligible territories received grants totaling approximately $405 million. Almost $395 million was awarded directly to local jurisdictions, and of the $32 million awarded to states in FY 1996, 55 percent (over $17 million) was subgranted to units of local government. States awarded the remaining $14 million to state police departments that provide law enforcement services to units of local government. In FY 1997, BJA awarded $523 million under the LLEBG Program, the same amount available in FY 1998.
And through its OPEN SOLICITATION PROGRAM, BJA is enabling criminal justice practitioners in rural areas to obtain funding for programs designed to meet the special needs of rural communities. Last year, funding was provided in four topic areas, including initiatives in rural areas. Under this topic, funding was restricted to units of government (including tribal governments) serving rural communities with populations of less than 25,000 residents outside a metropolitan area or that have been designated by the federal government as Rural Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, or Champion Communities. In October 1997, BJA provided funding to a number of rural jurisdictions under this and other topic areas, including a treatment program for sex offenders in rural Iowa, an alternative to incarceration program in Vidalia, Louisiana, and a youth diversion program in Pablo, Montana.
OJP also is supporting a unique program that pairs researchers with police agencies to examine issues departments face in implementing community policing. NIJ has funded police- researcher teams in 65 jurisdictions in 39 states. As described in our Rural Monograph, many of these programs are in rural communities.
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Combating Domestic Violence
Battered women in rural areas often face challenges not encountered by urban victims. The geographic isolation and stronger social and cultural pressures faced by rural victims of intimate violence can significantly compound the usual problems faced by most battered women. The unique features of rural environments, along with a scarcity of available resources, can impede the criminal justice system's ability to investigate and prosecute domestic violence and sexual assault cases and create difficulties for service providers in treating and counseling victims. OJP works to improve services for domestic violence victims in rural areas through several programs.
For example, OJP provided grants for the first time in FY 1996 to support domestic violence and child victimization programs in 20 rural communities. Another 26 rural grants were awarded last year and in FY 1998, available funding more than tripled—to $25 million. We expect to announce new awards sometime in July.
OJP also has provided funding to 123 jurisdictions to help states, local governments, and tribal governments to develop arrest policies to better respond to violence against women. With these resources, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors' offices, and the courts are collaborating with each other and with nonprofit, non-governmental victims' services agencies to develop and implement programs strengthening the community response to mandatory and pro-arrest policies.
OJP's STOP (SERVICESTRAININGOFFICERSPROSECUTORS) VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM awards funds to states and territories—to pass through to local jurisdictions—to restructure and strengthen the criminal justice system's response to address violence against women. Each STOP grantee must allocate 25 percent of its funds to law enforcement, 25 percent to prosecution, and 25 percent to nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services, with the remainder distributed at the grantee's discretion.
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And OVC encourages states to be responsive to crime victims in rural and remote areas by making training, information, and other program resources available to victim assistance providers, dispatchers, law enforcement officers, and other professionals. Of the almost $77 million subgranted under OVC's Victim Assistance Program in FY 95, for example, almost $16.5 million, or 21.4 percent, went to rural communities.
Training and Technical Assistance
Training and technical assistance are critical to helping justice system practitioners in rural communities learn about new crime control strategies. OJP supports a wide variety of training and technical assistance for state and local criminal justice officials.
For example, since October 1995, BJA has awarded almost a million dollars to support the RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER (RLEC), based at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, which provides training and technical assistance to rural law enforcement agencies. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture also provide funding for RLEC. The center has an electronic information clearinghouse, develops new software for felony case management, and provides Internet-based information for law enforcement agencies.
BJA also supports six REGIONAL INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEM (RISS) projects. RISS enables law enforcement agencies in rural and other areas to access training, technical assistance, information services, investigative support, and sophisticated equipment not available from state or local sources.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And through the NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CORRECTIONS TECHNOLOGY CENTER (NLECTC) system, NIJ provides technical assistance and information to state and local criminal justice agencies on law enforcement applications of new technology, equipment, and services. During 1997, the centers responded to over 8,000 requests for technical assistance from agencies across the United States, tested 309 body armor models, analyzed 500 audio and video cassettes in support of prosecutions, facilitated the transfer of $9.3 million in Defense excess equipment to state and local criminal justice agencies, and performed specialized forensic laboratory analyses beyond the capacity of most state and local crime labs. Particularly through its Internet-based technical assistance, the center serves as an important resource for rural jurisdictions.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, other Department of Justice components also sponsor training for state and local law enforcement. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation provides specialized training for state and local law enforcement officials at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. The Drug Enforcement Administration also sponsors specialized training for state and local law enforcement officials. And the U.S. Marshals Service supports training for state and local officials through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia, which is administered by the U.S. Treasury Department.
To ensure coordination with OJP training and other efforts, I serve as co-chair of the Advisory Committee for FLETC's National Center for State, Local, and International Law Enforcement Training. I know the Subcommittee heard testimony from the Center Director at last week's hearing on this subject, and I just want to recognize FLETC for its many accomplishments in delivering quality training to state and local law enforcement.
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Information Sharing
With today's advanced information technology, such as the Internet, justice system practitioners in rural communities have access to a wide range of resources with a few clicks of a mouse. For example, OJP's home page provides information about OJP and links to individual home pages of each of its program bureaus and offices. The home page also links to other criminal justice web sites, including the Justice Information Center, the home page for our National Criminal Justice Reference Service, which maintains a document database of more than 135,000 resources related to criminal justice and also operates individual clearinghouses for the OJP bureaus. OJP's home page gets about 24,000 ''hits'' each day.
OJP also sponsors numerous conferences to provide justice system practitioners with up- to-date information about promising crime control strategies, research results, and critical justice issues. For example, we are hosting a Rural Symposium on Crime and Justice in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on May 27-29, 1998 to discuss criminal justice issues of greatest concern to rural practitioners and to recommend program directions for OJP to better assist rural jurisdictions.
And we have increased the opportunity for participation in many OJP conferences by making them available via satellite hookups, so that now—instead of just several hundred participants—there are thousands at sites all across the country. And many sites tape these events to use as training tools for other audiences, thereby greatly expanding OJP's outreach.
Other Rural Initiatives
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to these initiatives, OJP has:
Supported the implementation and enhancement of 24 drug courts in rural communities and provided funding to another 40 communities to begin planning efforts. We have also established two rural ''mentor'' sites to provide technical assistance to communities establishing drug courts.
Provided funding and technical assistance to establish Weed and Seed programs in 16 rural communities.
Through BJS, provided priority funding to 5 rural states to automate their criminal history records systems.
Provided funds to rural communities to prevent and control youth crime and improve comprehensive services for children at risk of being abused and neglected.
And provided funds and assistance to improve services for crime victims in rural communities to assist in the aftermath of a major crime incident.
Conclusion
Through these and many other initiatives, Mr. Chairman, OJP is working to help rural communities to control crime, improve the operations of their justice systems, and respond more effectively to crime victims and other residents. I look forward to working with you and the Members of this Subcommittee toward these goals, and I would be happy now to respond to any questions you or the Subcommittee Members may have.
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Ms. Robinson.
I'm going to yield myself 5 minutes and then we'll go to my colleagues who are here to see if we can resolve some of these questions.
Of the programs you've identified in your testimony, do you know what percentage of the funds go to rural communities? Is there an accounting of that or some analysis that your part of the Justice Department has?
Ms. ROBINSON. For the overall money going to OJP, which is about $3.5 billion, we don't have a breakdown of all of that, but I can give you some examples. In our Violence Against Women Program, as an example, in addition to the block grant money that goes out, we have $25 million specifically targeted for rural America. In the COPS program, half of the money, half of it goes to jurisdictions under 150,000 in population and $745 million so far has gone to jurisdictions under 10,000 in population. So those are some examples that we have. In addition, I'd point out that under the Byrne Formula Grant Program, a huge proportion of that money over the years—I think it goes to about 40 percent—has gone to multi-jurisdictional drug task forces. Many of those are targeted in rural America to try to meet the specialized needs that perhaps an individual small sheriff's department or police department cannot meet.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Let's look specifically at the problem of training that is addressed in one of the bills we're looking at today. The legislation would propose that we set up a special program designed to focus on the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Arkansas. I think you indicated in your testimony that there's already money from the Justice Department—in the amount of $1 million—going to this Center in the form of grants. Can you tell us, do they apply for these grants? Over what period of time has the Center received grants, 1 year, 2 years, or for quite awhile? While you're at it, what is your perception of the needs? Does the Center need more Federal money or should it receive more Federal money than it's now receiving, either through some special attention or not? Or are there other ways to serve the same needs?
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the needs of training for rural law enforcement are very great. There is a great deal of training ongoing through a number of vehicles. I know you heard some about that at the hearing last week. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Glynco, Georgia through its regional outreach training under small town and rural America program is an example. But the needs are great out there. We have provided from 1993, including a current grant now being processed, as I mentioned before, about $1 million. So, that's over a 5-year period to the Center in Arkansas. Yes, they approached us about this, I think back in 1993. We were very excited and interested to learn about the work they were doing. They clearly have been leaders in this area. Much of our money does go out in various ways to address training.
Again, let me turn to the violence against women area because one of the purpose areas under VAWA, as you probably know, is to provide training to both prosecutors and law enforcement. Those decisions are made at the State and local level with the block grant money that's been disseminated. So there is a good deal that's going out there; yet, clearly needs remain.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. The question is, do we need to focus special attention on this Center for this purpose or do we need to spread the money and resources we have among other locations, such as the one in Glynco? Do you have an opinion about that? I guess is really what I'm trying to get at is do you have an opinion about what this bill attempts to do?
Ms. ROBINSON. The Administration has not taken formal position on it. My judgment, as a professional working in the field for many years, is that you would want to look carefully to ensure that there's not overlap with existing training provided through a number of Justice Department components, including not just the FBI, but DEA, Marshals, and others, as well as the Glynco facility. But my sense is that there remains real need out there for training for rural law enforcement.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One component that I did not mention before and would like to is that under the COPS program, there are also regional community policing institutes for training that have been set up through various departments around the country. Nine of those will be focusing on training for rural areas. That, however, is focused on the area of community policing. So, again, I think there are a lot of niches whether it's on domestic violence or community policing or other areas where needs are being met.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Let me ask you about the bulletproof vests just for a second with the time that I have left. Are there grant programs today—block grants or others—that communities could use to buy police bulletproof vests?
Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Local Law enforcement Block Grant program which, of course, you know well because you authored it, provides this year $523 million to about 2,700 jurisdictions around the country. Fifty-four percent of that money, last year, was spent on equipment by law enforcement agencies. The area I think you're not reaching under that are the other—you know, there are 17,000 police agencies in this country—the smaller agencies are not receiving direct grants. Some of that money, as you know, goes to a State agency, so some use of that money to reach the smaller agencies might be one way to address that, as well.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Do you know, of that 54 percent that's being spent on equipment, do you have any measurement of or any idea how much of that might be going toward the vest as opposed to police cars or guns or whatever?
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. ROBINSON. No, we don't have that breakdown. I think some of it is spent on technology, computer technology, but certainly on a host of other areas as well, radios, and I'm sure vests, too.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Buyer, would you let Mr. Gekas go first? Mr. Gekas, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEKAS. I thank the Chair. The lady, quite appropriately, referred to overlapping as one of the problems that you see in automatic support of the legislation before us that you have to look at how it might dovetail into other programs, et cetera. That concerns me, too—I said that in my opening statement. It seems to me either we have to corral all the programs that you say in the Department of Justice are focused on rural law enforcement and swoop them in one bundle and turn them over to a center like the one contemplated in the legislation; or at least to shrink back on some of the funding if indeed the Center is going to get funding separate and apart from them.
For instance, you say in your statement, that there's an increased awareness of drug trafficking in rural areas. How many programs do we have on drug trafficking and training programs for drug trafficking for the task forces that are required for the cooperative efforts of local and rural urban centers in attacking that problem? If we're going to have a rural law enforcement assistant agency of this—of a center like this—what are we going to add to it? The monies that are now focused on drug trafficking for rural and your existing programs, how do you view that?
Ms. ROBINSON. I would encourage the subcommittee to consider a careful inventory of what's available and we'd be happy to work with you in providing information from across the Justice Department about what's now being provided. But I can tell you that some of it's very specialized. For example, the Marshals are doing training for State and local enforcement, but it's focused on fugitive issues. DEA—and I think that may be the reference on drug trafficking that you're making, Mr. Gekas—DEA's training focuses on the drug area. I think that one of the challenges of working both in government and from outside the government is that the segmentation and the baleanization, if you will, of responsibilities does lead to confusion for the users of this kind of training. An inventory of that kind might be helpful if you're proceeding into this. Again, we'd be happy to work with your staff on that.
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GEKAS. Well, has the National Center applied for Federal assistance from the various programs that we're talking about?
Ms. ROBINSON. The National Center has certainly applied to the Bureau of Justice Assistance to the Grants Division which I had——
Mr. GEKAS. And——
Ms. ROBINSON [continuing]. And we've been happy to work with them. As I indicated, we provided them about $1 million, including a grant now being processed; that's over a 5-year period.
Mr. GEKAS. I think your idea of taking an inventory has reached its maturity. We must find out what programs that exist; how many overlap; and how many are doubly-funded. We have to start using our resources with a better focus. I'm a little concerned about the whole ramification here. The thing that gives me hesitation from saying that we don't need this program is the sponsorship of Mr. Hutchinson. If he believes that it's worthwhile, that goes a long way toward helping me make up my mind. So I'll be consulting with him quite often between now and the time of fruition. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Buyer, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Thank you. Mr. Gekas, my gut instincts have been exactly along with you. Many of us appreciate the leadership of Mr. Hutchinson in focusing the training needs of rural law enforcement. I come from the rural areas. I'm also an individual—like yourself, Mr. Gekas—that scrutinizes government and we want to make sure there isn't redundancy and overlap. That's what some of the testimony that we had received and we want to be careful. At the same time, we want to be a good listener.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What I received, ma'am, out of the hearing we had last week, that Mr. Hutchinson was most helpful in putting together with the chairman, is that there are other programs out there, but there's a long waiting list to gain access to them. So Mr. Hutchinson has stepped forward and introduced to Members of Congress this idea of expanding the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Arkansas to help with that need. If you can't get into the emergency room door, you know, you're not really serving anyone. So we can say we have all these particular programs but if aren't gaining access, then we have a problem.
So as you look into this for us, you can be very helpful. We don't want it to overlap. We don't want to be redundant, but if there's a problem out there whereby training is not being done because, you know, if a sheriff gets elected and it's 2 years before he can actually get in to have the training, what good is it then if we're only going to catch the final 18 months of his term? See what I mean? If you have anything on that it would be helpful to us, I'd appreciate your comment.
Ms. ROBINSON. Sure. My staff at Justice Programs did some calling ahead of time on that issue because that had been raised last week. My understanding is that there is indeed at Quantico—for the FBI training—up to a 2-year waiting period to get in. But for most all of the rest of the Justice Department and Treasury training, there are not waiting lists. I think there's one DEA program on management that there is, but otherwise it's pretty open.
Mr. BUYER. Which is the other one in Georgia that was open?
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. ROBINSON. That's my understanding through the National Center for State and Local Training at FLETC.
Mr. BUYER. I want to ask Mr. Hutchinson a question, if I may. To make sure I'm accurate, I thought it was at the hearing last week that there was a response from Georgia that there was a waiting list out of that center.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. That's my recollection, as well, that there was a waiting list and that it was difficult to get into.
Mr. BUYER. In Georgia?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. The one at Glynco in Georgia which is a FLETC——
Mr. BUYER. Yes, that's what I——
Ms. ROBINSON. Now, it's my understanding, if I may, that the specific outreach program they did called STAR, the Small Town and Rural Program, which is an export program. They do out in-the-field on a regional basis, but there's not a waiting list on that. But, perhaps, our information was not correct.
Mr. BUYER. You could be helpful if you provide some clarity for us on the actual training on the management side, if there, in fact, is a waiting list on that.
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. ROBINSON. For the DEA management? Yes, there is.
Mr. BUYER. No, no, no.
Ms. ROBINSON. You mean at FLETC?
Mr. BUYER. Is this the one in Georgia?
Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BUYER. Okay.
Ms. ROBINSON. My understanding is that the FLETC program provides specialized training relating to issue areas like domestic violence. I'm not aware that they provide management training for State and local. I think that's the differentiation.
Mr. BUYER. Are you aware of the cost incurred by the participants in these programs, if any, at the FBI academy at Quantico or the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia? Either in terms of tuition, meals, per diem, et cetera—and that the participants' home agency might have support?
Ms. ROBINSON. I don't know the breakdown, but I think that the home agency has to provide at least a portion of it in every case.
Mr. BUYER. Where I am at the moment with Mr. Hutchinson's legislation is he's trying to step forward and provide a need for which he's caught all of our attention, and for that I applaud him. I am one that I like cost shares, co-pays. I like somebody to have a stake in it. If in fact, in the Federal Government we have other programs like this where we also have the individual, in particular, the counties pick up some of that cost, should we not, if we're going to have another program, have one that's similar? Rather than say well, we're going to create the National Law Center in Arkansas where it is of no cost to anyone. Do you have any comment on that?
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. I think that maybe I'd offer the experience we have in our grant programs, wherein the jurisdiction has to bring a match—a hard match, cash match—to the table. We know that they're engaged. That they really are going to invest in it. Even where tuition is provided, however, travel costs, I think, traditionally have been paid on these programs from the local jurisdiction, as well as just the backfill to cover assignments when that person is away.
Mr. BUYER. Indulge me, Chairman, for just one last question.
What Mr. Hutchinson, as I understand it, is also trying to do, when it's for rural law enforcement and management, there are some of these—he's trying to be attentive to constituencies where there's need also on the basis of monetary ability. I'd like to work with Mr. Hutchinson to try to figure a solution here, but what do you do when you have jurisdictions whereby it is a very poor economic area? Do you do waivers, or what do you do then? On the match?
Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. If there's financial hardship—let's say there had been a flood in the town or it had gone bankrupt or something—yes, we've certainly looked at and granted waivers.
Mr. BUYER. All right. Thank you
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Buyer. Mr. Hutchinson, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair and I want to thank my colleague Mr. Buyer for his line of questioning and his interest in this area. I know that he attended the hearing last week and this week, as well, and that shows a great interest. I know, in the past, he has raised concerns about Federal priorities and how they relate to the rural areas. For that I'm grateful, as well as the chairman of this committee and his willingness to hold not just one hearing but two hearings on the importance of assistance programs to rural law enforcement. So for that I'm grateful.
Ms. Robinson, I'm thankful for your expertise in this area. I wrote down your statement that ''the need for training for rural law enforcement are very great.'' I think that's a significant statement on your part. I think that as a follow-up—it has been asked somewhat—but in your views are the existing Federal programs meeting the needs of rural law enforcement? The needs are very great. Are those great needs being presently met?
Ms. ROBINSON. No. I don't think the needs are being met at present. I think the question is, ''What's the best vehicle then for meeting them?''
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I agree with you and I think all the questions are fair debate. I think the points about cost-sharing and what the contribution of the local community should be are very important. I think going back to Glynco—the FLETC operation in Georgia—three problems I think have been identified.
One, that training is more at the operational level, narrowly targeted, and is not for management level training for rural law enforcement. Secondly—and it sounds like there's a little bit of debate on this or confusion—on the waiting list, of course, if there's not any management training, it doesn't help anyway. But the other programs you identified—Quantico, clearly have a waiting list. There's some expertise there. DEA is narrowly targeted in drug areas. But say you had a rural law enforcement agent, you can't send someone to DEA to be trained in the drug areas and send someone else to be trained in the domestic violence area and then send another officer to be trained in another specialized area. That's where the coordination of the rural law enforcement is very important.
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The third one is the cost involved. I think this is a fair debate here, but I'd like for you to respond to what problems are the rural law enforcement agencies confronted with as they want to engage their officers in training. They obviously have to backfill the position. They lose the services during that time in a very small department. Then do they pay the travel cost? The whole theory of the rural law enforcement has been that the school uses their grant money to bring the law enforcement agents in—they pay the travel costs for them.
So, I guess it is a good idea for a rural law enforcement center to pay the travel costs for the participating rural agency because they're already participating by the fact that they are having to backfill that. Is a cost share a better way to approach it?
Ms. ROBINSON. I'd be happy to respond to your questions here. It is my understanding on the management issue that FLETC's current training does not address broad management type of issues. I think one of the questions the subcommittee might want to consider is whether additional resources should be provided to FLETC to do that. In other words, back to the issue of the proper vehicle. Is the Center the proper vehicle or FLETC or maybe some other—or maybe a variety of these approaches together. But I do think that thinking about management issues for rural law enforcement is an important question. That they're very different than for large urban policing agencies.
On the second issue of the waiting lists, clearly that is an issue that needs to be addressed. I don't know the answer. My information, as I had indicated a minute ago, was that there was not a waiting list at the FLETC for the State and rural programs.
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On the cost question, I do think as a general matter that it's good to have the agency making some kind of contribution. But I also think we need to recognize that large agencies frequently have the resources to satisfy the training budget—as an example, that can pay tuition, that can pay travel. That's very often not true in smaller jurisdictions. They may be struggling just to have the police cars or the vests—going back to the Chairman's comments. So I think it's something that for small, rural jurisdictions, we need to think about probably in a different way than we would if we were talking about New York City.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. At Glynco, Georgia people can be trained in the Eastern seaboard. I think it's important to recognize that Arkansas is not the significant part here, it's the National Training Center, wherever that be located and there might be a decision that it's placed somewhere else. I hope not. I think we've done a good job there. But the important thing is that it's established. The other part of the legislation is the six regional centers. In other words, the whole idea is to move it out of one central location and that it's more convenient—less travel costs; more appropriate to that particular geographic area; recognizing the unique law enforcement perhaps in the Northeast or the extreme Northwest. Would you just comment on that and how you would perceive that and whether the geography is an issue in providing training. Because you've got a Quantico on the East coast; you've got Glencoe on the East coast. If you're in the State of Nevada, or Montana, or Idaho, it would be better to have a regional center.
Ms. ROBINSON. Geography really does matter in training. Having only one site that law enforcement officers or anyone else can go to, I think greatly inhibits one's ability to really deliver training. I think we should note that FLETC does its State, small town, and rural training through regional sessions. So it also is done that way. But I support the notion and the Center of doing this on a regional basis if, in fact, that's how the Congress decides to pursue this. Because having one facility does make it much more difficult.
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second thing that a regional approach can do, that you allude to, is respond to needs in the local area. We know that the kinds of things, just as an example, that are being dealt with by law enforcement in the West and Midwest with methamphetamine right now are very different than what South Florida or New England may be confronting. So it allows specialization in approach that can be responsive and really listen to the field.
Mr. BUYER. All right. I thank you very much and I thank the Chair and yield back.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Hutchinson. I've got just a couple more quick questions. If others want to, we'll let you jump back in here as well.
Ms. Robinson, have you looked at the structure that's setup in Mr. Hutchinson's bill with regard to the corporate entity that's being created here? If you have, do you see any problems with oversight of this activity if we go that route? In other words, there's a difference between giving grant money and additional monies to the Center as it currently exists and providing for the Center as a separate entity, as he has done here. Have you looked at the structural issue?
Ms. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, I have not looked at it in-depth, but I've read through the bill. I would have these, again, somewhat cursory responses on that. The usual way that we would, within a grant agency, be dealing with this would be to be providing a grant that we would then routinely follow with monitoring visits from both the programmatic and financial side requirements for audits—the usual kind of thing that you do in a grant agency to ensure that you're taking care of your fiduciary responsibilities. How that would be handled with a direct corporation, I'm not sure exactly how that would work, but that would be a question you would want to address.
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thanks very much. It looks to me like this is structured very much like our legal aid programs which are fairly independent. As far as I know, the Justice Department oversees that at all. That's how this looks to me so that's why I asked the question. It seems to me you would not have an oversight role, but——
Ms. ROBINSON. We would not——
Mr. MCCOLLUM. You would not as you see it. On the body armor question, to your knowledge, has OJP ever informed any community which is qualified for block grants that it cannot, for some reason, use the money to buy a bulletproof vest?
Ms. ROBINSON. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. As the local block grant program works, as I recall, there were advisory panels setup at the local level to make recommendations to the county commissioner or whoever gets the funds. Have you had a chance to monitor that or give us an idea of how well that's working? Do they have advisory panels that need to decide how to recommend the use of the various monies for crime-fighting purposes?
Ms. ROBINSON. In the first year, and as you know, we have two years of experience with this now. The first year because the appropriations were late—rather an abbreviated process, but even then the Advisory Boards did meet. But I think we had a better sense of this during this past year in 1997. The 2,700 counties and cities that are recipients of this, yes, they did move ahead. That's one thing that they're certifying to us in order to draw down the money. I think it provides a very helpful way to reach out and get feedback from the community, from criminal justice officials, and so on, as to how, within the approved purposes, that money should be spent.
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCCOLLUM. And that would be—presumably under that program at least—how the decision would be made as to whether or not to spend the money on something else as opposed to vests, if that's what is needed in that community. There are at least eight panels now up and running and presumably making those kinds of decisions.
Ms. ROBINSON. Right. They would be advisory to the decisionmaker, the county commissioner, mayors, et cetera——
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Right, but, ultimately, the county commissioner or the city commissioner makes the decision. The panel advises and they all include law enforcement members as I recall. It is structured that way by statute.
Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much. Mr. Buyer or Mr. Hutchinson, do you have follow-up?
Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My follow-up is based off your questions with regard to setting up a separate corporate entity.
With regard to this corporate entity, I'm trying to figure out how best to do this. You've given grants to the National Rural Law Center for over almost $1 million, obviously, you see something that's worthy and that there's a need. Then we're also faced with a question if in fact there's such a need that's there, why then is not these other programs, whether out of Treasury or the FBI Academy, addressing that need? So, obviously, someone has made an internal decision not to particularly grow staffs or create separate lines of studies or curriculum at these other present sites, but to fund the National Law Center. Can you help me out here? Why there's a particular management decision to address that?
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. ROBINSON. Well, I think you give more credit to the government on the executive side. Having one decisionmaker could, perhaps, be valid between the different departments. I say that with some facetiousness. But, in fact, when training is developed—let's take as examples what DEA or Marshals is doing. They're going to be developing training within their area of expertise and their mission, whether it's drugs or fugitives or whatever the issue would be. So that's going to be their focus. There's not an effort necessarily to step back and think in the broader way—for example, Mr. Hutchinson's question about rural management issues—because that's kind of not within their charge.
But, I think, when we look within the Office of Justice Programs, which deals with State and local law enforcement within the panoply of things that we deal with, we definitely identified the rural law enforcement training and technical assistance as an area of need. When Lee Caldwell approached us in 1993, we thought this really needs something that we want to see accomplished within the range of many, many competing priorities. We decided to put some money into there. We've continued to put some money into there. It's comparatively a small part of the overall budget of OJP because there are competing demands and funding streams. But I think each of the various Federal agencies that has law enforcement responsibility when it's thinking about State and local training, it's doing it in its niche area, if you will.
Mr. BUYER. Do you provide any grants out there to any other separate corporate entities that are nonprofit with regard to training?
Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, we certainly do. We work with a variety of—perhaps they're not incorporated in the same way, but a variety of associations. For example, with the International Association of Chiefs of Police around domestic violence training—that would be an example—or the International District Attorneys Association to do training around elderly crime. That would be another example. The National Association of Attorneys General on telemarketing fraud training. So there are a variety of areas responding to the various funding streams coming into OJP where we try to work with a variety of organizations, including universities.
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BUYER. I asked that question because the Chairman asked you a question of same saying if we setup a separate corporate entity, what is the oversight function and you said you have no oversight role then. Well, really you do with regard to the audits and whether monies are spent correctly, do you not?
Ms. ROBINSON. We certainly would for any grants that we give out. If this is setup as a separate corporation, it would have no relationship to the Department of Justice.
Mr. BUYER. So you could not even do an audit trail. That's my understanding. I think it's being setup as a separate corporation. There would be no relationship——
Mr. BUYER. Wow.
Ms. ROBINSON.—at all with the Department of Justice.
Mr. BUYER. Wow. Wow, Mr. Hutchinson. [Laughter.]
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, if you have further questions——
Mr. BUYER. I yield now to Mr. Hutchinson with a wow.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, certainly, you raise a good point. In any entity there should be audits, there should be performance standards, and review. I think that's an important aspect of anything that we setup. But would I be correct that, even though the Department of Justice might not have oversight—I mean, the General Accounting Office could go, because appropriated funds are going to it, they could conduct an audit.
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, they certainly could.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. So we could utilize GAO to audit, to report back to Congress. There could be oversight hearings of any entity that was set out to receive appropriated funds.
Ms. ROBINSON. That's correct.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Notwithstanding that, I think it's a fair approach to try to tighten it up and maybe put more audit standards in which we'd have no objection to because I think that is very, very important. How I'd do? [Laughter.]
Mr. BUYER. You did really well, but what I'm thinking about, Mr. Hutchinson, is even in the bill itself. I mean, if we're establishing a separate entity here and the National Law Center seeks some form of cooperation, we could come to an agreement with legislation that would permit some type of an audit function by DOJ. I just throw that on the table for you.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I don't think we'd have any problem with audit by DOJ. I think though that what's unique about the rural center is what you mentioned: the Center has used FBI and U.S. Marshals in their training sessions for their training sessions. So it sort of brings the agencies together for the benefit of rural law enforcement and utilizes their talent, as well. So here, I think the audit is a great idea but I think that the separation is important so that you can have that unique approach toward law enforcement.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Hutchinson, that would not be—if I were sitting out there as the director of this corporation in Arkansas, I would not envision oversight meaning I have to take direction from them. That this is what I must do and mandate; otherwise, we cutoff the money. I mean, that's where it was very clear from Dr. Caldwell's testimony, is that we want your money; I don't want your wisdom. But at the same time, there are some benefits here that could be done. I think there might be some room here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. That's why we're here. Before we get any further into our own internal discussion, are there any further questions either of you gentlemen wish to ask Ms. Robinson. Otherwise, I'm going to thank her for coming.
Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it. I'm sure we'll be back with more questions. You have plenty on your plate for us to talk about. Thank you for coming today.
Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you, sir.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Our second panel today consists of two witnesses who represent national law enforcement organizations.
First, we have Mr. Bernard Teodorski. Mr. Teodorski is the Vice President of the National Fraternal Order of Police, an office which he's held for the past 6 years. He also holds the position of chairman of FOP's legislative committee. From 1968-1993, Mr. Teodorski served with the Pennsylvania State Police in various positions, including as a criminal homicide investigator for 19 years. Mr. Teodorski has been a member of the Fraternal Order of Police for 28 years.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also this morning, the Subcommittee will hear testimony from Sheriff Stephen Simpson on behalf of the National Sheriffs' Association. Currently, Sheriff Simpson serves as Sheriff of Loudoun County, Virginia. He has 18 years of experience in local law enforcement, 9 of which are with the Loudoun County Sheriffs' Office. Sheriff Simpson belongs to several professional and civic organizations and currently serves as chairman of the Council of Governments and Corrections of the Chiefs' Committee.
I'd like to thank Congressman LoBiondo and Congressman Visclosky for their commitments to the safety of law enforcement officers. Without objection, their statements as well as the statement of Congressman Etheridge will be admitted into the record. Hearing none, it is so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Visclosky and Mr. LoBiondo follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA, AND HON. FRANK A. LOBIONDO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
As the co-authors of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, we would like to express our appreciation to Chairman McCollum and Ranking Member Schumer, as well as the other members of the subcommittee, for holding this hearing on the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act.
Since H.R. 2829 was introduced in November of last year, this bipartisan legislation has been co-sponsored by more than two-thirds of our colleagues in the House of Representatives. In addition to the strong support shown for the bill in the House, on February 26, a Senate counterpart to our bill was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 15 to 2. Introduced by Senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Patrick Leahy, this legislation, S. 1605, went on to pass the full U.S. Senate on March 11.
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Both the House and Senate bills have received the endorsement of numerous national and local law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Union of Police Associations, the Police Executive Research Forum, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the International Brotherhood of Police Of ricers. We would ask the committee's permission to place letters from various police organizations endorsing the bill in the hearing record. We would also like to thank Bernard Teodorski, of the Fraternal Order of Police, and Stephen Simpson, Sheriff of Loudoun County, Virginia, for testifying today on behalf of our legislation.
The goal of our legislation is simple: to save the lives of law enforcement and corrections officers by providing them with bulletproof vests and body armor. H.R. 2829 would do so by authorizing up to $25 million per year for a new grant program within the U.S. Department of Justice, providing 50–50 matching grants to state and local law enforcement agencies in order to purchase bulletproof vests and body armor for their officers. These grants would be targeted to jurisdictions where most officers do not currently have access to vests, and they are designed to be free of the red tape that often characterizes other grants programs. In order to make sure no community is left out of the program, the matching requirement could be waived for jurisdictions that demonstrate financial hardship in meeting their half of the match.
The following are two overriding reasons why we believe this legislation is worthy of the subcommittee's support: (l) the effectiveness of vests in protecting law enforcement officers; and (2) the fact that so many police officers do not currently have access to a vest.
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The evidence is clear that a bulletproof vest is one of the most important pieces of equipment that any law enforcement officer can have. Studies show that, between 1985 and 1994, 709 police of ricers were killed while on duty, and over 92 percent of those deaths were caused by firearms. It is virtually undisputed that vests have been shown to be extremely effective in protecting officers from death and injury, and they have been documented to have saved the lives of more than 2,000 police of ricers. Between 1985 and 1994, no police of fleer who was wearing a vest was killed by a firearm penetrating the vest, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation says that the risk of fatality to an officer not wearing a vest is 14 times higher than for an officer who wears body armor.
Despite the indisputable effectiveness of vests and body armor, close to 25 percent of the nation's 600,000 state and local law enforcement officers do not have access to a vest. That means there are approximately 150,000 law enforcement officers are being placed in harm's way without the most effective protection we can give them.
The problem is particularly pronounced for small rural police departments. Statistics show that officers in smaller departments are much less likely to have vests then their counterparts in larger departments with greater resources. Yet, just because officers in these small departments don't have access to vests, it does not mean they are immune from the violent crime that plagues many of our urban communities.
There are several reasons why so many officers do not have access to vests. First is the fact that a good vest can cost upwards of $500, while other forms of body armor can cost more than $1,000. Many small departments, as well as some larger ones, simply cannot afford to purchase vests for all of their of ricers, a fact which sometimes forces of ricers to purchase vests at their own expense.
Page 252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In other cases, a police department may have purchased vests for its officers many years ago, but those vests have either been worn out or are now obsolete. Most manufacturers of bulletproof vests recommend replacing a vest after five years of use. This is because the hightech material that goes into a bulletproof vests is steadily degraded by exposure to water, sunlight, everyday wear-and-tear, and even sweat. There is also the fact that as the caliber and power of firearms increase, bulletproof material has to improve to keep pace with the increased threat level. Therefore, it is vitally important that officers not only have vests, but that they have modern vests which can protect them effectively against the weapons that are out on our streets today.
While we recognize the fact that the funds from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program can be used to purchase vests, it is clear that these grants are not meeting the current need when it comes to supplying officers with vests. In some instances, by the time grant money makes its way down to the local level, it is not enough to meet the costly expense of purchasing a vest for every officer in a department. In other cases, departments are faced with the Hobbesian choice of using their grant money to pay for overtime costs, training costs, or equipment which is needed immediately—like a new squad car or computer system—or using the money to purchase vests for their officers. In too many instances, departments take the chance that one of their officers will not be shot any time soon, deciding to use their grant money in other ways.
This is not a choice that departments, or their officers, should be forced to make. We can—and should—continue the current block grant program, while recognizing the fact that supplying every law enforcement officer in this country with a bulletproof vest requires a more targeted approach. That is exactly what our bill aims to do.
Page 253 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On a final note, we would like to address one aspect of H.R.2829 that has been the subject of some confusion. Section 5 of the legislation states that any state or local government that receives funding from this legislation may not purchase equipment or products using prison inmate labor. It has been brought to our attention that this provision could be interpreted to prohibit the use of any funds, not just those authorized by the bill, for purchasing prison-made products. If the provision is interpreted this way, some state and local governments might choose not to participate in the program in order to maintain prisoner work programs. We would like to state for the record that this provision was designed to prevent only the funds authorized by this program from being used to purchase bulletproof vests manufactured by prisoners, and that any other interpretation of Section 5 is too broad.
In closing, our legislation is intended to create a partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies in order to make sure that every police of ricer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one. It is clear to us that every of officer on the street should have a vest, and that the need to supply officers with vests is important enough to warrant direct federal assistance.
Once again we thank the members of the subcommittee for conducting this hearing, and we hope you will join us in supporting this needed legislation.
| The Law Enforcement |
| Steering Committee, |
| Washington, DC, March 12, 1998. |
Hon. PETER VISCLOSKY,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Page 254 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE VISCLOSKY: Founded in 1985, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee (LESC) is a non—partisan coalition consisting of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers' Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Major Cities Chiefs, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Troopers Coalition, the Police Executive Research Forum and the Police Foundation. These groups represent more than 500,000 law enforcement officers nationwide. The LESC Is a model of an unprecedented cooperative effort between law enforcement research organizations, police management and labor, dedicated to the advancement of legislation and policies that will help ensure the Public's safety and security. Please be advised that the Law Enforcement Steering Committee wholeheartedly supports the passage of H.R. 2829 and S. 1605.
Today, more than ever, violent criminals have deadly weapons, and their own bulletproof vests, when facing police. The disturbing news for the law enforcement community is that an alarming number of law enforcement of fleers are not protected by bulletproof vests. Vests have long been used to avert injuries from firearms, blunt force and car accidents. We cannot jeopardize the lives of any of fleer who protects his or her community.
On November 5, 1997 Congressmen Peter Visclosky and Frank A. LoBiondo introduced H.R. 2829 the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997.'' Senator Campbell and Leahy, on January 29, 1998, introduced S. 1605, the Senate companion bill. These bills would create a new grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, to assist state and units of the local government in providing bulletproof vests to their of ricers. The grant would provide up to 50 percent of the cost of the vest with local and state governments matching the remaining costs.
Page 255 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The LESC strongly supports both the House and Senate version of the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act.'' Far too many law enforcement of ricers patrol our streets and neighborhoods without proper protective gear. If passed, this legislation will help save countless lives across the United States each year. The LESC implores the members of Congress to pass this legislation expeditiously.
Thank you for your hard work and introduction of this important piece of legislation. If the LESC can be of any assistance, please contact myself or any other member of the committee.
Sincerely,
| Robert T. Scully, Chairman, Law Enforcement Steering Committee, |
| Executive Director, National Association of Police Organizations. |
| Fraternal Order of Police, |
| National Legislative Program, |
| Washington, DC, January 14, 1998. |
Hon. PETER VISCLOSKY,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN VISCLOSKY: I am writing to you on behalf of the more than 270,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police to offer our strong support of H.R. 2829, the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997,'' which establishes a grant program to assist local law enforcement agencies in purchasing body armor for their officers.
Page 256 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This bill will greatly increase the number of officers wearing body armor—and it will save more lives. At the May 15, 1997 Peace Officers' Memorial Day, the F.O.P. honored the memories of one hundred and seventeen officers who were killed in the line of duty in 1996. This year we have already lost one hundred and sixty from our ranks.
While we know that there is no way to end the deadly risks inherent to a career in law enforcement, we must do everything possible to ensure that officers who put their lives on the line every day also put on a vest. Body armor is one of the most important pieces of equipment an officer can have and often means the difference between life an death. Hopefully, your bill will increase the quality and number of armored vests available to America's law enforcement officers.
On behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police, I commend you for your leadership on this important issue and look forward to working with you and your staff to get this bill passed. If I can be of assistance, please contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in my Washington office, (202) 547–8189.
Sincerely,
| Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President. |
Hon. PETER VISCLOSKY,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE VISCLOSKY: I am writing to commend you for your efforts to protect the health and well-being of law enforcement officials through your legislation, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997.
The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) fully supports your efforts to establish a grant program to help state and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by their law enforcement officers. Increasingly, sheriffs and their deputies find themselves in situations that require a bullet resistant vest. Unfortunately, equipping an entire department with body armor is expensive and your legislation will help sheriffs and their deputies defray the tremendous costs of bullet resistant body armor.
We feel that passage of your legislation will empower law enforcement officers across the nation. Body armor saves lives. According to recent industry estimates, more than 1,200 officers have been saved from death or serious injury because they were wearing their armor. Clearly, we should make body armor available to the men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day for us and your legislation will give every law enforcement official the ability to have a bullet resistant vest.
We look forward to working with you to ensure swift passage of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Page 258 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
| Fred W. Scoralick, President. |
| International Union of |
| Police Associations AFL–CIO |
| Alexandria, VA, October 17, 1997. |
Hon. PETER VISCLOSKY,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE VISCLOSKY: On behalf of the Executive Committee and the 80,000 rank and file law enforcement officers of the International Union of Police Associations, AFL–CIO, we are proud to endorse and support the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997''.
The work and effort which you have generated authoring and perfecting this valuable piece of legislation reflects your continued commitment to the safety of law enforcement officers across the United States who work tirelessly to protect our communities. Because of your concern for their safety and your keen awareness of the dangers they face daily, your legislation will save the lives of many officers. Without this legislation, many law enforcement officers would perform their duties without the protection of state of the art body armor.
We commend you and your staff, and pledge our continual assistance in helping to enact the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997''. Thank you.
Sincerely,
| Police Executive Research Forum |
| Washington, DC, October 16, 1997. |
Hon. PETER VISCLOSKY,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE VISCLOSKY: I am writing to you on behalf of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to offer our strong support for legislation that would establish a grant program to assist local law enforcement agencies in purchasing body armor for their officers.
PERF, a nonprofit organization of progressive police professionals who serve more than 40 percent of the nation's population, is firmly committed to helping police obtain the equipment necessary to ensure their safety as they protect the community. Between 1985 and 1994, more than 2000 police officers had their lives saved by bullet proof vests. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997 would greatly increase the number of officers wearing bullet proof vests and will ultimately save more lives.
PERF commends you for your commitment to officer safety and your leadership on this important issue. If we can be of any assistance in the future, please feel free to contact me or Martha Plotkin at (232) 466–7820.
Sincerely,
| Chuck Wexler, Executive Director. |
Page 260 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
| International Brotherhood |
| of Police Officers, |
| Alexandria, VA, November 24, 1997. |
Hon. WILLIAM MCCOLLUM, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Crime,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR CHAIRMAN MCCOLLUM: The International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO) is an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union. The IBPO is the largest police union in the AFL–CIO.
On behalf of the entire membership of the IBPO I am requesting that you cosponsor H.R. 2829, ''The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act of 1997. This bill would authorize up to $25 million per year for a new Justice Department grant program to help state and local law enforcement agencies purchase body armor. The reason for this legislation is simple. It is a fact that as many as 25% of the nation's policy officers are working without bulletproof vests due to budget restraints in their departments.
H.R. 2829 would require state and local governments to split the costs of these vests 50–50 with the Federal Government, although matching requirements could be waived for jurisdiction that cannot afford it. The bill also would give preference in awarding grants to jurisdictions where officers do not currently have vests.
Currently, H.R. 2829 has 205 cosponsors. The entire membership of the IBPO wishes to thank you for your attention on this matter. If you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Page 261 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sincerely,
| Kenneth T. Lyons, National President. |
| National Association of |
| Police Organizations, Inc., |
| Washington, DC, November 3, 1997. |
Hon. PETER VISCLOSKY,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE VISCLOSKY: Please be advised that the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), representing more than 200,000 rank and file law enforcement officers and over 4,000 police unions and associations enthusiastically and whole heartily supports the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997.''
As you know, far too many law enforcement officers patrol our streets and neighborhoods without the proper protective gear against violent criminals. Today, more than ever, violent criminals have bulletproof vests and deadly weapons at their disposal. Its imperative that we stop this paradoxical trend and start adequately protecting our law enforcement officers who keep the peace throughout our country. We cannot allow criminals to have the upper hand. That is why NAPO supports your effort to help state and local law enforcement departments provide officers with bulletproof vests.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you, along with the 28 cosponsors of this legislation, that will be introduced on November 5th. If NAPO can be of any assistance please call at (202) 842–4420. Again, thank you.
Page 262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sincerely,
| Robert Scully, Executive Director. |
| Association for Los Angeles |
| Deputy Sheriffs, Inc., |
| Los Angeles, CA, February 13, 1998. |
Hon. PETER VISCLOSKY,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN VISCLOSKY: I am writing on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, (ALADS), which represents over 7,000 Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs and District Attorney Investigators, to express our strong support for H.R. 2829, the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997.
As you know, H.R. 2829 would authorize the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make federal matching grants of 50% to State and local governments to purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. This legislation would authorize $25 million a year for this purpose.
ALADS considers passage of this legislation as a crucial and necessary step toward reducing the number of officers killed and injured each year in the line of duty. Tragically, since 1980 well over 1,000 officers have been killed on the job by gunshot wounds. Had these officers been properly equipped with bullet proof vests, this fatality rate would have been significantly lower.
Page 263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is altogether unacceptable that criminals are oftentimes better equipped than the officers who risk their lives to protect the law abiding public. And it is tragic that officers are killed and seriously injured simply because they are not properly equipped with bullet proof vests. H.R. 2829 would help remedy this serious problem by providing some of the necessary funding to purchase this much needed equipment.
Again, ALADS strongly supports H.R. 2829 and commends you for introducing this important legislation. Please contact our Washington, D.C. representative, Shannon Lahey, at (202) 333–6924 if we can provide any assistance to you in securing passage of this legislation.
Sincerely,
| Bud Treece, Executive Director. |
| Portage Police Department, |
| Portage, IN. |
Hon. PETER VISCLOSKY,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Visclosky: The Portage Police Department strongly supports the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997 which helps law enforcement agencies purchase vests for their officers. Bulletproof vests are essential for all those who work in law enforcement. Not only do they better protect officers from armed suspects, but they also minimize trauma in car crashes.
Page 264 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We thank you and your staff for your commitment to officer safety and your leadership on this important issue.
Sincerely,
| Law Enforcement Officers |
| Union Council 82, |
| Attica, NY, February 18, 1998. |
Hon. PETER VISCLOSKY,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I am writing on behalf of the Correctional Officers at Attica state prison to express our strong support for H.R. 2829, the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997.''
As you know, H.R. 2829 would authorize the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make federal matching grants of 50% to State and local governments to purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. The legislation would authorize $25,000,000 to be appropriated for each fiscal year to carry out the program. It is our understanding that vests used by correctional officers are covered by this language but private corrections companies would not eligible to receive funding under this grant.
Correctional Officers at Attica consider passage of this legislation to be of the utmost importance because it would result in a reduction of job fatalities and injuries incurred on the line of duty. In 1995 alone, there were approximately 15,000 assaults on correctional officers by inmates nationwide. Almost 2,000 of these assaults led to officers being referred to outside emergency medical services. Some of these assaults by inmates resulted in the death of officers.(see footnote 1) Tragically, the following deaths of our officers during 1997 may very well have been avoided had they been properly protected by protective vests:
Page 265 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In March of 1997, Correctional Officer Brent W. Lumley of the Arizona State Prison Complex at Goodyear, Arizona, was tragically killed when an inmate entered the control booth of a secure area and stabbed him to death. Officer Lumley was 33 years old and survived by his wife and five year old son;
On April 10, 1997, Correctional Officer Scott Williams was stabbed and killed by an inmate with a knife at the United States Penitentiary at Lompoc, California. Officer Williams was survived by his wife and two daughters (5 years old and one year old);
Correctional Officer Wayne Anthony Martinez of the Wyoming State Penitentiary at Rawlins, Wyoming, who was 27 years old, was stabbed and killed by three inmates attempting to escape from prison on June 26, 1997. Officer Martinez was survived by his wife and five very young children; and
Correctional Officer Fred Baker, 35 years of age, was stabbed in the back and killed by an inmate while sitting at his desk at the Bayside State Prison at Leesburg, New Jersey. Officer Baker was survived by his wife, a fourteen year old son and 22 month old daughter.
Nationwide, the vast majority of correctional officers do not have the protection of puncture proof vests. Officers who put their lives on Me line every time they start a shin should not continue to be stabbed by inmates and victims of their climes simply because we are not properly equipped. H.R. 2829, if enacted into law, would dramatically reduce the fatality and injury rates of correctional officers by providing states with the funding necessary to purchase puncture proof vests.
Page 266 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We commend you for introducing this legislation and would be happy to assist you in any way to secure its passage. Please contact me directly or Shannon Lahey at (202) 333–6924 if you require furler information.
Sincerely,
| California Correctional Peace |
| Officers Association, |
| Sacramento, CA, January 21, 1998. |
Hon. PETER J. VISCLOSKY,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN VISCLOSKY: I am writing on behalf of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) representing over 26,000 peace officers in the state of California, to express our strong support for H.R. 2829, the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997.''
As you know, H.R. 2829 would authorize the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make federal matching grants of 50% to State and local governments to purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. The legislation would authorize $25,000,000 to be appropriated for each fiscal year to carry out the program. It is our understanding, based on discussions with your office, that vests used by correctional officers are covered by this language but private corrections companies would not be eligible to receive funding under this grant.
Page 267 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CCPOA considers passage of this legislation to be of the utmost importance because it would result in a reduction of potential job injuries and fatalities incurred by correctional officers during duty. In 1995 alone, there were approximately 15,000 assaults on correctional officers by inmates nationwide. Almost 2,000 of these assaults led to officers being referred to outside emergency medical services. Some of these assaults by inmates resulted in the death of officers.(see footnote 2) Tragically, the following deaths of our brothers and sisters during 1997 may very well have been avoided had they been properly protected by protective vests:
In March of 1997, Correctional Officer Brent W. Lumley of the Arizona State Prison Complex at Goodyear, Arizona, was tragically killed when an inmate entered the control booth of a secure area and stabbed him to death. Officer Lumley was 33 years old and survived by his wife and five year old son;
On April 10, 1997, Correctional Officer Scott Williams was stabbed and killed by an inmate with a knife at the United State Penitentiary at Lompoc, California. Officer Williams was survived by his wife and two daughters (5 years old and 1 year old);
Correctional Officer Wayne Anthony Martinez of the Wyoming State Penitentiary at Rawlins, Wyoming, who was 27 years old, was stabbed and killed by three inmates attempting to escape from prison on June 26, 1997. Officer Martinez was survived by his wife and five very young children; and
Correctional Officer Fred Baker, 35 years of age, was stabbed in the back and killed by an inmate while sitting at his desk at the Bayside State Prison at Leesburg, New Jersey. Officer Baker was survived by his wife, a fourteen year old son and 22 month old daughter.
Page 268 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nationwide, the vast majority of correctional officers do not have the protection of puncture proof vests. Wearing such a vest can make a difference for the correctional officer who is armed with only a single side baton when faced with inmates on the attack with prison made weapons such as knives and spears: It can save his or her life. Officers who put their lives on the line every time they start a shift should not continue to become victims of crimes simply because they are not properly equipped. H.R. 2829, if enacted into law, would dramatically reduce the fatality and injury rates of correctional officers by providing states with the funding necessary to purchase puncture proof vests.
CCPOA would like to commend you for introducing this important anti-crime legislation and would like to offer you our assistance in helping you to secure passage of H.R. 2829. Please contact our Washington, D.C. representative, Shannon Lahey, at (202) 333–6924 if we can help you in any way. Again, thank you for your leadership on this issue.
Sincerely,
| Mike Jimenez, State Executive VP. |
| Nevada Corrections Association |
| Carson City, NV, February 19, 1998. |
Hon. PETER VISCLOSKY,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN VISCLOSKY: I am writing on behalf of the Nevada Corrections Association (NCA) representing over 400 peace officers in the state of Nevada, to express our strong support for H.R. 2829, the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997.''
Page 269 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you know, H.R. 2829 would authorize the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make federal matching grants Of 50% to State and local governments to purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. The legislation would authorize $25,000,000 to be appropriated for each fiscal year to carry out the program. It is our understanding, based on discussions with your office, that vests used by correctional officers are covered by this language but private corrections companies would not eligible to receive funding under this grant.
NCA considers passage of this legislation to be of the utmost importance because it would result in a reduction of potential job injuries and fatalities incurred by correctional officers during duty. In 1995 alone, there were approximately 15,000 assaults on correctional officers by inmates nationwide. Almost 2,000 of these assaults led to officers being referred to outside emergency medical services. Some of these assaults by inmates resulted in the death of officers.(see footnote 3) Tragically, the following deaths of our brothers and sisters during 1997 may very well have been avoided had they been properly protected by protective vests:
In March of 1997, Correctional Officer Brent W. Lumley of the Arizona State Prison Complex at Goodyear, Arizona, was tragically killed when an inmate entered the control booth of a secure area and stabbed him to death. Officer Lumley was 33 years old and survived by his wife and five year old son;
On April 10, 1997, Correctional Officer Scott Williams was stabbed and killed by an inmate with a knife at the United State Penitentiary at Lompoc, California. Officer Williams was survived by his wife and two daughters (5 years old and I year old);
Page 270 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Correctional Officer Wayne Anthony Martinez of the Wyoming State Penitentiary at Rawlins, Wyoming, who was 27 years old, was stabbed and killed by three inmates attempting to escape from prison on June 26, 1997. Officer Martinez was survived by his wife and five very young children; and
Correctional Officer Fred Baker, 35 years of age, was stabbed in the back and killed by an inmate while sitting at his desk at the Bayside State Prison at Leesburg, New Jersey. Officer Baker was survived by his wife, a 14 year old son and 22 month old daughter.
Nationwide, the vast majority of correctional officers do not have the protection of puncture proof vests. Wearing such a vest can make a difference for the correctional officer who is armed with only a single side baton when faced with inmates on the attack with prison made weapons such as knives and spears: It can save his or her life. Officers who put their lives on the line every time they start a shift should not continue to become victims of crimes simply because they are not properly equipped. H.R. 2829, if enacted into law, would dramatically reduce the fatality and injury rates of correctional officers by providing states with the funding necessary to purchase puncture proof vests.
NCA would like to commend you for introducing this important anti-crime legislation and would like to offer you our assistance in helping your to secure passage of H.R. 2829. Please contact our Washington, D.C. representative, Shannon Lahey. at (202) 333–6924 if we can help you in any way. Again, thank you for leadership on this issue.
Very truly yours,
Page 271 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Etheridge follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BOB ETHERIDGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
I want to thank the Chairman, Mr. McCollum, and the Ranking Democrat, Mr. Schumer, for the opportunity to make this statement in support of this vitally important legislation before the subcommittee.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this innovative and necessary bill that will assist law enforcement in small towns and rural jurisdictions in my district and across the country. I urge the subcommittee to pass H.R. 2829 without further delay.
As our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line each and every day, we have an obligation to equip them with the state-of-the-art in personal protection. On Monday morning, I witnessed firsthand an impressive live-fire exercise at the Johnston County firing range that demonstrated that bulletproof vests can make a dramatic difference for the protection of an of ricer from gunfire. We have a responsibility to extend the benefit of this high tech protection to every officer on every force in America.
We in North Carolina know all too well that the day is long gone when violent crime only occurred in the big city. Today, violent crime can strike anywhere. All too frequently, that violence is aimed at our men and women in uniform as they patrol our communities. Last year alone, five of ricers in and around the Second Congressional District of North Carolina were gunned down in the line of duty. Less than three weeks ago, a bulletproof vest saved a Kenly, North Carolina officer's life when a .40-caliber Glock pistol was fired point-blank into his gut during a struggle at a roadside stop. This incident brings home in a very clear way how important it is that we protect our officers with vests.
Page 272 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The national statistics are compelling. Since the introduction of modern bulletproof material, the lives of more than 2,000 police of ricers have been saved because they were wearing bulletproof vests or some other form of body armor, according to the Department of Justice. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reports that between 1985 and 1994, no police officer who was wearing a bulletproof vest was killed by a gunshot wound penetrating the officer's vest. The FBI tells us the risk of fatality from a firearm while not wearing body armor is fourteen times higher than for officers armor. Since 1980, 924 officers were killed while not wearing a vest. Of those 924 officers, 389 (42 percent) were shot in the torso area and could have been saved by a bulletproof vest. Approximately 150,000 of the nation's 600,000 state and local law enforcement officers (25 percent) do not currently have access to a vest.
In my Congressional District, I have been surveying our local jurisdictions to assess our needs. After the incident in Kenly, I decided to find out just how we are doing in the effort to protect our brave law enforcement officers. Ironically, about this same time, I received a letter from Kenly Chief Carter seeking help in acquiring bulletproof vests. The Chief wrote, ''You are no doubt aware of the lack of resources available to small communities such as ours that are faced with ever increasing demands for service and exposure to threats challenging our officers on the street. It is our hope that funds can be made available to provide this help to protect our officers.'''' After reading the chief's letter, I knew we were after the same goal.
The results of my survey are not yet complete, but a clear trend has emerged. Although there is universal recognition of the importance of bulletproof vests, small towns and rural counties in North Carolina are having a difficult time providing them to their officers.. I think Congress has an obligation to help.
Page 273 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last November, I joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues in introducing H.R. 2829, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act. As you know, this legislation will provide $25 million in matching grants through the Department of Justice to help local law enforcement purchase vests for their officers.. This bill has been endorsed by the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the International Union of Police Associations, the National Association of Police Organizations and other law enforcement groups. H.R. 2829 has been cosponsored by 287 Members of the U.S. House, and the Senate recently passed a companion bill. The House should be given the opportunity to act on this legislation as soon as possible.
Our nation's law enforcement officers stand sentry as a thin blue line of defense between the criminal element and the law-abiding citizens, and I am honored to work on their behalf. I have worked to pass tough and smart legislation to crack down on violent thugs. I have fought for Safe and Drug-Free Schools, and I have worked to bring additional police officers to the Second District's towns and communities. Last year, I donated my Congressional pay raise to create a tax-exempt corporation that will provide the survivors of officers killed in the line of duty with monetary assistance for higher education expenses.
Our values summon us to take care of our own, and I am proud to support H.R. 2829 and other efforts to protect our valiant men and women in law enforcement. Thank you again for the opportunity to present this statement.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Also included, if there's no objection, are the statements of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America and the California Correctional Peace Officers' Association. Hearing no objections, the statements are so admitted.
Page 274 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of The Law Enforcement Alliance of America follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA
| The Law Enforcement Alliance |
| of America, |
| Falls Church, VA, March 24, 1998. |
Hon. FRANK LOBIONDO,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE LOBIONDO: On behalf of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA), which represents over 65,000 members and supporters, we would like to inform you of our organizational support of H.R. 2829, the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997,'' and thank you for sponsoring this very important piece of legislation.
H.R. 2829 would provide a grant to assist the state and local governments in obtaining the proper and necessary equipment to protect officers throughout the nation. There are too many officers killed as a result of injuries sustained by firearms. If passed, this piece of legislation will undoubtedly save the lives of thousands of law enforcement officers. We truly appreciate your insight and understanding with regard to these critical issues of officer safety.
As the nation's largest coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned citizens, LEAA's Legislative Task Force is available to assist in promoting your bill as needed. LEAA feels it is imperative that legislation be mandated to protect the country's men and women in blue who put their lives on the line every day.
Page 275 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Once again, thank you for your support of America's law enforcement officers. If there is anything LEAA can do to help pass this pro-law enforcement legislation, please don't hesitate to call me or LEAA's Director of State & Local Affairs, Andrew LeFevre, at 703-847-2677.
Sincerely,
| James J. Fotis, Executive Director. |
[The prepared statement of California Correctional Peace Officers Association follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MIKE JIMENEZ, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement before you at today's hearing on H.R. 2829, the ''Bullet Proof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1997'' on behalf of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA). CCPOA represents over 26,000 correctional officers and parole agents in the state of California, men and women who risk their lives daily to keep some of the world's most violent convicted felons off the streets. Our Association strongly supports H.R. 2829 because it would help provide protective vests to the officers who do not have them, thereby reducing the number of on-the-job fatalities and injures. We would like to commend you for holding this hearing today and to respectfully request you to allow this legislation to move to the House floor for a vote as soon as possible.
Page 276 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you know, H.R. 2829 would authorize the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make federal matching grants of 50% to State and local governments to purchase protective vests for use by law enforcement officers. The legislation would authorize S25,000,000 to be appropriated for each fiscal year to carry out the program. One half of the funds would be provided to local jurisdictions with populations under 100,000, each state would be provided a minimum of .25 percent of the total amount appropriated; and no state or local government would be eligible for more than 5% of the total amount appropriated. We believe the fonnula contained in H.R. 2829 is vastly superior to the formula contained in the Senate passed bill, S. 1065, because it allows more funds to be distributed to state and local governments based on the violent crime index, while ensuring that all state and local governments receive funding.
It is our understanding, based on discussions with the offices of the authors of the legislation, Congressmen Visclosky and LoBiondo, that the legislation applies to correctional officers and vests used by correctional officers to prevent stabbings. We therefore believe that H.R. 2829 would be improved if it were modified at the appropriate time to more specifically state congressional intent, such as language contained in Section 3 (5) of S. 1065, which defines lava enforcement officer.
CCPOA considers passage of H.R. 2829 to be ofthe utmost importance for two simple reasons: first, it would provide access to vests to those correctional officers who do not have them; and secondly, it would result in a reduction of the high numbers of job fatalities and injuries incurred by correctional officers during duty. There is a desperate need for correctional officers around the country to have access to puncture proof vests and this program would be cost effective since it would decrease the number of deaths and injuries of officers and therefore the costs of death and disability benefits.
Page 277 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Correctional officers that are killed and injured in the line of duty are typically assaulted by an inmate with a prison-made weapon. For example, prisoners make knives and spears with wood, steel, aluminum, plastic combs, and plastic spoons (plastic is melted, compressed and sharpened into knives that escape detection by prison metal detectors). Darts and blowguns are made from nails and paper (and open soaked in feces) that can be fired with enough force to pierce 1/4 inch plywood. Prisoners constantly find new ways to make deadly weapons in prison.
In 1995 alone, there were approximately 15,000 assaults on correctional officers by inmates nationwide. Almost 2,000 of these assaults led to officers being referred to outside emergency medical services and some of these assaults by inmates resulted in the death of officers.(see footnote 4) The number of assaults continues to increase, as truth-in-sentencing and 3 strikes laws leave inmates with a ''nothing to lose'' attitude, which in turn leads to greater violence within institutions. By 1996, there were 16,600 assaults on officers in this country—that is 45 assaults per day. In the last 24 months, 9 correctional officers have been killed in the line of duty.
In spite of the high numbers of assaults, the vast majority of correctional officers do not have the protection of puncture proof vests. This is particularly troubling since recent advancements in technology have led to the development of a relatively thin and pliable puncture proof vest. In California, for example, only those officers who are working in ''segregated housing units'' are required to wear protective vests. However, not even all of these officers have access to a vest, and those that do are often provided an outdated vest that is difficult to move in and does not fit adequately. In county jails, officers are often provided bulletproof vests, which do them little good since bullets are not the problem in Jail; knives and spears are.
Page 278 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Tragically, the following deaths of officers during 1997 may very well have been avoided had they been wearing a puncture proof vest
In March of 1997, Correctional Officer Brent W. Lumley of the Arizona State Prison Complex at Goodyear, Arizona, was tragically killed when an inmate entered the control booth of a secure area and stabbed him to death. Officer Lumley was 33 years old and survived by his wife and five year old son;
On April 10, 1997, Correctional Officer Scott Williams was stabbed and killed by an Ornate with a knife at the United States Penitentiary at Lompoc, California. Officer Williams was survived by his wife and two daughters (5 years old and one year old);
Correctional Officer Wayne Anthony Martinez of the Wyoming State Penitentiary at Rawlins, Wyoming, who was 27 years old, was stabbed and killed by three inmates attempting to escape from prison on June 26, 1997. Officer Martinez was survived by his wife and five very young children; and
Correctional Officer Fred Baker, 35 years of age, was stabbed in the back and killed by an inmate while sitting at his desk at the Bayside State Prison at Leesburg, New Jersey. Officer Baker was survived by his wife, a fourteen year old son and 22 month old daughter. 5
To conclude, wearing a puncture proof vest can make a difference for the correctional officer who is anned with only a single side baton when faced with inmates on the attack with prison made weapons such as knives and spears: It can save his or her life. Officers who put their lives on the line every time they start a shift should not continue to become victims of crimes simply because they are not properly equipped. H.R. 2829, if enacted into law, would dramatically reduce the fatality and injury rates of correctional officers by providing states with the funding to help purchase puncture proof vests.
Page 279 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Officer Lynch, who works in the New Jersey State Prison, was stabbed 7 times by an inmate in December of 1977. He did not miss a day of work because he was wearing a puncture proof vest. I urge the Members of the Subcommittee to favorably pass H.R. 2829 so that our officers can continue to go to work, like Officer Lynch, and not to the emergency hospital or the morgue, like so many others.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. As will be your complete statements, gentlemen. Without objection, they are admitted and you may summarize your testimony. Mr. Teodorski, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF BERNARD TEODORSKI, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE
Mr. TEODORSKI. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Crime. I appear before you this morning on behalf of the 270,000 members of the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police to speak in favor of H.R. 2829, the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1997. Let me begin by thanking Congressman Peter Visclosky and Frank LoBiondo for their strong leadership and efforts on this important legislation.
The genesis of this bill began in Congressman Visclosky's office last year in a meeting with the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement groups. When the bill was introduced, Congressman Frank LoBiondo was among its strongest and most vocal supporter. The tireless efforts of these two members working together in a bipartisan way to help law enforcement produced tremendous results.
Page 280 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On the day the legislation was introduced, we had over 70 co-sponsors. By the end of the first session, H.R. 2829 had accumulated over 100. As of this week, H.R. 2829 has over two-thirds of the House of Representatives. I would like to thank and commend both Congressman Visclosky and Frank LoBiondo and their staff for their commitment to seeking this legislation passed.
I should also single out Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Patrick J. Leahy, the sponsors of the Senate counterpart bill, S. 1605. The Senate bill passed unanimously not quite 2 weeks ago—only 1 month after it was introduced. Their efforts, too, are greatly appreciated.
I would also like to express the deep thanks of the Fraternal Order of Police to you, Mr. Chairman, for consenting to hold these hearings. Your leadership and support on this and many other issues facing law enforcement in America today is greatly appreciated. I can tell you that over 270,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police, the rank and file officers, are positively impacted by this subcommittee and your leadership on it. You, along with ranking member Mr. Schumer and the rest of this subcommittee are among the very best friends to law enforcement and we thank you for it.
H.R. 2829 has a very simple goal. Its purpose is to increase the number of law enforcement officers wearing soft body armor, a bullet-resistance vest which could someday save that officer's life. The bill authorizes the Director of Bureau of Justice Assistance to make grants to State and local governments to purchase armored vest for use by State and local law enforcement officers. These grants give preferential consideration to applicants from jurisdictions that have a violent crime rate at or above the national average and that have not been providing each law enforcement officer assigned to patrol or other hazardous duties with body armor.
Page 281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, this bill is written to ensure that agencies which do not provide their officers with soft body armor will be able to do so and gives priorities to those agencies where crime and violence are more prevalent. Additionally, agencies without outdated or ineffective body armor will be able to upgrade their equipment and give maximum protection to their officers on the street.
There is no legislation, no government program, no grant or public private partnership that can erase the sad fact that law enforcement officers will die. They will die in the line of duty at the hands of armed and violent criminals. On May 15, 1997, Peace Officers Memorial Day, the Fraternal Order of Police honored the memories of 117 officers who were killed in the line of duty in 1996. This year we have already lost 160 from our ranks. This May, the Fraternal Order of Police will again honor the memories of the fallen heroes from every region of the country. How many might have been saved if they were wearing a vest? Certainly not all, but just as certainly, some would be alive today if they had been wearing armor.
So, while we know that there is no way to end the deadly risk inherent to a career in law enforcement, we must do everything possible to ensure that officers who put their lives on the line everyday also put on a vest. Body armor is one of the most important pieces of equipment an officer can have and often means the difference between life and death. We believe this will increase the quality and number of armored vests available to America's law enforcement officers. We believe the evidence demonstrates this bill can and will save lives.
The Uniformed Crime Report of 1994 shows that in 10 years—between 1985 and 1994—the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty by gunfire declined despite the fact there was almost no change in the number of violent assaults on officers. The reason for this is the marked increase in use of soft body armor by law enforcement agencies. As the percentage of officers wearing vests goes up, the number of deaths decline. We believe this bill can definitely increase the number of officers wearing soft body armor. The same FBI report shows that over 90 percent of the 708 law enforcement officers feloniously killed, were killed by firearms. The risk of fatality for an officer who is shot is 14 times higher if that officer is not equipped with soft body armor.
Page 282 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We can certainly cite additional statistics and conclusive studies, but I think it is generally accepted as a matter of common sense that bullet-resistant vests affords officers a critical and necessary life-saving protection. Any officer can tell you that any situation from a traffic stop to a domestic violence call can turn deadly in seconds.
Every officer needs a vest, not just the members of SWAT teams. I also want to address the argument there is a ready funding in place for law enforcement between the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants and various other Federal grant programs for public safety to obtain soft body armor for all law enforcement officers. This is not the case. Block grants, in particular, the local law enforcement block grants provide a great deal of money which is used for a variety of law enforcement needs. These crime-fighting dollars are critical to local and State law enforcement. Your strong and consistent support of these grants, Mr. Chairman, has had a real, immeasurable impact on the fight against crime in every region of the country.
However, there is a limited amount of money to go around and we're all familiar with that scenario. Often, perhaps the most critical needs are not addressed, but the needs which are able to gain public and political support. If your locality has never had an officer shot but the lack of lights at the local park makes it unsafe after dark, there's a very real and genuine argument to making favor of use of Federal grant monies to illuminate that park—making it safe for the citizens and unsafe for the criminals.
But meanwhile, every officer in that locality who goes on duty, without a vest, maybe the next victim. Not only of his assailant, but of a budgetary shortfall. In this way, I believe this bill is demonstration of leadership. It singles out the use and availability of soft body armos as critical to the law enforcement mission. It will save the lives of men and women we depend on to keep our children and neighborhoods safe from crime. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 283 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Teodorski follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERNARD TEODORSKI, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Crime. I appear before you this morning on behalf of the 270,000 members of the Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police to speak in favor of H.R. 2829, the ''Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1997.''
Let me begin by thanking Congressmen Peter Visclosky and Frank LoBiondo for their strong leadership and efforts on this important legislation. The genesis of this bill began in Congressman Visclosky's office last year, in a meeting with the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement groups. When the bill was introduced, Congressman Frank LoBiondo was among its strongest and most vocal supporters of the bill. The tireless efforts of these two Members, working together in a bipartisan way to help law enforcement, produced tremendous results. On the day the legislation was introduced, we had over seventy co- sponsors, by end the first session, H.R. 2829 had accumulated over one hundred. As of this week, H.R. 2829 has over two-thirds of the House of Representatives. I would like to thank and commend both Congressmen Peter Visclosky and Frank LoBiondo and their staff for their commitment to seeing this legislation pass.
I should also single out Senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Patrick J. Leahy, the sponsors of the Senate's counterpart bill, S. 1605. The Senate bill passed unanimously not quite two weeks ago—only one month after it was introduced. Their efforts, too, are greatly appreciated.
Page 284 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also like to express the deep thanks of the Fraternal Order of Police to you, Mr. Chairman for consenting to hold this hearing. Your leadership and support on this, and the many other issues facing law enforcement in America today, is greatly appreciated. And, I can tell you that the over 270,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police, the rank-and-file officers, are positively impacted by this Subcommittee and your leadership on it. You, along with Ranking Member Mr. Schumer and the rest of this Subcommitee are among the very best of friends to law enforcement and we thank you for it.
H.R. 2829 has a very simple goal—it proposes to increase the number of law enforcement officers wearing soft body armor. A bullet-resistant vest, which could someday save that officer's life.
The bill authorizes the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make grants to State and local governments to purchase armor vests for use by State and local law enforcement officers. These grants give preferential consideration to applications from jurisdictions that have a violent crime rate at or above the national average and that have not been providing each law enforcement officer assigned to patrol or other hazardous duties with body armor.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is written to ensure that agencies which do not provide their officers with soft body armor will be able to do so, and gives priorities to those agencies where crime and violence are more prevalent. Additionally, agencies with outdated or ineffective body armor will be able to upgrade their equipment and give maximum protection to their officers on the street.
Page 285 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is no legislation, no government program, no grant or public-private partnership that can erase the sad fact that law enforcement officers will die. They will die in the line of duty at the hands of armed and violent criminals.
At the May 15, 1997 Peace Officers' Memorial Day, the F.O.P. honored the memories of one hundred and seventeen officers who were killed in the line of duty in 1996. This year we have already lost one hundred and sixty from our ranks. This May, the Fraternal Order of Police will again honor the memories of the fallen heroes from every region of the country. How many might have been saved if they were wearing a vest? Certainly not all, but just as certainly some would be alive today if they had been wearing armor.
So while we know that there is no way to end the deadly risks inherent to a career in law enforcement, we must do everything possible to ensure that officers who put their lives on the line every day also put on a vest. Body armor is one of the most important pieces of equipment an officer can have and often means the difference between life an death. We believe this will increase the quality and number of armored vests available to America's law enforcement officers, and we believe the evidence demonstrates this bill can and will save lives.
The Uniform Crime Report for 1994 shows that in the ten years between 1985 and 1994, the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty by gunfire declined, despite the fact that there was almost no change in the number of violent assaults on officers. The reason for this is the marked increase in the use of soft body armor by law enforcement agencies. As the percentage of officers wearing vests goes up, the number of deaths will decline and we believe this bill can definitively increase the number of officers wearing soft body armor.
Page 286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That same F.B.I. report shows that over ninety percent (90%) of the 708 law enforcement officers feloniously killed, were killed by firearms. The risk of fatality for an officer who is shot is fourteen times higher if that officer is not equipped with soft body armor.
We can certainly cite additional statistics and conclusive studies, but I think it can be generally accepted as a matter of common sense that bullet-resistance vests afford officers a critical and necessary life-saving protection. Any officer can tell you than any situation, from a traffic stop to a domestic violence call, can turn deadly in seconds. Every officer needs a vest—not just the members of the S.W.A.T. team.
I also want to address the argument that there is already funding in place for law enforcement—between the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants and various other Federal grant programs for public safety—to obtain soft body armor for all law enforcement officers. This is not the case. Block grants, particularly the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, provide a great deal of money which is used for a variety of law enforcement needs. These crime-fighting dollars are critical to local and State law enforcement, and your strong and consistent support of those grants Mr. Chairman, has had a very real and measurable impact on the fight against crime in every region of the country. However, there is a limited amount of money to go around—we're all familiar with that scenario. And often, perhaps the most critical needs are not addressed, but the needs which are able to garner local and political support. If your locality has never had an officer shot, but the lack of lights at the local park makes it unsafe after dark, there is a very real and genuine argument to be made in favor of use Federal grant monies to illuminate that park, making it safe for citizens and unsafe for criminals. But, meanwhile, every officer in that locality who goes on duty without a vest may be the victim—not only of his assailant, but of budgetary shortfall.
Page 287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In this way, I believe that this bill is a demonstration of leadership. It singles out the use and availability of soft body as critical to the law enforcement mission. It will save the lives of the men and women we depend on to keep our children and neighbors safe from crime. It is my fervent hope that no vest purchased through this program ever has to stop a bullet; but I know that there will be officers who will, quite literally, owe their lives to this legislation.
I look forward to seeing this bill signed by the President.
Again, I would like to thank Chairman McCollum and all the distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Crime here this morning. I would now be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Teodorski.
I'm going to say, before I introduce Sheriff Simpson, that, unfortunately, I'm going to have to leave because of the debate on the floor of the House dealing with a committee bill that I'm participating in. I'm going to turn the chair over to Mr. Buyer.
I want to make it very clear that I, for one, am very, very supportive of every police officer having available body armor. I think that's critical and the only issue here we're trying to rustle with is whether the bill is the best vehicle or not. So I'm very interested—I know Mr. Buyer and Mr. Hutchinson and others are—in making sure we do the right thing.
Page 288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sheriff Simpson, you're recognized for whatever time you may need. Again, I apologize for having to personally slip out, but that does not show any lack of interest.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SIMPSON, SHERIFF, LOUDOUN COUNTY, VA
Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, sir.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you.
Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on this very important subject. Today, we will be discussing life and death issues for law enforcement access to bullet-resistant vests. H.R. 2829, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act is landmark legislation that will empower law enforcement officers across the Nation. Let me begin by stating unequivocally, law enforcement needs this legislation. Simply stated, body armor saves lives.
According to recent industry estimates, nearly 1,900 officers have been saved from death or serious injury because they were wearing body armor. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 709 police officers were killed in the line of duty between 1985 and 1994. Of those, a firearm killed 92 percent. In 1996, 117 police officers were killed while on duty. In real terms, two officers are shot every 24 hours and one police officer is killed every 52 hours. It is clear to me that we need to make body armor available to the men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line everyday for us. This legislation will give every law enforcement official the ability to have a bullet-resistant vest.
Page 289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Sheriff's Association fully supports this legislation. Increasingly, sheriffs and their deputies find themselves in situations that require a bullet-resistant vest. Loudoun County, Virginia was once a small, rural area with little crime. It was a sleepy community nestled far away from the problems and crime that plagued Washington, D.C. area. However, Loudoun County is no longer the remote area that it was once considered, the sticks. In fact, Loudoun County is the fastest-growing county in the Nation. We face the same problems that the Washington, D.C. area faces—a booming population, bold criminals, and a rising tide in violence. This is a national trend.
As people move from the cities to the suburbs and beyond, the problems once confined to the innercity has slowly made their way to the suburbs. This is why we need state-of-the-art crime-fighting equipment, including bullet-resistant body armor. Unfortunately, equipping an entire department with body armor is expensive and this legislation will help to defray the tremendous of body armor. Fortunately, for my deputies, I was able to negotiate with the County Board of Supervisors a budget plan for the acquisition of this vital equipment.
Members of the committee, far too often an agency plays the odds. Smaller departments cannot afford body armor so they gamble and pray that no one gets killed. Often an officer buys his own vest as a personal safety measure and at great expense. An individual vest can cost as much as $1,000. The least we can do for the men and women who put their lives on the line for us is give them the tools they need to do their job safely.
We need this legislation. The measure is widely supported by both the House and the Senate. As you know, Senator Campbell, a former deputy sheriff sponsored a companion legislation in the Senate. That measure passed with overwhelming majority and we look forward to the House to pass this measure overwhelmingly also.
Page 290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you this morning and I'd be happy to work with the committee and answer any questions anybody might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SIMPSON, SHERIFF, LOUDON COUNTY, VA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on this very important subject. Today we will be discussing a life and death issue for law enforcement—access to bullet resistant vests. H.R. 2829, the ''Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act,'' is landmark legislation that will empower law enforcement officers across the nation.
My name is Stephen Simpson and I am the Sheriff of Loudoun County, VA. I have 18 years of experience in law enforcement. I have been with the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office for 10 years. I am an active member of the National Sheriffs' Association and have served in all aspects of law enforcement including corrections, communications, criminal investigations, and patrol.
Let me begin by stating unequivocally that law enforcement needs this legislation. Simply stated, body armor saves lives. According to recent industry estimates, nearly 1,900 officers have been saved from death or serious injury because they were wearing their armor. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 709 police officers were killed in the line of duty between 1985 and 1994. Of those, a firearm killed 92%. In 1996, 117 police officers were killed while on duty. In real terms, two officers are shot every twenty-four hours and one police officer is killed every fifty-two hours. It is clear to me that we should make body armor available to the men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day for us and this legislation will give every law enforcement official the ability to have a bullet resistant vest.
Page 291 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Sheriffs' Association fully supports this legislation. Increasingly, sheriffs and their deputies find themselves in situations that require a bullet resistant vest. Loudoun County, VA was once a small rural area with little crime. It was a sleepy community nestled far away from the problems and crime that plague Washington, D.C. However, Loudoun County is no longer the remote area that was once considered the ''sticks.'' In fact, Loudoun County, VA is the fastest growing county in America and we face the same problems that Washington faces—a booming population, bold criminals and a rising tide of violence. And this is a national trend. As people move from the cities to the suburbs and beyond, the problems once confined to the inner city have slowly made their way to the suburbs. That is why we need state of the art crime fighting equipment including bullet resistant body armor.
Unfortunately, equipping an entire department with body armor is expensive and this legislation will help defray the tremendous costs of body armor. Fortunately for my deputies, I was able to negotiate with the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors a budget plan for the acquisition of this vital equipment.
Mr. Chairman, far too often, an agency plays the odds. Smaller departments cannot afford body armor, so they gamble and pray that no one gets killed. Often, an officer buys his own vest as a personal safety measure and at great expense. An individual vest can cost as much $1,000. The least we can do for the men and women who put their lives on the line for us is give them the tools they need to do their jobs safely. We need this legislation. The measure is widely supported in both the House and the Senate. As you know, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a former deputy sheriff, sponsored companion legislation in the Senate. That measure has passed with an overwhelming majority and we look to the House to pass this measure overwhelmingly also.
Page 292 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this morning. I look forward to working with the committee and answering any questions you may have.
Mr. BUYER [presiding]. Thank you very much for your testimony. I noticed during, Mr. Simpson, during earlier testimony there was reference to traffic stops and domestic violence and you started shaking your head. Tell me about the growing need there. There must be some personal experience.
Mr. SIMPSON. Well, just having spent the majority of my career as a patrol officer, I know what we face on the street everyday. I don't sit in an office all day myself, either, in this position. It seems like the roads are a lot more violent these days than they used to be. You walk up to a car you don't know whose going to be in that car. Just because it's a teenager or a little lady behind the wheel doesn't mean you're not going to get shot; you don't know. The road rage issue has really taken off. We've had a number of those. In fact, this past week it made the national news because of the violence involved in them.
Having been out there every day for as many years as I have been involved and going on domestic complaints. More police officers are hurt and killed in domestic complaints than any other complaints they can respond to.
You don't know what you're going to face. You go into a situation where it's a husband and wife fighting and you're there at the wife's request to help her. You go to lock the husband up and then all of a sudden there's bread and butter going out the door, or her husband going out the door, or the father of her children going out the door—and she doesn't want you to do it all of a sudden. You're liable to get yourself in a bad situation.
Page 293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BUYER. When you know your officers are going to a ''bad situation,'' are they required to wear the vest?
Mr. SIMPSON. It's not mandatory, but I would have to say that probably 98 percent of the people on the department wear them. They're issued to everyone.
Mr. BUYER. What about patrolmen? Same?
Mr. SIMPSON. Same thing. Yes, sir. You'll be hard-pressed to find a patrol officer that doesn't wear a vest. Some of the older guys who've been around for a long time that are bullet-proof and glow-in-the-dark, I guess, don't always see it that way but——
Mr. BUYER.—I almost had the Forrest Gump jump in mind ''stupid is as stupid does.''
Mr. SIMPSON. Amen.
Mr. BUYER. If you're going to walk into a bad situation and not wear the body armor—is that the theme you basically give them?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BUYER. Both the National League of Cities and International Association of Chiefs of Police have written letters to the subcommittee expressing concerns about the source of the $25 million for the legislation. Should we ask for both of your opinions. Should this money be taken out of a block grant program? Basically, we're sending money back to your jurisdiction and letting you decide what, in fact, are the needs instead of us telling you what we think your emergent need is. Both this legislation runs incongruence. Would you please provide your opinion?
Page 294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TEODORSKI. If I could respond, Mr. Buyer—I would not want officer safety to be a decision. Clearly, the issue of whether a vest, or a radio, or some other item be purchased, should not be a decision that somebody should be making. It should be a given that that officer be provided that vest. Because of limited resources, some decisions will be made that compromise an officer's safety. So I would speak against the block grant because I think it should be a given that every officer should wear a vest. But more importantly, I think what this legislation speaks to is—and I've dealt with the manufacturer of the Kevlar—the wearability and the length of the life of a vest. I think this is another issue. Not only having the vest and having the opportunity to wear one, but there's a life expectancy to this vest. Officers who are spending their own money and departments spending their own money for these vests—have to look at replacement. That's when down the road, somebody may make that decision again that the monies are not there. That's another critical issue that this legislation addresses.
Mr. SIMPSON. I agree. A vest is a unique piece of equipment. It's a lifesaving matter. When left up to governing bodies, sometimes of small towns or small counties, and they can put another officer on the street; or they can buy another radar unit that generates revenue—things like that, they don't always see the importance of buying that piece of equipment—of buying a vest. I think it would be better to have something that was more specific, that didn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room when it comes to making a purchase.
Mr. BUYER. Well, that's Pete Visclosky and Frank LoBionde have introduced this. I mean, both of you, I'm in agreement with. I'm a co-sponsor of this legislation because I recognize since exactly what you said, but I'm also trying to figure out what's the best way to fund this. Because I think when you hand your officers, a new officer, a weapon he ought to be issued a bullet-proof vest at the same time. It ought to be part of the standard equipment. You're going to give them a police car—I mean it should come: Here's your shotgun; here's your sidearm; here's your nightstick; here's your bullet-proof vest. It's part of the gear.
Page 295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SIMPSON. I agree.
Mr. BUYER. It's almost like sending soldiers into battle without a helmet. I mean, to me, it's like, ''Excuse me where's my Hevlar?'' So I'm rather—I was more shocked that—that I was taking for granted that a lot of communities in America were leaning forward and providing it for their police officers. When I learned there wasn't, then obviously we have an emergent pressing need. That's why I co-sponsored it. Now it's figuring out what is the best way to do this and how do we get it funded.
Let me ask this question, because this one that's beginning to bother me. I don't think there's ever been a definition on what is rural versus big. I don't know—see, we went and we did the Boys' and Girls' Club legislation last fall to expand 2,500 Boys' and Girls' Clubs across America by the year 2000, as a Republican Congress initiative in crime prevention, getting mentors close to the community. It's an excellent way in prevention programs. We had a breakoff in there to access communities of 50,000 and under access to the seed money. Now we have legislation that makes the cutoff at 100,000.
I'll even be honest with you—where do we get $50,000? It was sort of arbitrary. This is, too. I'm trying to figure out, where do you think the best cutoff is?
Now let's go by way of safety. You cite to us some numbers and those of whom have died and the greatest threat. Where do you think the cutoff should be made here for us on allocation of funds? Do you think saying that 100,000 and below get 50 percent of the funds; and 100,000 above, get 50 percent of the funds? Do you have an opinion as to if that's a correct benchmark or not based on safety and threat?
Page 296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SIMPSON. I have an opinion. There are other unique situations. I don't know that you can really just say based totally on population. We're rather unique, I guess, in the rapid way that we're growing. In a pipeline over the next five to 8 years is 52,000 housing units already approved to be built which will, even if only two people move into each one of those houses, will double our population, which is now at about 130,000 people.
Mr. BUYER. What's your largest city?
Mr. SIMPSON. Leesburg, town of Leesburg.
Mr. BUYER. You're talking about 130 for the entire county.
Mr. SIMPSON. Correct. Right.
Mr. BUYER. So you'd come under the smaller category.
Mr. SIMPSON. Right. But that's expected to be a quarter of a million in about five to 8 years. To try to keep up with that growth is going to be very difficult. So it may be the burden that's placed on some. Some credence needs to be given, I think, to the burden that's placed on a jurisdiction. Not strictly by size, or by crime rate, or by number of officers, or whatever but maybe the growth rate—the rapid growth rate that they're experiencing. That might factor into it, as well. I don't know that you can just say ''X'' number of population.
Page 297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BUYER. I bring this up because I'm curious about this. We should almost do a threat assessment. That's what we do on the National Security Committee when we put together our national military strategy based on threat assessments. So if we're going to do this just based on pure population, we have rural areas—take a rural county that has an interstate going through versus a rural county that does not, or is out by itself. Hey, that one that's got the interstate going through it; sometimes our county sheriffs like to sneak out on the interstate, but there is an increase because of the drug traffic. They find a parallel route along with the interstates and we've got drug trafficking happening in some of those. I just thought I'd put it on the table.
Mr. SIMPSON. If you could look at—if I could just to further on that—looking statistically at domestic complaints being where most officers are hurt and killed, that could be anywhere. That could be a town of 200, or a large city of 10,000. I think it's hard to put a—you know, you can add other things in sure like highways, and like Dulles Airport's in Loudoun County, for example, a big international airport. You can look at those things, too. But when you look at statistically where most officers are hurt and killed, it's in houses, in residential areas. You know, you can have just as bad a situation in the backwoods in somebody's house as you can in the city.
Mr. BUYER. Well, this leads to, once you do your threat assessment, then you talk about your requirements and your need. Then you're going to say, okay, we have different types of bullet-proof vests out there. What kinds? What do you need? Where do you think the threats are? Explain—help me out there with regard to what's happening.
Mr. TEODORSKI. Well, if I could—with regard to your first question, Mr. Buyer, I would agree with what you had stated earlier, I think the vests should be just an initial item just like the badge, the gun. The assessment should not be made on population. The threat is the same and I come from a rural community. I have a unique position. Not only have I been a law enforcement officer, I am now the mayor of a small, rural community representing three police officers within the municipality I live in. Whether it is in a small community where I come from in Pennsylvania; some of my colleagues here next to me in the State of Ohio; or if they come from Washington, D.C.—the threat is the same because the issues are the same.
Page 298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A domestic violence issue, a road stop, there's an interstate that goes through our area; the threat is the same. I would hope that the issue does not come down to geography, but just strictly a safety issue. I believe as you had stated it should be a mandatory piece of issued equipment.
To your other question, I believe the NIJ studies provides the right standards for the bullet-proof vests. I think there is the standard that should be adopted. The studies have been extensive and I believe that's where we should look for what standards are going to be used.
Mr. BUYER. I don't mean to belabor this, but tell what is the sense out there of why soft body armor is not being used as part of the standard operating equipment? I would think your associations would be jumping up and down on behalf of your members.
Mr. SIMPSON. Because the people who make the decisions as to how much money and when to get money are not the people who wear the vests.
Maybe if I can expand on that and why I feel this legislation is so important, because it not only speaks about the issue but, you know, the life and durability of the vest. Some vests are much more comfortable to wear than newer vests. The vests that are now being introduced into the market are much more comfortable to wear. There was an issue as to, particularly in some southern areas and high humidity areas, the uncomfortableness of the vest. Unfortunately, some individuals chose not to wear the vest because of the weight, being uncomfortable, et cetera. The new vests that are out there, soft body armor, has addressed those areas. They're much more comfortable to wear. They just make it a more easy piece of equipment to wear. More officers are wearing the new lighter-weight vest than some of the vests—I know the vests that were used in the State police, people on SWAT teams almost had to wear the same type of vest. They were heavy. They were bulky. I wore plain clothes. It's difficult enough when you're in uniform, but to wear a vest of that thickness and weight just was really—unfortunately you may make a decision that you may not wear that type of heavy body armor.
Page 299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BUYER. In Loudoun County, how many deputies do you have?
Mr. SIMPSON. Two hundred.
Mr. BUYER. Of the 200, how many have bullet-proof vests.
Mr. SIMPSON. They all do.
Mr. BUYER. How did you pay for that? How did you get the money to pay for your bullet-proof vests?
Mr. SIMPSON. Well, it was through the budget. We convinced the board that—basically what you said a minute ago, that every time you give someone a uniform, a badge and a gun, you give them a vest, as well. We just put it as a priority. We gave up some other things to do that and it didn't happen overnight, but we are at a point now where all 200 people have a vest—all 200 sworn people. We just made it a high-priority budget issue. We were able to do that. But like I say, we had to sacrifice some other things along the way to get there.
Mr. BUYER. How long ago was that decision made—to fund the vests?
Mr. SIMPSON. Five years.
Page 300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BUYER. All right. Since that 5-year time period that we had the law enforcement block grants, communities can access the law enforcement block grants to pay for the bullet-proof vests right now. That's what I now have to question and say if we have a process right now where they can access those monies, you know, do we need this separate piece of legislation. How are we going to get the monies to pay for it? Am I going to have to take away from one program to put in?
Mr. SIMPSON. I'm sorry.
Mr. BUYER. We presently have that right now.
Mr. SIMPSON. I think the unique nature of the piece of equipment puts it in a category of its own. Like I say, we as law enforcement need your help. Because, quite frankly, when it comes down to putting another officer on the street, or like I stated a minute ago, or buying that radar unit that generates revenue for the government—for the county government or town government, or whatever—the people who make the decisions within those communities are within the governments and the localities have a different sense of priorities in a lot of cases than the law enforcement people who have to go out there everyday and need that vest. I guess is a blunt as I can put it, Mr. Buyer.
Mr. BUYER. I know.
Mr. TEODORSKI. Mr. Buyer, if I——
Mr. SIMPSON. I don't know if that helps or not, but that's——[Laughter.]
Page 301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BUYER. That's pronounced ''Buyer.''
Mr. TEODORSKI. I'm sorry, ''Buyer''—I'm sorry, Mr. Buyer. Mr. Buyer, if I could respond—I think all you have to do is look at New York City. New York City had that same opportunity for block grants and yet the police department had to seek private funds to get vests.
Mr. BUYER. I guess. Wow. The thing I've been—this is my second wow this morning. [Laughter.]
I've been a prosecutor and I've been a defense lawyer. I know and see what police officers do everyday. It's really disturbing to me that there are communities out there that are placing their officers at risk when they sleep in silence at night based on the security for which you provide. That's pretty stunning to me. I mean, this is legislation that convinces Members of Congress. Yet if we get convinced on this, how come our county council or county commissioners aren't convinced to provide that as standard operating equipment? What we up here have to guard against is when you're a guardian also of the public treasury, there are many emergent needs. You can go down a laundry list of over 1 million items. We could be approached by one community, for example, saying, ''We don't have the money to buy any more patrol cars. So we want you now, the Federal Government, to start providing patrol cars.'' Or some community out there says, ''Well, we're just going to take guns away from our officers. We're going to be more peaceful.''
So what we're going to have the Federal Government now providing weapons. I don't know. I mean, you can use your imagination. I just want to let you know we have to guard against sometimes, too, the run at the public treasury. By way of your association, I would ask both your associations to be more vocal. I really would. I would, even more so. I don't know what it would take to wake up commissioners and county council on that issue.
Page 302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I appreciate your testimony today. It is most helpful. Thank you gentlemen.
Mr. TEODORSKI. Thank you.
Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you.
Mr. BUYER. The hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
| Converse Police Department, |
| Converse, IN, October 23, 1997. |
Hon. STEVE BUYER,
House of Representatives,
Washington DC.
DEAR SIR: I've read your letter of Oct. 10, 1997 several times in the past two weeks. I had no prior knowledge of the National Center in Arkansas until receiving your letter. Without more information, I feel that this money would not benefit rural law enforcement to any great degree. My reasons for this opinion are as follows:
Page 303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. As in all government agencies, rural law enforcement is faced with financial constraints and lack of manpower.
2. When I take training, I try to limit myself to one day classes to avoid leaving my town unprotected for any extended period of time.
3. My department is allocated $600.00 per year for training. This amount would barely get me to Arkansas and back.
I feel that most rural law enforcement agencies in Indiana have the same problems that my department does.
After serving for twenty years as a police officer in Marion, IN and two years in my current position, I am convinced that enforcing the law is the same in both urban and real communities; only the circumstances and crime scenes are different.
Any information that the National Center determines to be useful from it's studies could be disseminated to state and regional training centers such as the North Central Indiana Law Enforcement Training Center located at the Grissom Aeroplex.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in this matter.
Best Wishes,
Page 304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
| Paul Hillsamer, |
| Converse Town Marshal. |
| Sheriff Boston L. Pritchett, |
| Benton County, October 23, 1997. |
Hon. STEVE BUYER,
Member of Congress,
5th district, Indiana,
Washington, DC.
Re: National Center for Rural Law Enforcement (NCRLE)
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BUYER, I am state-certified firearms instructor and state-certified in-service police instructor. You and I met on the firing range at Jim Reinholt's residence.
My primary responsibility with the BCSD is training. Speaking for my self, and not necessarily representing Sheriff Pritchett, I am opposed to funding for the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement.
With 10,000 people over 414 square miles, our county must be, by any definition, considered rural. Yet our police issues are very much ''urban.'' In the past two years, we have had a sheriff's deputy shot in the face by a drug courier and a city police officer shot during a domestic dispute.
Page 305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Two days ago we had a city police car riddled with assault rifle fire (16 to 20 rounds of 7.62x39mm) when the officer responded to a complaint at a bar. The suspect was a meth chemist and cocaine user. Due strictly to training provided at the local level, the officer survived.
I do not want training for my deputies lumped into the hick category of ''rural'' law enforcement as if that was different from ''real'' law enforcement. The implication is clear, even if the intent is not . . . somehow ''rural'' means ''less.'' I want for my deputies exactly the same level of training as is available to the New York City Police, the Los Angeles County Sheriff, the Texas Highway Patrol and the US Border patrol. We all face the same felons. We all face the same threats. I have been to the scene of two officer shootings. We all bleed the same color.
The non-rural police departments have exactly the same needs as the rural departments. We may lack resources like staff instructors and may lack the latest firearms facilities and paved EVOC driving courses. However, the solution is not to be handed off to a second fiddle ''rural'' training center.
The solution is to gain access to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Brunswick, GA or the FBI Academy at Quantico, VA in something less than a two year waiting list. The solution is not to divide law enforcement into rural and non-rural, as if there were legitimate differences. Instead, combine them under the same banner. They face the same problems, separated only by time. The meth labs from Los Angeles were in Kansas five years later. The tar heroin from New York City four years ago is in Indiana now. The LAPD squad cars absolutely riddled with rifle fire earlier this year look exactly like the Fowler, IN police cruiser earlier this week. Make more slots available to ''local'' law enforcement, especially small and rural departments at these top-notch institutions.
Page 306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The NCRLE, in spite of the best intentions, will become nothing other than the Barney Fife Police Academy in terms of cutting-edge, street survival techniques and the ability to attract top-notch instructors. Instead, put the same money to use increasing the staff and facilities at the real National-level police training centers so that they can handle more officers. Increase the through-put. Decrease the waiting list. Keep the same world-class emphasis.
As another option to the NCRLE, divide the money intended for the NCRLE among the states for use in their already existing central and regional academies. Congressman, I know your views on state's rights. And agree with them. Beef up the state and regional training academies across the country.
Travel and lodging expenses are just a small part of the impact on the small department. With 50 percent of the police departments having a staff strength of 10 or less, time away from the street while at training is a major issue. A full travel day to go, and a full day to return, serves to limit training. This is worthwhile for two-week instructor-level course at FLETC, but may not be for a two-day traffic vehicle stop course. For street-wise courses like this, this regional and state academies make more sense. Expand the availability of these programs. Obtain funding for facility upgrades. Implement a diverse array of street-survival and the threat-awareness training. Make it easy for officers to get training.
The NCRLE is not the answer to the needs of rural and small departments. We need the same thing that all officers need . . . relevant training, frequent training, effective training, high-quality training. Training dollars are in very short supply and I appreciate your fiscal prudence. Please be constructive, and not symbolic, as you struggle to resolve this issue.
Page 307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sincerely,
| Edwin J. Sanow, Corporal, |
| State-certified Firearms Instructor. |
| Indiana State Police, |
| Office of the Superintendent |
| Indianapolis, IN, November 3, 1997. |
Hon. Steve Buyer,
Representative in Congress,
5th District, Indiana,
Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BUYER: I recently received your correspondence on H.R. 1524, regarding the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement. After a review and research by personnel in our Training Division it appears that we have not used this center for training since its establishment in 1995. I am very supportive of education and training for all police officers and understand the need for more training for rural law enforcement officers.
Officers from our department as well as personnel from the he Indiana Law Enforcement Academy offer basic and in-service training for officers at the academy and at five (5) regional centers throughout Indiana. Management training is required under Indiana statue and is conducted for all new chiefs and sheriffs at the Academy. Unfortunately, training for local town marshals is not as in-depth due in large part to these smaller jurisdictions not wanting the additional training.
Page 308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Most states have police academies that serve all officers with continued education and training programs. Generally, a lack of adequate funding limits the amount and quality of training programs offered for rural law enforcement. If the states were given additional funding specifically marked for training programs for rural law enforcement, the result should help all law enforcement with current crime problems. It also seems that the need for a new center for law enforcement training is redundant, since local, county and state law enforcement personnel may attend the FBI National Academy and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to receive specialized and management training. The training programs offered at these training centers are at no cost, or minimal cost to the attending law enforcement officers.
I hope this information helps you in your consideration of H.R. 1524. If I may be of further assistance, contact me at (317) 232–8241.
Sincerely,
| Melvin J. Carraway, |
| Superintendent. |
| Kokomo Police Department |
| Kokomo, IN, November 5, 1997. |
Hon. STEVE BUYER,
United States Congress,
Washington, DC.
Page 309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CONGRESSMAN BUYER: The Kokomo Police Department and the other police departments in this area wish to thank you for your efforts to better inform us of any possible funding for a training center that would benefit our police department.
I have carefully examined H.R. 1524, the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act, and have found that in no way does the $12 million expenditure for a National Center for Rural Law Enforcement help us with our training needs. Having a training center located in northwestern Arkansas, meeting the needs of the specific problems that they must deal with there, does little for us and our training needs.
I therefore, respectfully request that you express that the needs of your constituency would certainly not benefit from the passage of H.R. 1524.
Respectfully,
| Charles S. Hackett, |
| Chief of Police. |
| Lake County Sheriff, |
| Lake County, IN, October 22, 1997. |
Hon. STEVE BUYER,
5th District, Indiana,
Washington, DC.
Page 310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BUYER: Thank you for your letter dated October 10, 1997 expressing interest in our training situation. I hope information I provide will be helpful in reaching a conclusion on this vital issue.
First, none of our personnel have ever obtained training from The National Center for Rural Law Enforcement. In fact, your correspondence provided me with my first knowledge of the organization.
As for our current training programs, The Northwest Indiana Law Enforcement Training Center (NILETC), located on The Indiana University Northwest Campus, is our primary provider. Formed in 1982, NILETC was the model for all the other training centers in Indiana.
Our unmet training needs center on obtaining a basic law enforcement academy for all of Northwest Indiana. At present, all of our recruits are trained at The Indiana Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in Plainfield, Indiana. The problem with this training program is the curriculum is too ''generic''. There is not enough focus on the specific crime problems in Northwest Indiana, i.e., gangs, drugs, and domestic violence. An additional problem is class size Most police recruit classes in the United States are 30 to 50 people. The Plainfield Academy has classes from 120 to 160 recruits.
Finally, if there were little or no cost to my Department, I could participate in programs with the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement. At present, I am paying a $700.00 per officer, per year assessment to NILETC, providing a full-time administrator and vehicle to NILETC, and paying for additional training programs given out of state for specialized training not offered at NILETC. My training expenditures are well over $100,000.00 per year.
Page 311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I hope this correspondence will aid you in your decision-making process. If I can provide you with any additional information or assistance, please contact me.
Respectfully,
| John Buncich, |
| Sheriff of Lake County, IN. |
| City of Warsaw, |
| Department of Police, |
| Warsaw, IN, September 19, 1997. |
Hon. STEVE BUYER,
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BUYER: I have received the latest list of the cosponsors of H.R. 1524 and noticed that your name was not on the list yet. I was hoping that you would support H.R. 1524. This is an important piece of legislation for rural policing in America.
Since I last talk with Brandt Hershman, as well as correspondence to you, the Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police (''IACP'') has made law enforcement chief executive training a priority. Nothing is in place in Indiana, except for what the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement has and is providing. At the IACP Conference this last June I became aware of the priority that the IACP is putting on law enforcement executive training. I have enclosed the ''President's Message from the recent newsletter of the IACP. Pay close attention to (D).
Page 312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a member of the board of the North Central Indiana Law Enforcement Training Council (''NCILETC'') I know that the regional sites are also not doing executive training. The focus of the NCILETC is geared toward state mandated training and issues affecting the line officer. Nothing is in place for the executive-except for what the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement is doing.
I would encourage your support and co-sponsoring of H.R. 1524 and would welcome any questions or concerns you might have. As a Congressman in rural America, I believe should be a priority for you in your support of law enforcement and the law enforcement executive.
Sincerely,
| Craig J. Allebach, |
| Cheif of Police. |
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE—GEOFF L. ROBISON, NEW HAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT
I would like to start my first article in The Command Quarterly by thanking you, the membership, for your gracious support of my candidacy for President of the Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police during our summer conference in South Bend this past June. I am sincerely looking forward to serving the IACP over the next twelve months. I know it will likely be the most challenging year of my career.
Page 313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have an abundance of priority matters before us as an organization in the upcoming year. The challenges as I see them include:
(A) Continuing to carry out the various elements of the Strategic Plan that was implemented in Chief Gann's tenure.
(B) Continued development of planning that would see D.A.R.E. Indiana become a self-sufficient program with continued oversight by the IACP, in the very near future.
(C) Continue to develop and strengthen our already strong legislative effort for the upcoming legislative period.
(D) And, to see our plans through to develop and implement an Executive Law Enforcement Training Initiative to complement the Statutory Police Chiefs' School at the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy.
As you can see, we intend to stay very busy conducting the business of the IACP in the immediate future.
As I am writing this article, I have just returned home from a law enforcement summit in Indianapolis that was put together by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and hosted by the Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police and the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The focus of the summit was to reduce the incidence of domestic violence incidents involving police officers. The participants in this summit included representatives ranging from small town police agencies, large police agencies over 100,000 population, a county sheriff, and some judges, as well as the superintendent of the Indiana State Police. Also included were advocates from different support groups and programs that intercede in domestic violence issues, as well as some victims of domestic violence whose spouses were law enforcement officers. The group worked diligently for two days to develop a model policy that agencies, small or large, will be able to consider for implementation in their own organizations. I must tell you that these were the most exhausting two days I have spent in a very long time. The time has come for law enforcement to address this burning issue, and it was very gratifying to see the IACP involved in this initiative. I would like to thank the executive staff for all their hard work in facilitating this summit, and I would like to especially recognize Chief Art Gann of Evansville for his foresight in approaching the International Association of Chiefs of Police to allow us to co-host this summit in Indiana.
Page 314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In closing, I would like to remind the membership that the International Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Conference is coming up in October (25–30). It's not only being held in a great location—Orlando, Florida—but it's very significant to the IACP in 1997 because Indiana has slated a candidate for sixth vice president of the International Association. Chief Bill Sudbury of the Munster Police Department, as most of you know, is our candidate and we need your presence, your support, as well as your vote to see Bill elected. If there's any way at all possible for you to attend this great meeting, please make your plans now. Rooms are still available in our room block, if needed, and all you need to do is contact the IACP Executive Director Michael F. Ward (at the Indianapolis headquarters).
| Indiana Sheriffs' Association, Inc., |
| Indianapolis, IN, September 18, 1997. |
Hon. STEVE BUYER,
House of Representitives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BUYER: The Sheriffs of Indiana, at our recent annual conference, passed and adopted the enclosed resolution in support of a National Center for Rural Law Enforcement and requested that I forward a copy of it to you for your consideration and support.
The majority of the sheriffs in Indiana serve in what are considered rural areas with 45 sheriffs serving in counties of less than 30,000 population and another 24 sheriffs serving in counties under 60,000. It is therefore the opinion of the sheriffs in Indiana that a National Center for Rural Law Enforcement that would have input and oversight by local rural law enforcement officials, could provide significant benefits to sheriffs in dealing with local crime problems and related issues.
Page 315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you have any questions concerning the resolution or any other issues we can assist you with, please advise. Thank you in advance for consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
| John O. Catey, |
| Executive Director. |
| Indiana Sheriffs' Association, Inc., |
| Indianapolis, IN, September 10, 1997. |
RESOLUTION
NATIONAL CENTER FOR RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND H.R. 1524
Whereas, the Indiana Sheriffs' Association supports the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement as several Indiana Sheriffs have attended regional conferences to identify the training and technical needs of rural law enforcement agencies nationwide; and
Whereas, more than two hundred law enforcement officials, from rural areas, have attended these regional meetings and validated the need for federal assistance in areas of technical assistance, management training, and the formation of an information clearinghouse for rural law enforcement agencies; and
Page 316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Whereas, the majority of existing local, state, and federal programs are too costly for small rural Sheriff departments and are generally designed to serve the larger law enforcement agencies of the country; and
Whereas, approximately one-third of all Americans live in rural areas, ninety percent of all law enforcement agencies serve populations of less than 25,000 residents, seventy-five percent of all law enforcement agencies serve a population of fewer than 10,000 residents, while rural violent crime has increased over thirty-five percent in the last ten years; and
Whereas, rural law enforcement agencies have staffing limitations and financial limitations which make it difficult to properly train on and/or address the specific crime-related issues facing all rural law enforcement administrators in our country; and
Whereas, we believe that the creation of a National Center for Rural Law Enforcement would enhance and complement present state standards and training and does not duplicate any existing programs.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Indiana Sheriffs' Association strongly support the creation of a National Center for Rural Law Enforcement that would be funded through federal legislation as proposed in H.R. 1524.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the operational control and oversight of the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement would rest upon an Advisory Board made up primarily of Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police from rural law enforcement agencies from each region of the country.
Page 317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
| Terry L. Tanner, President, |
| Indiana Sheriffs' Association. |
| Plymouth Police Department, |
| Plymouth, IN, November 5, 1997. |
Hon. STEVEN BUYER,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Re: Proposed Funding of National Rural Law Enforcement Center: H.R. 1524
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BUYER: I am pleased to provide you with the following information regarding your consideration of the above noted funding proposal. Through this letter, it is my intent to suggest that you and your colleagues support the continuation of funding for the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement.
Earlier this year I had the opportunity to participate in the Rural Executive Management program which was cosponsored by the NRLEC. The ability for me to participate in this training program was greatly enhanced as a direct result of no financial charge to either myself or the City of Plymouth.
On the whole, I found the program to be quite valuable. The beneficial results included an opportunity to discuss many of the problems which now confront law enforcement administrators and personnel throughout the nation, of which are included drugs, gangs and general personnel issues. My participation also allowed me the opportunity to establish contacts with regional law enforcement administrators who may be called upon for future discussions concerning law enforcement issues.
Page 318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the past few years this agency has experienced a significant change in personnel turnover. Presently, greater than 75% of the present personnel work-force have 5 years or less of basic, general law enforcement experience and training with minimal training in the areas of administrative or supervisory management. The problem is anticipated to increase within the next few years as the present, senior management personnel approach retirement. For this reason, one of the immediate training requirements facing us is the ability to provide solid and effective management style training for personnel who will be continuing in this profession over the next 15 to 20 years. With this consideration in mind, I would like to provide you with the following information as it pertains to areas of training presently utilized by this agency.
Our agency operates on an average annual training budget of approximately $10–13 thousand dollars per year, for a staff of 28 employees with the majority of these expenditures designated for sworn personnel. Training providers include certified in-house personnel and continue through local, regional, state and federal agencies as well as various private companies. In an attempt to minimize costs, we have joined forces with other rural and municipal regional agencies in order to form cooperative training programs as in the case of the recently formed North Central Indiana Law Enforcement Center at Grissom. At this point we seem to be at a break-even point in our ability to provide the basic or fundamental training necessary with minimal expenditures available for the much needed management/supervisory training.
It is only through such federally funded programs as those offered through the NRLEC, that we hope to find the means and ability to provide supplemental, specialized training to those officers who will be charged with handling the challenges that are certain to confront them and this community in the next several years.
Page 319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Should you require any further assistance or information regarding this or any other law enforcement matter, please do not hesitate to contact me and I will do my utmost to assist you.
Respectfully submitted,
| Thomas G. Chamberlin, Chief, |
| Plymouth Police Department. |
(Footnote 1 return)
Camp, Camille Graham and Camp, George M., The Corrections Yearbook, 1996. (South Salem, Mass.: Criminal Justice Institute, 1996), p.34.
(Footnote 2 return)
Camp, Camille Graham and Camp, George M., The Corrections Yearbook, 1996, (South Salem, Mass.: Criminal Justice Institute, 1996), p. 34.
(Footnote 3 return)
Camp, Camille Graham and Camp, George M., The Corrections Yearbook, 1996. (South Salem, Mass.: Criminal Justice Institute, 1996), p. 34.
(Footnote 4 return)
Carnp, Camille Graham and Camp, George M., The Correction Yearbook, 1996. (South Salem, Mass.: Criminal Justice Institute, 1996), p.34.