Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. IOWA CRIME COMMISSION, IOWA CRIME COMMISSION, STATE CAPITOL, DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN : The Iowa Crime Commission appreciates your letter of December 21, 1971 asking for comments with respect to S. 2994. Title I of the Act cites a definite need for the compensation for victims of violent crimes. We would concur with this need, particularly with relief provided victims of crimes of a federal nature and involving federal process. We think, however, you should reconsider the thrust of that portion of the Title which provides for compensation through LEAA resources to victims of crimes within the states and primarily involving state jurisdiction. The reluctance to endorse compensation of victims within the state using federal funds, is based upon a belief that the taxpayer already shoulders a disproportionate share of the criminal justice process. Government pays for the apprehension, adjudication and finally any correction required as a result of a sentence. In addition the taxpayer may bear the cost of a court appointed attorney. as well as the cost of appeals, many of which are of a frivolous nature. There is a strong feeling in Iowa that the offender should make restitution to the victim of his crime. In fact, the Iowa Crime Commission is working with members of the legislature in the attempt to provide for such restitution in our criminal courts. It is recognized that in some cases it would be impossible for an offender to make restitution. This is where we could use assistance from the Federal Government to furnish relief. We, therefore, believe that any federal program of compensation to a victim should be made available to a state after every attempt has been made by the state and its courts to cause restitution to be sup plied by the offender. If an offender serves a sentence prior to a time when he is able to make restitution, and relief to the victime must be tendered, we would hope that the offender would be required to reimburse the source of the victim's relief; in this case federal aid. The provision of Title II, Group Insurance For Public Safety Officers, is concurred in. We note that you have included certain public safety personnel such as fire fighters who now are considered to be outside the purview of the Safe Streets Act. We further strongly recommend that any evolving program of assistance be designed to reduce the administrative complexities. The fantastic growth of administrative requirements under LEAA programs has literally outstripped the state's ability to administer a program effectively. The original Safe Streets Act paid little attention to the administrative workload, but through its part "B" provision concenrated on planning. We find that a state spends about 75% of its time complying with administrative requirements of LEAA and the remaining 25% towards comprehensive planning. When new work loads such as the part "E" produced by the amendment of 1970 and things such as you now have in mind involving compensation of either victims or law enforcement personnel are added, we must question the ability of any state to properly discharge its duties. We fully agree with Part II Death and Disability Benefits for Public Safety Of ficers. However, I believe the comment concerning administrative overload applies here as well. Title IV Civil Remedies for Victims of Racketeering Activity, is concurred in. It is hoped that these comments concerning the proposed legislation are of some value. We are pleased to contribute in any way you may require in our common effort to improve the criminal justice system. Sincerely, GEORGE W. ORR. ARIZONA STATE JUSTICE PLANNING AGENCY, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: Thank you for the opportunity to review S. 2994 and the related documents. Although we do not feel that we could endorse the specific proposals without further study, we certainly agree that the objectives are desirable. We wholeheartedly support the proposition that established channels under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act should be utilized in implementing improvements in the criminal justice system. We would, however, offer one technical suggestion. For those portions of S. 2994 which contemplate expansion of the purposes of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, (victim compensation and the insurance program) a provision should be added exempting funds applied to those purposes from Section 303 (2) of the Act. This is necessary since the administering agency of such programs would usually be at the state level, even though the ultimate beneficiary is a local government or a private individual. An exemption from the "pass through" provision would eliminate the cumbersome process of obtaining local consent for the expenditure of funds. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. Very truly yours, ALBERT N. BROWN, Executive Director. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: We have reviewed S. 2994 as requested by you and have the following suggestions regarding this legislation: 1. In section 450 (9) personal injury is defined as actual bodily harm and includes pregnancy, mental distress and nervous shock. We feel that it would be best if mental distress and similar items were omitted. 2. Section 451 (d) should spell out that the Chairman has the power to delegate someone to act for him. 3. The language in section 457(b) (3) to the effect that "any person who has suffered pecuniary loss as a result of that death" appears to be too broad. It probably should be limited to someone related to, living with, or dependent on the victim. It is also suggested that a minimum loss for consideration be established and that a mechanism for appeal be developed. Both of these features are present in the current Maryland system and have worked well. The Commission does support the concept outlined in your bill and will follow its progress in Congress. If the legislation is passed, we would strongly encourage this as an addition to current Safe Streets Act authorizations as existing funds are needed for other criminal justice programs. Sincerely, RICHARD C. WERTZ, Executive Director. STATE OF MICHIGAN EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Senator JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: This is in response to your letter of 12-21-71 pertaining to Senate Bill 2994, "Victims of Crime Act of 1972." My overall reaction to the bill is favorable in that it satisfies a need in the criminal justice system by establishing equities in a victim with financial need, rather simply viewing criminal behavior as an act against society. Although each amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control Act may have merit, there is a danger that when they grow in number, the available financial resources will be spread so thin that they will dilute the quality of the criminal justice programs at the local level and thus subvert the original purpose of the act. This is precisely the problem with the authorization of Part C action money for the establishment of group insurance for public service officers. The same criteria can be used for Part B of Title I-Compensation for Victims of Violent Crimes. The bill does not direct the state planning agency to create a new program area 76-162 O - 72-66 for Part C funding. It directs the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to fund another program area with Part C money which may or may not be under the supervision or control of the state planning agency. The problem of diverting funds from current state planning agency programs can be alleviated if appro priations for Part C continue to increase accordingly. A method of insuring the increase would be to insert a specific appropriation clause covering a definite period of time. It is hoped that these comments are helpful. If more information is desired, it will be supplied upon your request. Sincerely, DON P. LEDUC, Administrator. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Richmond, Va., January 20, 1972. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1971 enclosing copies of a bill, S. 2994, the "Victims of Crime Act of 1972,” and requesting my comments. The bill provides for benefits greatly needed by law enforcement personnel. The proposed utilization of the established Federal-State relationships in the Safe Streets Act program administered at the federal level by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is particularly commendable. I think the utilization of these established relationships in the implementation of the proposals in S. 2994 is an excellent concept, and can be quite effective. However, I do have one serious note of pessimism. In the second part of Title I and Title II of the bill, there is provision for matching contribution of a non-federal share at the state level. I am not aware of any groundswell of sentiment in Virginia or among its legislators for the adoption of a program for providing compensation for the victims of violent crime. And I do not believe that the passage of federal legislation, with the carrot of federal grants, would be sufficient to change that sentiment. I simply do not believe that the General Assembly would be disposed to appropriate sufficient funds for the non-federal contribution to enable the Commonwealth of Virginia to take advantage of the program. I would make the same remarks with respect to the provisions of Title II of your bill providing for group insurance, where a non-federal contribution is called for. I do not recall hearing or reading of any sentiment in our General Assembly for a group insurance program, and again, I do not believe that the passage of federal legislation, with the possibility of federal grants, would be sufficient to induce our General Assembly to adopt such a program. As you know, our General Assembly is now in session. The Governor just submitted his budget proposals for the 1972–1974 biennium to the General Assembly. The Governors proposal does not contain sufficient funds to provide the non-federal share to meet the "buy-in" and the "hard match" requirements of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act as amended in December 1970. Unless I am successful in convincing the General Assembly that they should increase the appropriation recommended by the Governor, Virginia will lose during the next biennium approximately $14 million in Safe Streets Act funds already provided for in the existing provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. We estimate that Virginia would be entitled to receive in FY 1973 approximately $10 million, and in FY 1974 approximately $17 million. The Governor's budget recommendation to meet the "buy-in" and "hard match” requirements as to non-federal share will enable Virginia to receive, under the existing provisions of the Safe Streets Act, $7.6 million in each of the two fiscal years mentioned. In short, the Governor did not choose to raise the level of federal receipts for the Safe Streets Act program beyond that existing in FY 1971. So far I have not found too much sentiment in the General Assembly to indi cate that there will be substantial disagreement with this gubernatorial recommendation. Thus I am very pessimistic about our General Assembly being inclined to take advantage of any of the programs provided for in your legislation which would require a non-federal share contribution. I am sure that you recall the objections of the states with reference to the "buy-in" requirements when they were before the Congress in 1970. I am well aware of your personal involvement on the Senate side and in the conference committee in attempting to avoid the enactment of the "buy-in" requirement. Nevertheless, it was enacted, as the result of the compromise in the conference committee, and it has now had the effect of denying to Virginia and to its local units of government a substantial portion of what otherwise could be very helpful federal grants under the Safe Streets Act. I am afraid our General Assembly is not overly impressed with the argument that "X" amount of state dollars will buy "Y" amount of federal dollars. In effect, the “buy-in” requirement will significantly reduce Virginia's participation in the Safe Streets Act program. The Governor's budget recommendation also included a rather sizeable increase in the state income tax, but even with this increase no new significant programs will be undertaken. The increased revenues will have to be used to continue the present level of state services, the costs of which increase faster than the estimated state revenues. As you may know, Virginia does not engage in deficit spending. All of these comments point, in my opinion, in one direction-and that is, that the only effective means to accomplish much of what you propose in your bill is some revenue-sharing concept. I simply do not believe that state legislatures, especially in Virginia, are any longer attracted to the establishment of priorities in accordance with federal categorical grant programs enacted by Congress. With kind personal regards, I am Yours very truly, RICHARD N. HARRIS, Director. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN : Please accept my apology for not replying sooner to your letter of December 21, 1971, concerning your bill, S. 2994, providing compensation to victims of crime. Our staff has reviewed the bill and accompanying material from the Congressional Record, and concur without reservation with che concept and details of the bill with one exception. We do not agree with Part B-Federal Grant Programs, Sections 105, 106, 107, 108, and 109, which amends Section 301 of Part C of Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Strets Act of 1968. Part B would place an administrative burden upon state law enforcement planning agencies for which they are untrained, inexperienced and not staffed. It would mean a tremendous expenditure of state and federal funds to build a new administrative empire, thereby siphoning off funds which should be available to victims of crime. We would suggest that Part B of your bill be amended to place this administrative function-which would be crucial to the success of the program-in existing state agencies already performing a quite similar function-those administering workmen's compensation. In Oregon, this responsibility lies with the State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF), operating under Oregon Revised Statutes 656.752, as a competitive mutual insurance company. Contributing employers are insured against liability to their workmen for bodily injury received by accident in the course of employment. SAIF protects the rights of both the employee and employer. SAIF provides and maintains a trained administrative force through which injured workmen receive medical treatment, compensation and necessary rehabilitation. It has 14 > regional offices serving the entire state. A program such as yours could be implemented through a state agency such as SAIF with a minimum of time and expenditure of funds. While we do not know what other states have such an agency, we feel that all-or most-have such an agency in being. We appreciate your consideration in allowing us to review and comment on S. 2994. Sincerely, EDWARD R. COOPER, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, U.S. Senate, Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: This letter is written in response to your letter of Dcember 21, 1971 requesting comments on Senate Bill S. 2994 and in particular the utilization in that bill of "established avenues of joint Federal-State responsibility under the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration". I believe that the proposed lgeislation is directed at a very real need of the criminal justice system and is based on a proper and moral obligation to answer that need. As you have noted in your remarks on the introduction of the Bill. California was the first state to adopt legislation making awards available to victims of violent offenses. While there are some differences between the California Plan and the Federal Program outlined in Title I of the Bill, it appears to us that California would be entitled to a grant under Part B of Title I of 75% of its current Plan. We feel certain that the established avenues of joint Federal-State responsibility are well suited to serving the interest of both the Federal and the State Governments under Part B of Title I of the Bill and will provide real benefits in accomplishing the purposes of this legislation. We do not feel, however, that the same considerations apply to those provisions of Title II of the Bill which authorize grants to state planning agencies for the establishment of statewide group insurance policies for public safety officers. There has not been any past experience of the state planning agencies in establishing or administering any such programs and such grants would involve an entirely new activity for them. No doubt we, and the other state planning agencies, would be able to adapt our programs to accommodate this activity, but we entertain some doubt that the Council would wish to undertake this additional program. The conclusion is inescapable that the further effort required for such an adidtional program would have the effect of lessening the strength of our programs in the areas with which we are presently concerned. It should be noted that we are somewhat unclear about the meaning of the word "establishment" in Section 301 (b) (11) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as amended by the Bill (Page 46). If "establishment" does not include any responsibility for the ongoing management of such a program, the bruden of the state planning agency is obviously more limited and is less of a concern. We would also make the observation that as more states establish their own group life programs under the proposed measure, the federal program will be limited to providing insurance for officers in fewer and fewer states. It is not at all certain that the Federal Government will be able to purchase group life insurance for these officers at rates substantially less than those available under private plans. It may well be that private rates will decrease once the plan is established. The payment by the Federal Government of one-fourth of the cost, however, will make the insurance attractive to officers in these few states. The net effect may be to establish a program which is eventually reduced to a small scale and is not commensurate with the large federal expenditures required to maintain the program. Title III of the Bill does not appear to involve the participation of the state planning agency, unless it is contemplated that LEAA will engage the agency in some manner to assist in the conduct of the program. We have no experience in conducting any such program, but we would certainly atempt to assist LEAA in the program if such assistance is requested. Titles IV and V, of course, do not involve the activities of this agency except to the extent that Title V provides that Title III shall become effective on or after January 1, 1967. The state planning agency may be utilized by LEAA to assist in ascertaining those officers as to whom awards might be considered under Title III. This agency would be of assistance in that effort and our experience and contacts with law enforcement agencies may well prove to be a real benefit in rendering that assistance. We trust that these comments will be helpful to you. If you should desire any further information, particularly about the status of Federal-State responsibility under LEAA in California, please get in touch with us. We are happy to assist you and your subcommittee at any time in any way possible. Sincerely, ROBERT H. LAWBON, Executive Director. |