Cities skeptical about justice bill

Cities and counties, traditionally on the same side of most federal-local battles, may be facing a showdown over juvenile justice. The cities see HR 3, which would provide a block grant for state and local programs dealing with post-arrest handling of young criminals, as a Robin Hood measure that may cost them money they now get through other block grants.

The bill, which passed on a veto-proof 286-132 vote, sets up a $1.5 billion block grant, virtually all of which will go to counties. That makes sense considering that counties are responsible for the majority of the big detention facilities and, through public defender offices, handle most of the post-arrest, parole and other services offered to the poor.

Cities, on the other hand, have gotten most of the cash targeted at the Community Oriented Policing grant program set up in 1994 and the local law enforcement block grant program, created in 1996. (Money under the first is used for hiring police officers; money under the second – $530 million in the current fiscal year – is used for non-hiring purposes such as the purchase of computers and other equipment.)

Janet Quist, senior legislative counsel at the National League of Cities, says she worries that Congress may eliminate the law enforcement block grant and use the money for the new juvenile justice block grant. That grant is already on shaky ground because it is part of the annual Justice Department appropriation and has never been itself authorized by Congress.

“We don’t like the idea of unplugging one grant program to plug in another,” Quist says. She does, however, acknowledge that Rep. Bill McCollum (R – Fla.), chairman of the House subcommittee on crime, is working with leaders of the House Appropriations Committee to ensure funding for both block grants. (McCollum had tried to slip a rider onto HR 3 that would have authorized the law enforcement block grant, but the Rules Committee ruled it out of order.)

Rep. Harold Rogers (R – Ky.), chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee that handles the Justice Department budget, has reportedly pointed out that funding for the law enforcement block grant has a much better shot in the current deficit-cutting mode if it is indeed authorized by the House and the Senate. Consequently, the pressure is on the Senate to get an authorization for the grant, a move that would have to be endorsed by Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R – Utah), who has, as yet, made no such commitment.

But the potential competition for grant money that pits cities against counties is not the only controversy surrounding HR 3. The president has argued that it “is weak on guns and walks away from crime prevention initiatives that can save a teenager from a life of crime.”

Clinton has proposed his own juvenile justice bill, introduced by New York Democrat Charles Schumer. HR 810 would require guns to have child-proof safety locks and outlaw purchases of guns by adults who had been convicted of violent crimes as juveniles. McCollum had refused to add those provisions to his bill, although he did attempt to get other HR 810 provisions included, another move blocked by the Rules Committee.

The National Association of Counties also has some problems with HR 3, particularly a provision that would force states to try 15-year-olds as adults for certain crimes. Still, the formula for distribution of the money – $500 million over three years – meets with NACo approval.

But the organization also hopes that whatever version emerges from the Senate will be an improvement over HR 3.