I was scanning the Texas Register today, which is something I don't do often enough (lots of blog fodder), and ran across an interesting pattern: Several regional COGs (Councils of Government) have been meeting this week, many of them yesterday, to evaluate recommendations for spending the enlarged Byrne grant fund that was part of the federal stimulus package.
A helpful gal from from the Deep East Texas Council of Goverments filled me in on what was happening with the federal criminal stimulus money from a local perspective. The process began, she said, with eligible agencies - police, sheriffs, juvenile probation departments, etc. - sending proposals directly to the Governor's Criminal Justice Division. The governor's office then forwarded all proposals from their region to the appropriate COG and asked them to prioritize them (the Deep Easts Texas COG will receive $870,796.12, she meticulously informed me.)
For many years, virtually all federal Byrne grants in Texas went to pay for regional drug task forces like the one in the infamous Tulia drug stings or the Hearne task force whose drug sweep in a black neighborhood inspired the movie American Violet. Now, though, the money is much more widely dispersed, with 46 drug courts receiving funding in 2008 according to the annual report (pdf) from the Governor's Criminal Justice division. The Governor's office received just more than $7.5 mllion in federal Byrne grants to distribute in 2008, an amount that had declined every year under President Bush, who opposed the program.
I asked around and was told the practice of vetting Byrne grant proposals through the COGs is a new, one-time mechanism for deciding how to spend the criminal-justice related stimulus grants. In years past, Byrne spending has been exclusively the Governor's prerogative. After the regional drug task forces were gone, some Byrne money went to projects like drug courts and diversion programs while a bunch of it went for the Governor's much-ballyhooed border security grants.
Now, though, we're talking about a whole lot more money. Last year, the Governor only handed out $7,569,174 in Byrne money. This year, on top of that usual amount, the Governor received $90,295,777 in federal Byrne Justice Assistance Grant money. Of that, Perry is distributing $40 million through the COGs and will decide how to spend the remainder through his own Criminal Justice Division. Which raises a sticky political question:
Should the Governor allow COGS do decide how all the extra Byrne stimulus money will be spent, or was Perry right to hold back the majority of criminal justice stimulus funds for spending on his own priorities? That's certainly his prerogative, but I'm not sure he has a better plan than the locals for how to spend that money.
I sent requests via email to several of the COGS for examples of what's being requested, and also emailed an open records request to the Governor for a master list of Texas projects seeking Byrne grant funds. I'll keep tracking this process as it moves forward. That's a lot of new pork to distribute and I hope the Governor spends it wisely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
14 comments:
I fear, as I think Grits does, that the Gov will use the funds for political advantage and pet projects of allies.
The process of allocating the funds would probably have a lot more transparency if allocated to the COG's to allocate. They may also be used in a constructive manner consistent with the intent of the stimulous funding in the first place.
This needs to be watched carefully to see how the Gov allocates the portion of funds he controls.
I see more toll roads on our horizon...
12:48 - do you really expect the governor to give the money to his political enemies?
FYI - it's a political world out there where the practice is and always has been to reward your friends and punish your enemies.
Plato
2:07, of course he won't give it to his enemies, but there are good and bad ideas among his friends. We should watch carefully whether the money goes to the ideas or to the friends. Come to think of it, even when the idea is good, we should watch whether the money is actually used for the stated purpose (including that distributed by the COGs).
Rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies may be useful politics but it sure makes for bad policy -- and punishes the whole state in returne for political gain. Governing is about producing a better, fairer, and safer society with a relatively stabile economy in the name of public interest rather than personal power.
It seems that politics as usual (underhanded, dishonest, and deceitful policy and favoritism) got us into the mess we are in today.
But perhaps transparency and honesty in the public interest is too much to hope for in Texas.
I'm curious if he'll (Gov.Perry)end up having to fork it over to cover the sh--t load of wrongfully convicted humans headed his way? $80K, plus, plus each adds up fast. 40 rec. $50K so far & that's just the DNA cases.
Or will the state issue I.O.U's. w/ 3% int?
My concern about "more" policemen in San Antonio is their major assignment will be to scrutinize our drivers, residents and visitors, until we are all indebted to the City or have given up driving. Our State already has onerous fees attached to simple driving offenses. All we need is for everyone to stop before turning right and have all right hand turns. That might might bankrupt the signal businesses and the builders of jails. SA officers have already ticketed supporters of our public television station and visitors for parking where it should be legal. We ticket drivers thousands of dollars and reduce it to several hundred thinking we are doing them a favor. If additional policemen are added through the "stimulus" plan - (what the plan is stimulating is still unknown to me) - let them work on the gangs and drug cartels to prevent further infiltration and their additional deadly handiwork. Otherwise, save the money. We are building an economy on traffic tickets. That is shameful.
As someone who has dealt with grant process both through the COGs and directly through the Governor's Office, Criminal Justice Division, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. COGs are politicol entitities, just as the Governor's office is. Splitting up the Byrne money to be distributed between the 2 actually makes the most sense to me, particularly when there are both statewide projects that are better funded from a statewide office and regional/local projects that are better prioritized on the local level.
What I cannot understand is why COG's get ANY of the fed's money to begin with. Isn't this money supposed to be there to help the citizens? Honestly I have never seen a Political organization that did anything to forward the elfare of the citizens, but have seen many that forward their own crooked agenda...
Since the govmint has been printing all that money and spending it like a drunken sailor, Texas might as well blow some of it too. Spend it now before the coming inflation makes it not worth much.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/recoveryJAG/recoveryallocations.html
If you want to see exactly which gov. entities are receiving portions go to this link.
Looked closer at the excel spreadsheet for FY2009 and Texas actually got the following amounts from BJA grants:
Local total $57,234,982
State of Texas $90,295,773
Grand total for Texas $147,530,755
Will be hard to track all the money.
The CJD provided funding to each COG to prioritize. The COG's will hear presentations and review the proposals. They will then rank them and present the rankings to the CJD. It will be the CJD's decision to fund the proposals and to what extent they decide to fund them. Some may get 100% of what was asked and some less. I do not understand why folks think the COG's are directing or determining who will get the funds or how politics plays into it. Call me naive.
What I'm seeing is requests to replace outdated equipment with little or no prioritizing.
Agencies should be required to exhaust their forfeiture money before applying for the grant money. If no, then they should be at a minimum be required to use the forfeiture money as in kind or matching funds.
What do you think?
Post a Comment