GENERAL PROVISIONS
G. Crime Victims Fund (Dollars in Thousands)
VI. Program Offsets by Item
6. Offset Requests by Item
Item Name: State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) Budget Appropriation: State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Strategic Goals & Objectives: DOJ Strategic Goal 2, Objective 2.1
OJP Strategic Goal 1, Objective 1.1
Organizational Program: Bureau of Justice Assistance
Ranking: 7 of 63
Program Offset: Positions 0 FTE 0 Dollars -$194,000,000
Description of Item
The FY 2012 President’s Budget requests $136.0 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), a decrease of $194.0 million from the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution level.
SCAAP reimburses states and localities for the prior year cost of incarcerating illegal aliens with at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law, who are incarcerated at least four consecutive days.
Justification
This offset reflects a shift, as efforts will continue to focus on removal of criminal aliens through programs such as ICE's Secure Communities. Further, under this proposal, SCAAP will make payments to states and localities for those inmates who have verified status as illegal aliens.
Payments for "unknowns" (58 percent of the program in 2010) will be discontinued.
The Administration and Congress share concern about the current state of the nation’s economy.
The President’s Budget reflects the President’s commitment to cutting the deficit and restoring fiscal sustainability. This is a significant challenge, which required the Administration to make very difficult funding decisions across the Federal government, including redirecting resources from some existing programs to address the most urgent national priorities.
Whenever possible, the President’s Budget proposes to consolidate existing programs into larger, more flexible programs that offer state, local, and tribal grantees greater flexibility in using grant funding and developing innovative approaches to their criminal justice needs. The President’s Budget concentrates funding on programs that promote the adoption and use of proven,
evidence-based programs throughout state, local, and tribal criminal justice systems. New programs included in the President’s Budget address urgent unmet criminal justice needs, or contribute to the development of new evidence-based programs and greater understanding of the nation’s law enforcement and criminal justice challenges.
185
Program Offsets
Impact on Performance
This program supports DOJ Strategic Objectives 2.1: Strengthen partnerships for safer communities and enhance the nation’s capacity to prevent, solve, and control crime and 2.2:
Reduce the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime.
Funding (Dollars in Thousands) Base Funding
FY 2010 Enacted (w/resc./supps) FY 2011 CR FY 2012 Current Services Pos Agt/
$330,000 $330,000 $330,000
Personnel Reduction Cost Summary
Type of Position
Non-Personnel Reduction Cost Summary
Non-Personnel Item Unit Cost Quantity FY 2012 Request ($000)
Total Non-Personnel -$194,000
Total Request for this Item
Pos Agt/Atty FTE Personnel
Services $330,000 $330,000
Decreases -$194,000 -$194,000
Grand Total $136,000 $136,000
187
Program Offsets
6. Offset Requests by Item
Item Name: Byrne Discretionary Grants
Budget Appropriation: State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Strategic Goals & Objectives: DOJ Strategic Goal 2, Objective 2.1
OJP Strategic Goal 1, Objective 1.1 Organizational Program: Bureau of Justice Assistance
Ranking: 10 of 63
Program Offset: Positions 0 FTE 0 Dollars -$185,268,000
Description of Item
In FY 2012, OJP requests no funding for the Byrne Discretionary Grant program. This program awards discretionary grants to state, local, and tribal law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, non-profit organizations and community groups to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, to prevent or combat juvenile delinquency, and to assist victims of crime (other than compensation).
Justification
Funding provided through the Byrne Discretionary Grants program is traditionally earmarked by Congress, which automatically entitles recipients who meet the program’s minimum
requirements to receive a grant. Both the President and Congress have expressed concerns about earmarks.
Impact on Performance
This program enhancement supports DOJ’s Strategic Objective 2.1: Strengthen partnerships for safer communities and enhance the Nation’s capacity to prevent, control, and solve crime. This program also supports OJP Strategic Objective 1.1: Improve policing and prosecution
effectiveness.
Funding (Dollars in Thousands) Base Funding
FY 2010 Enacted (w/resc./supps) FY 2011 CR FY 2012 Current Services Pos Agt/
$185,268 $185,268 $185,268
Personnel Reduction Cost Summary
Type of Position
Non-Personnel Reduction Cost Summary
Non-Personnel Item Unit Cost Quantity FY 2012 Request ($000)
Total Non-Personnel -$185,268
Total Request for this Item
Pos Agt/
Services $185,268 $185,268
Decreases -$185,268 -$185,268
Grand Total $0 $0
189
Program Offsets
6. Offset Requests by Item
Item Name: Part E: Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New Initiatives and Programs
Budget Appropriation: Juvenile Justice Programs
Strategic Goals & Objectives: DOJ Strategic Goal 2, Objective 2.1 OJP Strategic Goal 1, Objective 1.4 Organizational Program: Bureau of Justice Assistance
Ranking: 11 of 63
Program Offset: Positions 0 FTE 0 Dollars -$91,095,000
Description of Item
In FY 2012, OJP requests no funding for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Block Grants Part E program. This program awards discretionary grants to states, units of general local government, Indian tribal governments, public and private agencies, organizations, and
individuals to support the development, testing, and demonstration of promising initiatives and programs for the prevention, control, or reduction of juvenile delinquency
Justification
Funding provided through the Part E program is traditionally earmarked by Congress, which automatically entitles recipients who meet the program’s minimum requirements to receive a grant. Both the President and Congress have expressed concerns about earmarks.
Impact on Performance
This program enhancement supports DOJ’s Strategic Objective 2.1: Strengthen partnerships for safer communities and enhance the Nation’s capacity to prevent, control, and solve crime. This program also supports OJP Strategic Objective 1.4: Improve the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system.
Funding (Dollars in Thousands) Base Funding
FY 2010 Enacted (w/resc./supps) FY 2011 CR FY 2012 Current Services Pos Agt/
Personnel Reduction Cost Summary
Type of Position
Non-Personnel Reduction Cost Summary
Non-Personnel Item Unit Cost Quantity FY 2012 Request ($000)
Total Non-Personnel -$91,095
Total Request for this Item
Pos Agt/
Services $91,095 $91,095
Decreases -$91,095 -$91,095
Grand Total $0 $0
191
Program Offsets
6. Offset Requests by Item
Item Name: Title II Part B: Formula Grants Budget Appropriation: Juvenile Justice Programs
Strategic Goals & Objectives: DOJ Strategic Goal 3, Objective 3.1 OJP Strategic Goal 1, Objective 1.4
Organizational Program: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Ranking: 29 of 63
Program Offset: Positions 0 FTE 0 Dollars -$75,000,000
Description of Item
The FY 2012 President’s Budget does not request funding for the Title II Part B Formula Grants program, which is a decrease of $75.0 million below the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution level.
The Title II Part B Formula Grants program is the core program that supports states, local, and tribal efforts to improve the fairness and responsiveness of the juvenile justice system and to increase accountability of the juvenile offender. It is currently awarded to 49 states and 6 territories on a formula basis and is administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
In FY 2012, the Title II Part B Formula Grants program is being consolidated under the new Race to the Top-Style Juvenile Incentive System Improvement Grants program, which is being requested at $120.0 million. This new grant program will consolidate existing formula grants targeting juvenile system improvements. Unlike the existing formula grant distribution of funds, the program will be competitive and will make awards to the states that demonstrate the highest achievement in key juvenile justice reforms and go beyond minimal compliance with basic mandates.
Justification
Since reaching a high in 1994, the arrest rate for juveniles has dropped dramatically—the juvenile violent crime arrest rate has declined by 45 percent; the overall juvenile arrest rate has dropped 32 percent. Unfortunately, this decrease has not occurred at the same rate in other areas of the juvenile justice system, such as juvenile court caseloads and juveniles in custody
facilities. Specifically, compared to the drop in juvenile arrests, the juvenile court delinquency case rate has dropped only 15 percent and the custody placement rate has dropped 26 percent.
Indications are that, despite the decrease in crime, too many youth are still being formally handled by the juvenile justice system at significant cost to state and local governments. Many states continue to hold nonviolent and status offenders in detention and corrections; and many indigent youthful offenders who are formally handled in the state(s) juvenile justice system lack meaningful access to counsel.
The new competitive program will build on the successes of the formula grants program and provide a mechanism to address those juvenile justice improvements which have progressed too slowly under the existing model. This program, which will be administered by OJJDP, will provide incentives to make needed additional improvements through a competitive process. Key factors for award selection will include:
Proof of meaningful statewide and local collaboration of juvenile justice stakeholders in all stages of planning and implementation of the Juvenile Justice programming.
Stakeholders should include, but are not limited to: law enforcement, courts, prosecutors, public defenders, social services, medical, mental health, substance abuse, families of youth in the system, education and work-force development.
A record of compliance with mandates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, to separate youth from adult offenders, removal of youth from adult jails and detention facilities and the de-institutionalization of status offenders from juvenile facilities.
Meaningful and effective state-wide efforts aimed at compliance with the mandate of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, to reduce the
disproportionate contact of minority youth with the juvenile justice system, to include the use of data to track progress at key points in the juvenile justice system.
The ability to demonstrate successful implementation of Juvenile Justice strategies, programs, and procedures that are modeled on evidence-based practices with proven success.
The development and use of validated risk assessment tools to determine and implement alternatives to detention and reduce unnecessary prosecutions and detention.
Employment of diversion strategies, which include adoption of family and juvenile problem solving courts, administrative sanctions, alternative dispute resolution, community-based responses, and other alternatives for low level juvenile offenders.
Demonstrated improvement of outcomes for youth in the system including recidivism of youth in the system.
Impact on Performance
This program supports DOJ Strategic Objectives 3.1: Improve the crime fighting and criminal justice system capabilities of State, local, and tribal governments. The program also corresponds with OJP Strategic Objective 1.4: Improve the effectiveness of juvenile justice systems.
193
Program Offsets
Funding (Dollars in Thousands)
Base Funding
FY 2010 Enacted (w/resc./supps) FY 2011 CR FY 2012 Current Services Pos Agt/
Personnel Increase Cost Summary
Type of Position
Non-Personnel Reduction Cost Summary
Non-Personnel Item Unit Cost Quantity FY 2012 Request ($000)
Total Non-Personnel -$75,000
Total Request for this Item
Pos Agt/
Services $75,000 $75,000
Decrease -$75,000 -$75,000
Grand Total $0 $0
6. Offset Requests by Item
Item Name: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) Program Budget Appropriation: Juvenile Justice Programs
Strategic Goals & Objectives: DOJ Strategic Goal 3, Objective 3.1 OJP Strategic Goal 1, Objective 1.4
Organizational Program: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Ranking: 30 of 63
Program Offset: Positions 0 FTE 0 Dollars -$55,000,000
Description of Item
The FY 2012 President’s Budget does not request funding for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) program, a decrease of $55.0 million from the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution level. This program is authorized under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 3796ee et seq) and funds block grants to states to support a variety of
accountability-based programs. JABG seeks to reduce juvenile offending through both offender-focused and system-offender-focused activities that promote accountability.
In FY 2012, JABG is being consolidated under the new Race to the Top-Style Juvenile Incentive System Improvement Grants program, which is being requested at $120.0 million. This new grant program will consolidate existing formula grants targeting juvenile system improvements.
Unlike the existing formula grant distribution of funds, the program will be competitive and will make awards to the states that demonstrate the highest achievement in key juvenile justice reforms and go beyond minimal compliance with basic mandates.
Justification
Since reaching a high in 1994, the arrest rate for juveniles has dropped dramatically—the juvenile violent crime arrest rate has declined by 45 percent; the overall juvenile arrest rate has dropped 32 percent. Unfortunately, this decrease has not occurred at the same rate in other areas of the juvenile justice system, such as juvenile court caseloads and juveniles in custody
facilities. Specifically, compared to the drop in juvenile arrests, the juvenile court delinquency case rate has dropped only 15 percent and the custody placement rate has dropped 26 percent.
Indications are that, despite the decrease in crime, too many youth are still being formally handled by the juvenile justice system at significant cost to state and local governments. Many states continue to hold nonviolent and status offenders in detention and corrections; and many indigent youthful offenders who are formally handled in the state(s) juvenile justice system lack meaningful access to counsel.
195
Program Offsets
The new competitive program will build on the successes of the formula grants program and provide a mechanism to address those juvenile justice improvements which have progressed too slowly under the existing model. This program, which will be administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), will provide incentives to make needed additional improvements through a competitive process. Key factors for award selection will include:
Proof of meaningful statewide and local collaboration of juvenile justice stakeholders in all stages of planning and implementation of the Juvenile Justice programming.
Stakeholders should include, but are not limited to: law enforcement, courts, prosecutors, public defenders, social services, medical, mental health, substance abuse, families of youth in the system, education and work-force development.
A record of compliance with mandates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, to separate youth from adult offenders, removal of youth from adult jails and detention facilities and the de-institutionalization of status offenders from juvenile facilities.
Meaningful and effective state-wide efforts aimed at compliance with the mandate of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, to reduce the
disproportionate contact of minority youth with the juvenile justice system, to include the use of data to track progress at key points in the juvenile justice system.
The ability to demonstrate successful implementation of Juvenile Justice strategies, programs, and procedures that are modeled on evidence-based practices with proven success.
The development and use of validated risk assessment tools to determine and implement alternatives to detention and reduce unnecessary prosecutions and detention.
Employment of diversion strategies, which include adoption of family and juvenile problem solving courts, administrative sanctions, alternative dispute resolution, community-based responses, and other alternatives for low level juvenile offenders.
Demonstrated improvement of outcomes for youth in the system including recidivism of youth in the system.
Impact on Performances
This program supports DOJ Strategic Objectives 3.1: Improve the crime fighting and criminal justice system capabilities of State, local, and tribal governments. The program also corresponds with OJP Strategic Objective 1.4: Improve the effectiveness of juvenile justice systems.
Funding (Dollars in Thousands)
Base Funding
FY 2010 Enacted (w/resc./supps) FY 2011 CR FY 2012 Current Services Pos Agt/
Personnel Reduction Cost Summary
Type of Position
Total Personnel -$55,000
Non-Personnel Reduction Cost Summary
Non-Personnel Item Unit Cost Quantity FY 2012 Request ($000)
Total Non-Personnel $0
Total Request for this Item
Pos Agt/
Decreases -$55,000 -$55,000
Grand Total $0 $0
197
Program Offsets
6. Offset Requests by Item
Item Name: Statewide Automated Victim Identification and Notification (SAVIN) Program
Budget Appropriation: Justice Assistance Strategic Goals & Objectives: DOJ Strategic Goal 3, Objective 3.7
OJP Strategic Goal 3, Objective 3.2 Organizational Program: Bureau of Justice Assistance
Ranking: 31 of 63
Program Offset: Positions 0 FTE 0 Dollars -$12,000,000
Description of Item
The FY 2012 President’s Budget does not request funding for the Statewide Automated Victim Identification and Notification (SAVIN) program, a decrease of $12.0 million below the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution level. The SAVIN Program helps protect crime victims from further victimization and ensures their legal rights are upheld by providing registered victims with timely and accurate information about important dates and developments relating to the criminal proceedings in the case (such as trial dates, times, or changes; probation hearings;
inmate relocation; and offender release). This information enables victims to fully participate in the judicial process while maintaining total anonymity. Effective SAVIN programs increase victim safety, meet legislative requirements, and minimize the costs associated with keeping victims informed.
Justification
In FY 2009, OJP had funding remaining for this program, even after making awards to all eligible applications. In FY 2010, OJP did not receive any applications to fund the creation of new SAVIN programs, only applications for funding to enhance existing SAVIN programs.
States have made significant progress in their victim notification systems and have developed and built the capacity to sustain these systems moving forward. BJA believes that the significant investment made in developing these systems will sustain momentum for the states.
Impact on Performance
This program supports DOJ Strategic Objective 3.7: Uphold the rights and improve services to America’s crime victims. It also supports OJP Strategic Objectives 3.1: Provide compensation and services for victims and their survivors, and 3.2: Increase participation of victims in the justice process.
Funding (Dollars in Thousands)
Base Funding
FY 2010 Enacted (w/resc./supps) FY 2011 CR FY 2012 Current Services Pos agt/
Personnel Reduction Cost Summary
Type of Position
Non-Personnel Reduction Cost Summary
Non-Personnel Item Unit Cost Quantity FY 2012 Request ($000)
Total Non-Personnel -$12,000
Total Request for this Item
Pos Agt/
Services $12,000 $12,000
Decreases -$12,000 -$12,000
Grand Total $0 $0
199
Program Offsets
6. Offset Requests by Item
Item Name: State and Local Gun Crime Prosecution Assistance and Gang Violence Reduction
Budget Appropriation: State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Strategic Goals & Objectives: DOJ Strategic Goal 2, Objective 2.1
OJP Strategic Goal 1, Objective 1.1 Organizational Program: Bureau of Justice Assistance
Ranking: 32 of 63
Program Offset: Positions 0 FTE 0 Dollars -$2,500,000
Description of Item
The FY 2012 President’s Budget requests $12.5 million for the State and Local Gun Crime and Gang Violence Reduction program, a decrease of $2.5 million from the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution level. Administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the goal of this program is to improve the capacity of state, local, tribal law enforcement and criminal justice agencies as well as communities to address gun violence, violent crime and gangs. The State and Local Gun Crime and Gang Violence Reduction program provides grants, training, and technical assistance to the nation’s 94 federal judicial districts to support the work of Project Safe Neighborhoods task forces. Of the $12.5 million requested for FY 2012, $5 million will be used to support grants supporting comprehensive public safety pilots in tribal areas.
Justification
This modest decrease simply reflects the need to trim budgets in this deficit-reduction environment.
Impact on Performance
This initiative supports DOJ Strategic Objective 2.1: Strengthen partnerships for safer
communities and enhance the nation’s capacity to prevent, solve, and control crime as well as OJP Strategic Objective 1.1: Improve policing and prosecution effectiveness.