Tracking criminal justice spending in federal stimulus grants

Until his newspaper inquired, says the Statesman's Laylan Copelin, the Governor's Criminal Justice Division "ignored state law and his own executive order that require all state agencies and institutions of higher education to be 'accountable and transparent' by posting their stimulus spending reports on their Web sites."

Basically the Criminal Justice Division wasn't publishing required reports about federal stimulus spending on their website. (Respectfully, I've seen more compelling news hooks.) They're there now, though, Copelin notes, though you'd need more information than is provided in the reports to divulge what the money was actually spent on. Writes Copelin:

The governor's office has received about $92.2 million of the $110 million it requested from the federal government for law enforcement purposes. About $81 million has been obligated and $6.8 million disbursed, according to the Comptroller of Public Accounts, which maintains weekly reports of the state's stimulus activities.

According to the Comptroller, criminal justice spending made up about 0.8% of Texas' share of federal stimulus spending, or around $312 million total. Much of the rest goes directly to local governments and won't be disbursed through the Governor's office. See this comprehensive list from the Comptroller of sources of criminal justice money to Texas in the federal stimulus. Notably, several of the application deadlines just passed (e.g., applications for COPS grants are due today), but several more are coming up in the next few weeks.

Do COPS hiring grants make sense in a lousy economy?

According to The Crime Report, the Obama Administration is just about ready to roll out its 21st Century version of Bill Clinton's COPS program, where the feds subsidize local law enforcement payrolls in order to hire more officers, with local taxpayers picking up the tab after three years:

The Justice Department expects to announce within two weeks grants to hire about 5,000 local police officers nationwide under a $1 billion program in the new federal economic stimulus law, says Dave Buchanan, acting director of the federal COPS Office. Buchanan told criminal justice organizations at a meeting Friday in Washington, D.C., that the grants amount to only a small fraction of the $8.3 billion requested by law enforcement agencies nationwide. The Obama administration has pledged to seek funds for 50,000 officers.

Congress required that half of the new officers be in jurisdictions with under 150,000 population. In judging the requests, COPS officials looked at local economic conditions, crime rates, and applicants’ record in community policing, among other factors. To make sure that large departments didn’t get a disproportionate share of officers, no agency will be funded for more than 50 officers or more than 5 percent of the total, Buchanan said.

I wonder, though, if the COPS program makes as much sense in the current economic climate compared to when Bill Clinton backed the same idea in the 1990s?

Back then property values and local budgets were booming ever upward, but today many jurisdictions face a budget crisis that economists predict could stretch on for the next several years. So in the 1990s, it was easy for cities to project that, even if they couldn't afford more officers today, they could reasonably predict they'd have more revenue in a few years time. In the current economic climate, though, where future revenue in many jurisdictions is projected to decline, it could be problematic that, as a requirement of receiving the money, "At the conclusion of federal funding, grantees must retain all sworn officer positions awarded under the ... grant."

Using federal money to hire local officers is somewhat of a shift in priorities for the COPS program, which during the Bush era evolved away from direct hiring grants because conservatives viewed it as a violation of federalist principles. Instead, according to a recent program evaluation (pdf) by the US Office of Inspector General, "the focus of COPS grants in recent years shifted from increasing community policing personnel to meeting law enforcement agencies’ equipment needs and funding methamphetamine initiatives."

What's more, says OIG, it's an open question whether DOJ has remotely enough capacity to meet "the challenge of effectively monitoring thousands of new grants collectively worth billions of dollars with a limited staff" of just four people assigned to grant oversight. That's a troublesome shortcoming at a time when DOJ is expanding the number of COPS grants issued by orders of magnitude.

Compared with the Clinton years, I suspect jurisdictions are being much more careful about taking on long-run obligations in exchange for free money today, or at least they should be. That was Governor Rick Perry's reasoning for rejecting federal stimulus money for unemployment payments - he didn't want Texas to be on the hook for expanded eligibility after the federal money ran out - and the exact same analysis applies to hiring more police officers.

RELATED: Another part of Obama's stimulus the Governor should oppose?

BLOGVERSATION: From the LewRockwell.com Blog, "More federal police state stimulus," and from Drug War Rant, "Toward a National Police Force."

Tracking new federal stimulus money for Texas law enforcement

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.

Another part of Obama's stimulus the Governor should oppose?

We've seen tons of media and blog debate about Texas Governor Rick Perry's decision to reject nearly $600 million in unemployment money from the federal stimulus package, arguing it would obligate the state and employers to continue paying for additional benefits after the short-term stimulus money runs out.

But I've heard nary a peep from the Governor, and very little from anyone else, criticizing new law enforcement grants in Obama's stimulus package with essentially the same structure - a resuscitation of Bill Clinton's COPS program - that similarly require local governments to assume long-term obligations in order to receive short-term stimulus money.

The COPS program pays for new law enforcement positions for each of the first three years, but cities or counties accepting the grants must agree to pick up the tab after that. When Bill Clinton proposed this same plan back in the go-go '90s, many cities had booming budgets from escalating real-estate prices and were willing to bet that city revenue would increase enough in three years to cover new obligations.

In that context, the idea of hiring cops on the layaway plan - hire now, pay later - perhaps seemed more palatable than today. Once these officers are on the payroll for four years, it's politically next to impossible to reduce their number, even though federal rules only require employing them for one extra year beyond the grant.

In the current budget environment, I wonder if cities and counties will be as eager to apply for this particular federal handout given the long-term budgetary strings? My bet is that many cities and counties aren't nearly so optimistic as they were in the '90s that they'll be able to pay for those extra employees three years from now. After all, because of the training and support they need, police officers are among the most expensive employees on the municipal payroll.

Texas hasn't felt the impact of plunging real-estate prices as much as places like Florida or California, but especially local governments are not immune from declining revenue streams and may rightfully be wary of taking on significant budgetary obligations during a period when crime is declining overall and locals perceive no immediate crisis.

These thoughts occurred tome after seeing this news clip from El Paso which mentioned that the county commissioners court will be considering whether to hire new Sheriff's deputies on this new federal layaway plan. That brief mention made me realize such debates must be going on everywhere in the state and nation right now, as local governments must balance whether the public-safety benefits of accepting "free" officers in the short term makes sense for the long-term budgetary health of their community.

From the taxpayers' perspective, the same argument Rick Perry is making against accepting extra federal unemployment benefits applies in spades to the COPS program.

Maybe Governor Perry should have rejected that part of the stimulus money, too?

Will stimulus money let Texas boost prison guard pay?

I've been wondering what the recent injection of federal stimulus money into Texas' state budget might mean for the Department of Criminal Justice's plan to boost prison guard pay by 20%?

The agency is facing a big-picture staffing crisis that seemed insurmountable before the infusion of federal funds. Now, with the federal pork flowing so freely, in theory, at least, the state has enough money to increase guard pay enough to staff up its far-flung system of 112 units,

Governor Perry and some state budget writers have been adamant that stimulus money should not be used for expenses that obligate the state to ongoing, future costs. In that light, raising guard pay by 20% would directly violate that pledge.

But the state could use stimulus money to pay for other expenses and use the difference to offset increased guard pay without technically spending the surplus money, though the net effect would be essentially the same.

According to TDCJ's in-house Connections magazine, boosting guard pay is still the agency's top legislative priority:

Although the Department of Criminal Justice will be seeking additional appropriations for such important items as contraband detection screening and video surveillance technology, enhanced reentry services for releasing offenders and the renovation and repair of existing facilities, salary increases for TDCJ staff remain the agency’s highest legislative priority for new funding, according to Executive Director Brad Livingston.

The Department is seeking an average pay increase of approximately twenty percent for security staff and parole officers and supports an across-the-board pay raise for all other agency employees. The agency is also seeking funding to provide retention bonuses to correctional officers currently employed at or willing to transfer to designated understaffed units, and seeking a change in state law which will make all hazardous duty personnel eligible for the higher rate of hazardous duty pay authorized during the last legislative session. Additionally, the agency is seeking funding to construct three (3) 80-bed officer dormitories, which could be constructed adjacent to three (3) of our most understaffed units.

Meanwhile, TDCJ says the understaffing problem would be even worse without bonuses paid to new hires wiling to work in understaffed units:

Through October 2008, 1,322 recruitment bonus checks had been mailed to new or returning correctional officers who had taken the incentive TDCJ is offering as a way to boost staffing levels at 16 designated facilities. After taxes, the officers generally net between $1,050 and $1,100 each.

New recruits were also given more pay in their initial months through an emergency authorization last year. Those interim measures manged to stave off a full-blown crisis, for now, but did not nearly eliminate the agency's staffing shortage.

TDCJ has estimated it needs nearly $1 billion more per biennium just to safely staff the prisons it operates now, assuming Texas doesn't build any new ones. That wouldn't be a one-time expenditure but something the Lege would be committing taxpayers to pay for ad infinitum.

I have no way to predict the outcome, but it seems to me that's at least an outline of the terms of debate over what happens with guard pay this session.

What law enforcement money was included in final stimulus plan?

Well, despite my most sincere urgings, Congress included a boost to the federal Byrne grant program in its just passed stimulus package. A friend from the prosecutors' camp forwarded the list which included a surprising twist - adding "national, regional, and local non-profit organizations" to the list of eligible grantees for $225 million in competitive grants:

Below (and attached) are the summary of the final compromise bill released last night:

o $2 billion for the Byrne JAG formula grant program;

o $225 million for Byrne competitive grants (see purposes below);

o $225 million for Violence Against Women programs, of which $175 million is for the STOP grants and $50 million is for the transitional housing assistance grants program;

o $1 billion for the COPS Office for the hiring and rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers and civilian public safety personnel. The bill waives the 25% local match and the $75,000 per officer cap;

o $40 million for competitive grants to provide assistance and equipment to local law enforcement along the Southern border and in High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of which $10 million shall be for ATF’s Project Gunrunner;

o $225 million for Indian Country grants (see text below);

o $100 million to be distributed by the Office for Victims of Crime (see text below);

o $125 million for assistance to law enforcement in rural areas (see text below); and

o $50 million for Internet Crimes Against Children initiatives.

Other provisions:

o $2 million for DOJ’s Inspector General’s office (to track the use of the dollars);

o $10 million for management and administration and oversight of programs within the Office on Violence Against Women, the Office of Justice Programs, and the COPS office. No administrative overhead costs shall be deducted by DOJ from these programs;

o DOJ will be required to submit a spend plan to the Hill within 60 days of enactment;

o The conference report text on the Byrne Competitive Grants is as follows: “for competitive, peer-reviewed grants to units of State, local, and tribal government, and to national, regional, and local non-profit organizations to prevent crime, improve the administration of justice, provide services to victims of crime, support critical nurturing and mentoring of at-risk children and youth, and for other similar activities;”

o The report text on the rural law enforcement section reads as follows: “to combat the persistent problems of drug-related crime in rural America. Funds will be available on a competitive basis for drug enforcement and other law enforcement activities in rural states and rural areas, including for the hiring of police officers and for community drug prevention and treatment programs;”

o The report text on the victims’ compensation section reads as follows: “to support State compensation and assistance programs for victims and survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, drunk driving, homicide, and other Federal and state crimes;” and,

o The report text on the tribal assistance reads as follows: “to assist American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, to be distributed under the guidelines set forth by the Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands program. The Department is directed to coordinate with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and to consider the following in the grant approval process: (1) the detention bed space needs of an applicant tribe; and (2) the violent crime statistics of the tribe.”

The bill and report text (explanatory statement) are up on the House Rules website: http://www.rules.house.gov/bills_details.aspx?NewsID=4149.

All of these funds are to be available until September 30, 2010. What, exactly, that means and how, exactly, that provision will be interpreted by the Hill and DOJ will become clearer in the next days and weeks.

So, sometime this year, Governor Perry will get a larger pot of Byrne grant money than in years past and he'll need to dispense it in a relatively short period of time. Even though the section on rural law enforcement specifically authorizes regional drug task forces, I hope Gov. Perry instead spends the money on new drug treatment and prevention programs simultaneously made eligible under the bill, which are needed in rural areas a lot more than some bastard reincarnation of the old, Tulia-style drug task forces.

Stimulus debate foregrounded controversy over Byrne grants

An article at Stateline.org ("Stimulus prompts debate over police funds," Feb. 11) cited some of my past work critical of the federal Byrne grant program, for which $1.2 billion made it into Congress' final stimulus compromise. Proponents see the multijurisdictional drug task forces primarily funded by the program as job creators, but:

Critics say the task forces, because of their unique cross-jurisdictional structure, enjoy virtually unchecked law enforcement power that has been abused in the past and remain unaccountable for how they spend their money.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas in 2002 issued a report cataloguing 17 scandals involving Byrne-funded task forces in the state, including the imprisonment of more than three dozen African-Americans in Tulia, Texas, based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single, white undercover agent. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) in 2003 pardoned 35 of the defendants and authorities later shifted funding away from all Byrne-financed drug task forces in the state.

Now, as Congress reconciles the differences in the House and Senate versions of Obama’s stimulus plan, critics of the Byrne grants say lawmakers should remember incidents like the one in Tulia, Texas, as they consider police funding.

“It’s happening right now, today, in other states. There’s not a doubt in my mind,” said Scott Henson, the former ACLU of Texas official who authored the 2002 report and who favors eliminating the Byrne grant program. Byrne-funded drug task forces, Henson said, are “federally funded, state-managed and locally staffed — which means they’re accountable to no one.”

See related, recent Grits posts:

• Byrne grants: The anti-stimulus

• If Barack Obama wants bipartisanship he should remove Byrne grants from the stimulus program

• Obama shouldn't waste stimulus money on Byrne grants

Byrne grants, the anti-stimulus

I'm disappointed to see that the federal Byrne grant program - which gives block grants to the states to pay for hundreds of regional drug task forces across the country like the one in the infamous Tulia drug stings - made it into the version of the stimulus bill approved by the Senate, though at just one-third the funding level proposed by President Obma. Too bad. Perhaps there's still some remote chance that the program will be eliminated in the conference committee, but I'm not holding my breath.

Perhaps counterintuitively, it's Democrats who insist on propping up this drug war dinosaur, while the GOP has long supported eliminating it as counterproductive pork.

There's nothing stimulating to the economy about the Byrne grant program. It may employ more undercover drug cops, but their job is to disrupt the economy through petty drug arrests, filling up prisons that cost taxpayers instead of bolstering state and local coffers. As I wrote last month, "It really is time for national Democrats in Congress to join Republicans and dump this program, which is a massive driver of racial disparities in state-level incarceration. In some states, 85% of drug arrests are made by Tulia-style drug task forces, predominantly in black communities."

If conference committee members need justification for axing the program, they should watch the documentary film Tulia, Texas, which will air nationwide on PBS tomorrow night, Feb. 10. See Grits' review of the film when it premiered last year at the SXSW film festival, a report from a local, Austin screening, a preview of the film from the Plainview Herald, and a discussion guide for the event (pdf) created by the filmmakers. The show starts at 9 p.m. CST on Austin's KLRU; check local listings.

Stimulus and the police state

Trey Garrison examines "the U.S. Conference of Mayors wish list of all the things mayors across the country want the federal government to fund in the name of 'stimulus'” and informs us about:

some of the dodgier requests from North Texas cities. It starts on page 293, and my short list here is just a taste of the absurdity.

• Frisco wants $125,000 for an armored vehicle and $200,000 for a mobile command vehicle. You know, for all that gang tank warfare going on up in Frisco.

• McKinney wants $5 million for SWAT toys and stuff.

• North Richland Hills wants $51,000 for volunteer patrol volunteers. Let’s throw in $10 for a dictionary so they can look up the word “volunteer.”

• Irving wants $5 million for biometric scanners, digital cameras, RFID scanners — nothing Big Brother there.

• Grand Prairie wants $1.25 million for nicer landscaping around the public safety building.

• And finally, Arlington is really gearing up for urban warfare. Arlington wants $1.6 million for SWAT toys including more equipment for those deadly but camera-friendly no-knock raids, $56,000 for military grade carbines, $625,000 for unmanned aerial surveillance drones, and $130,000 for “covert ops.”

Check out the list of other stimulus projects proposed by Texas cities. As I've mentioned before, while criminal justice spending is surely important, it has little to do with economic stimulus.

If Barack Obama wants bipartisanship, he should remove Byrne grants from the stimulus package

A screening last night of the new documentary, Tulia, Texas, which will air nationwide February 10 on PBS, drew a really good crowd on a chilly night, and those who stayed for the Q&A session afterward with me and Texas Monthly's Nate Blakeslee had lots of questions and, I thought, a really good discussion.

Austin's a liberal, Obama-supportng town, so most who attended seemed shocked to learn that the Bush Administration has been a bitter opponent of the federal Byrne grant program (which funds drug task forces like the one in Tulia), while the new Obama Administration is championing its resurgence.

The reasons lie in the history of the program, which was spawned by a Democratic Congress during the latter days of the Reagan Administration, aiming to bolster Democrats' "tough on crime" credentials during Michael Dukakis' failed presidential bid.

Byrne grants theoretically can pay for all sorts of criminal justice programs, but in most states they largely pay for Tulia-style drug task forces. National Republicans dislike the program on federalist grounds, believing that federal pork shouldn't pay for local law enforcement, while Dems are more likely to view backing Byrne grants as a way to avoid the "soft on crime" label.

In Texas, regular readers are aware, Governor Rick Perry eliminated our task force system in the wake of the Tulia scandal. And George W. Bush, from the earliest days of his presidency, supported total elimination of the program, in part because he was criticized over the Tulia case when he first campaigned for the office.

Ironically, Barack Obama has been unsuccessful in his first efforts to reach across the aisle on his much-ballyhooed stimulus package - in part because it's larded with pork like Byrne grants that do nothing to stimulate the economy. Ending the Byrne grant program once and for all could be a terrific early opportunity to succeed in reaching out to Republicans on an issue they've championed, actually demonstrating bipartisanship instead of just talking about it.

It really is time for national Democrats in Congress to join Republicans and dump this program, which is a massive driver of racial disparities in state-level incarceration. In some states, 85% of drug arrests are made by Tulia-style drug task forces, predominantly in black communities.

Perhaps the nationwide airing of the Tulia, Texas documentary on PBS next month will give momentum to those in Washington who want to reach across the aisle to do something positive about which both parties could be proud.

Obama shouldn't waste stimulus money on Byrne grants

Some bad ideas apparently just won't die, we learn from Radley Balko at The Agitator:

President-Elect Obama’s stimulus package calls for $3 billion in new Byrne Grants, and $1 billion in COPS grants—both are federal block grant programs for local police departments. For some reason, Democrats seem to love these grants. The Bush administration and Republicans in Congress had begun phasing them out.

As I explained in a piece for Slate last October, studies have shown both programs to be ineffective at fighting crime. Worse, there’s good evidence that they actually cause harm. While designated for community policing efforts, COPS grants have actually been used by many departments to start or outfit SWAT teams, a point I explicitly made in July 2007 to Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), when I testified before the House Subcommittee on Crime he chairs. Scott seemed surprised when I told him. But apparently, it didn’t affect him enough to prevent him from restarting the program.

Byrne Grants, meanwhile, are often tied directly to drug arrests, warping police department priorities by encouraging low-level drug busts to juke up department arrest statistics . . . so they can apply for more grants. We have Byrne grants to thank for the civil rights disasters in Tulia and Hearne, Texas, and for the continuing problem of out of control multijurisdictional drug task forces.

In Texas, the biggest Byrne grant funded projects have seemed almost cursed. Governor Perry canceled funding for the state's network of regional drug task forces after the scandals Balko mentioned, shifting most of the money instead to border security grants to South Texas Sheriffs (one of whom, ironically, was allegedly on the payroll of the Mexican Gulf Cartel).

But there's a more important, pragmatic reason Byrne grants shouldn't be part of a "stimulus" package: Law enforcement spending doesn't provide the dramatic economic multiplier effects as do other government of expenditures like health care or education.

When the state funds more low-level drug enforcement by regional task forces, for example, a few officers may be employed, a few new vehicles purchased, etc.. But when arrests are made it actually takes money out of the economy and puts potential workers (and taxpayers) 100% on the state's dole - Texas state prisoners cost taxpayers nearly $18,000 per year per inmate.

By comparison, say the feds were to pick up half the tab for the state's Medicaid or CHIP expenses. The feds already match the state's Medicaid contribution by about 2-1 (more for CHIP), so paying half the state's share would mean we get a 4-1 return on our investment or higher, plus more people get health care. Instead of hiring cops and jailers to remove workers from employment, expanding health care increases employment in health care services, products, etc., which increases the multiplier effect even more.

If the feds wants to invest in jobs programs, cops and prisons have a relatively small economic multiplier effect (see this report from the Sentencing Project) while other investments - in education, healthcare, and transportation infrastructure, for example - will give much more job-producing bang for the buck.

Unlike Balko, I'm actually more or less a Keynesian; I believe in the idea behind the stimulus package, including assistance to states. But Byrne grants aren't good stimulus. They should only be debated on the law enforcement merits (and on those, they should be rejected). They're by far among the worst available options for boosting the economy.

RELATED (Updated 1/17): While we're on the subject of the incoming president's economic policies, I noticed Obama has floated the name of a new chief of the Ex-Im Bank, Fred Hochberg, who has mostly garnered attention because he would be Obama's first openly gay appointee. Whoever is the new head of the Ex-Im Bank, they need to revisit the inadequate due diligence policies installed by their predecessor after the agency gave loans to fake companies associated with the bloody Juarez cartel. We've seen a few media reports and one arrest, but I'm convinced that's only the tip of the iceberg.

Ironically, the man who oversaw the Ex-Im Bank when those loans were made, and whose decision it was to not require more thorough vetting, was later appointed by President Bush as Chief Investment Officer of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund. Personally I'd prefer the new president put somebody in that slot who's a little more keen on preventing fraud.