U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–926 PDF 2007

COPS IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2007, THE JOHN

R. JUSTICE PROSECUTORS AND DEFENDERS

INCENTIVE ACT OF 2007, AND THE WITNESS

SECURITY AND PROTECTION ACT OF 2007

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 1700, H.R. 916, and H.R. 933

APRIL 24, 2007

Serial No. 110–72

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. (BOBBY) SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. (BOBBY) SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 24, 2007

THE BILLS 

Page 

H.R. 1700, the ‘‘COPS Improvements Act of 2007’’ ............................................... 2

H.R. 916, the ‘‘John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act 

of 2007’’ ................................................................................................................. 14

H.R. 933, the ‘‘Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007’’ .............................. 22

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. (Bobby) Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 27

The Honorable Anthony D. Weiner, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 38

WITNESSES 

Ms. Laurie Robinson, Director, Master of Science Program, Department of 

Criminology, University of Pennsylvania 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 41

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42

The Honorable Douglas H. Palmer, Mayor of Trenton, New Jersey, President 

of the United States Conference of Mayors 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 48

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 49

Mr. Edmund H. Mosca, Chief of Police, Old Saybrook Department of Police 

Services, Old Saybrook, Connecticut 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 53

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 55

The Honorable Kamala D. Harris, District Attorney, City of San Francisco, 

California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 75

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 76

Mr. Mark Epley, Senior Counsel, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 

United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 82

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 85

Mr. John Monaghan, Consultant, New York City Law Department, New 

York 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 93

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 94

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ........................................................ 30

Page

IV

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 115

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BUT NOT REPRINTED

GAO Report, GAO–06–104, entitled Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, October 2005, Community Policing Grants, 

COPS Grants Were a Modest Contributor to Declines in Crime in the 1990s. This 

report is available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at:

http://www.gao.gov/news.items/d06104.pdf

(1)

COPS IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2007, THE 

JOHN R. JUSTICE PROSECUTORS AND DEFENDERS INCENTIVE ACT OF 2007, AND 

THE WITNESS SECURITY AND PROTECTION 

ACT OF 2007

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

(Bobby) Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Waters, Weiner, Jackson Lee, 

Baldwin, Forbes, Sensenbrenner, and Coble. 

Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Majority Chief Counsel; Gregory 

Barnes, Majority Counsel; Carolyn Lynch, Minority Counsel; and 

Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will now come to order. 

And I am pleased to welcome you to today’s hearing before the 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on 

H.R. 1700, the ‘‘COPS Improvements Act of 2007;’’ H.R. 916, the 

‘‘John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007;’’ 

and H.R. 933, the ‘‘Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007.’’

[The bills, H.R. 1700, H.R. 916, and H.R. 933 follow:]

2


HR1700-1.eps
3


HR1700-2.eps
4


HR1700-3.eps
5


HR1700-4.eps
6


HR1700-5.eps
7


HR1700-6.eps
8


HR1700-7.eps
9


HR1700-8.eps
10


HR1700-9.eps
11


HR1700-10.eps
12


HR1700-11.eps
13

f


HR1700-12.eps
14


HR916-1.eps
15


HR916-2.eps
16


HR916-3.eps
17


HR916-4.eps
18


HR916-5.eps
19


HR916-6.eps
20


HR916-7.eps
21

f


HR916-8.eps
22


HR933-1.eps
23


HR933-2.eps
24


HR933-3.eps
25

f


HR933-4.eps
26

Mr. SCOTT. The first of the three bills, H.R. 1700, the ‘‘COPS Improvement Act of 2007,’’ amends the Omnibus Crime Control and 

Safe Streets Act of 1968 to expand the current authority of the attorney general to make grants for public safety and community policing for the COPS program. 

COPS program was originally created in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Since its inception, 

the mission of the program has been to advance community policing in all jurisdictions across the United States. 

The program achieves this objective by awarding grants to State, 

local and tribal law enforcement agencies so they can hire and 

train law enforcement officers to participate in community policing, 

to purchase and deploy new crime-fighting technologies and to develop and test new and innovative policing strategies. 

Since 1994, the program has awarded more than $11 billion to 

over 13,000 law enforcement agencies across the United States, 

and at the end of fiscal year 2004, the program had been credited 

with funding more than 118,000 community policing officers. 

The second of the three bills, the ‘‘John R. Justice Prosecutors 

and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007,’’ also seeks to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, but in the case 

of this measure, the legislation specifically directs the attorney general to assume the obligation to repay student loans of any individual who agrees to remain employed for at least 3 years as either 

a State or local criminal prosecutor or a State, local or Federal public defender in a criminal case. 

The inherent difficulties associated with retaining qualified public attorneys are not new, and there are multiple reasons why an 

attorney might choose the private sector over the public sector. The 

most frequency discussed reason centers around the need for higher-paying jobs in the private sector to pay off lingering student 

loans. 

The National Association of Law Placement reports that the median salary for a 5th-year associate in private practice is $122,500. 

In contrast, the median salary for a 5th-year State prosecuting attorney is merely $55,000, while a 5th-year public defender makes 

even less at $54,000, and a 5th-year local prosecutor makes about 

the same. 

With significant pay disparities such as this, it is easy to understand how public-sector attorneys are easily lured away with the 

hope of obtaining larger salaries that can be found in the private 

sector, particularly when you have student loans involved. 

The final measure we are considering today is H.R. 933, the 

‘‘Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007.’’ It seeks to amend 

title 28 of the U.S. Code to establish within the U.S. Marshals 

Service a short-term witness protection program for witnesses that 

are involved in a State or local trial involving homicide, a serious 

violent felony or a serious drug offense. 

To ensure the best possible use of limited Federal resources, the 

legislation also directs the U.S. Marshals Service to give priority to 

those prosecutors’ offices that are located in a State with an average of at least 100 murders per year during the 5-year period immediately preceding an application for protection. 

27

Witness intimidation reduces the likelihood that citizens will engage in the criminal justice system which will deprive police and 

prosecutors of critical evidence. Moreover, it can have the unwanted effect of reducing public confidence in the criminal justice 

system and can create the perception that the criminal justice system cannot adequately protect its citizens. 

I am looking forward to the testimony of our witnesses on these 

latter parts as well as their thoughts on the previous issues with 

regards to prior-mentioned bills. 

With this said, it is my pleasure to recognize the esteemed Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, my colleague from Virginia, Representative Randy Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

I thank all of you for being here with us today. We appreciate 

your time and look forward to your expertise on these matters. 

I want to thank the Chairman for holding this legislative hearing 

on H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvement Act of 2007; H.R. 916, the 

John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007; 

and H.R. 933, the Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007. 

These bills attempt to address serious crime problems in our 

country: the rise in violent crime, the need for more State and local 

prosecutors and defenders, and witness security programs in State 

and local courts. 

But I hasten to emphasize the word ‘‘attempt’’ to address these 

problems. Unfortunately, in their haste to address these problems, 

those drafting these bills have grabbed on to their old tried-andtrue solutions: throw money at the problem, put out press releases, 

and in the end, waste taxpayers’ money. We can and should do better. 

The Cops on the Beat program was created in 1994 to award 

grants to State, local and tribal governments for the hiring and rehiring of police officers. Since then, COPS has awarded more than 

$11 billion to over 13,000 law enforcement agencies. 

The COPS Office within the Department of Justice reported that 

by the end of fiscal year 2004, it had funded 118,000 new positions. 

That is what it reported. 

A review of the program by the White House Office of Management and Budget, however, found that the COPS program had put 

fewer than 90,000 officers on the street. Likewise, a University of 

Pennsylvania study found that the number probably would wind up 

closer to 82,000, or 30 percent fewer cops than DOJ’s estimate. 

Despite the billions spent on this program, studies on the impact 

of the COPS program have reached conflicting findings and conclusions. A 2005 GAO report found that the COPS program has had 

only a modest impact on reducing violent crime. 

The GAO report concluded that although COPS expenditures led 

to increases in sworn police officers above levels that would have 

been expected, ‘‘Without those expenditures, we conclude that 

COPS grants were not the major cause of the decline in crime from 

1994 through 2001.’’

A May 2006 Heritage Foundation study reached two important 

conclusions: One, spending on the COPS program did not lead to 

an increase in the overall spending by local law enforcement, but 

merely supplanted State and local funds; and two, the COPS proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:44 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\042407\34926.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
28

gram has led only to small reductions in crime, the benefits of 

which do not outweigh the costs of the COPS program. 

In 2005, Congress passed a bipartisan DOJ reauthorization that 

included a variety of changes to the COPS program, including authorizing over $1 billion a year through the end of fiscal year 2009. 

Here we are, less than 2 years later, considering a bill that would 

increase the COPS reauthorization to $1.5 billion through fiscal 

year 2013. 

It is business as usual. Rather than seeking to use innovative policing programs which have been shown to produce results, this bill 

simply throws more money down the drain and ignores the fact 

that as much as $277 million has been misspent and despite multiple reports that the COPS program has little to no impact on 

crime. 

The better approach would be to take time to identify what 

works. Cities like Los Angeles and New York are experiencing a 

drop in violent crime. We need to ask why. What are these cities 

doing to achieve this success? What can we learn from them about 

innovative policing programs? 

H.R. 916, the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007, establishes a loan forgiveness program within the 

Department of Justice for State and local prosecutors and for Federal, State and local public defenders. Despite the good intentions 

of the bill’s sponsors to encourage young attorneys to join the criminal justice system and prevent attrition, I have several concerns 

about the bill. 

First and foremost, I am alarmed at the enormous cost of the 

bill, which would assume up to $60,000 in student loan debt for 

every prosecutor and public defender in the country without any 

limitation whatsoever. Repaying the debt for even just 50,000 participants would cost $3 billion. 

In addition, H.R. 916 requires the Department of Justice—and 

not the Department of Education—to administer the program, this 

despite the fact that the Department of Education is the agency 

charged with awarding Federal student loans and currently administers several loan forgiveness programs. I can see no reason why 

the Department of Justice should be required to establish a system 

for repaying student loan debt when one already exists in the Department of Education. 

Moreover, the bill requires the Department of Justice to undertake this program, regardless of whether any money is appropriated by Congress. We all know that simply authorizing funds for 

a program does not guarantee that those funds will ultimately be 

appropriated. Should this bill become law, the Department of Justice would be required to divert funds from its criminal justice 

functions to administer this program. 

Finally, the bill makes no provision for whether participation in 

existing State and local loan forgiveness or repayment programs 

would disqualify participation in this program or at least offset a 

recipient’s award. 

Finally, H.R. 933, the Witness Security and Protection Act of 

2007, creates a short-term State witness protection section within 

the U.S. Marshals Service to provide the short-term witness secuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:44 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\042407\34926.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
29

rity services for State and local witnesses in homicide, violent 

crime and drug cases. 

Now, recently, this same Committee held a field hearing in New 

Orleans to address the increasing crime problem plaguing that city. 

We learned that witness intimidation is a reason why criminals go 

unpunished. 

However, we learned that the major reason was because the entire judicial system was just so bad that even before the hurricane, 

only 7 percent of those arrested—7 percent—for even violent 

crimes, ever went to jail, and only 12 percent of those arrested for 

murder ever went to jail; that even when the prosecutor caught the 

murder and the murderer on videotape, he did not prosecute; and 

that judges who let criminals on the street saw their courts get a 

percentage of the release bond. 

The reason witnesses were intimidated, according to testimony 

given to us, is because the judges put criminals back on the street 

before the witnesses could get home from the courthouse. 

So what is our answer? Just send them a check. 

This bill is sponsored by Mr. Cummings of Maryland, who has 

championed the issue of witness protection and witness intimidation, and I commend him for his dedication on this important issue. 

However, I have several concerns about the practical effects of this 

bill. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put the rest of my statement in 

the record. And I hope we can work together to address the concerns with all three bills we are reviewing today. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes follows:]

30

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, 

TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY


Forbes-1.eps
31


Forbes-2.eps
32


Forbes-3.eps
33


Forbes-4.eps
34


Forbes-5.eps
35


Forbes-6.eps
36


Forbes-7.eps
37


Forbes-8.eps
38

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I thank my colleague for his statement, 

and I join you in insisting that programs be cost-effective, and we 

need to have more hearings on that. Many of the things that we 

have done are not cost-effective. 

I notice that you did say that the COPS program did reduce 

crime, unlike many of the slogans that we have codified which actually increased the crime rate. So I join you in making sure that 

we can have cost-effective crime reduction policies. 

We have a vote coming very shortly, and the sponsor of the 

COPS legislation is with us, and I would recognize him for a short 

statement. 

Mr. WEINER. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will speak with my 

usual Brooklyn alacrity. I want to thank you for scheduling this 

hearing and thank your staff for their help with this and Mark 

Dunkelman of my staff, who has become perhaps the foremost expert on this program. 

You know, when the COPS program was originally created, there 

was a certain amount of controversy surrounding it. There were 

some that said, ‘‘You know what? Philosophically, putting on cops 

on the beat is not what the Federal Government should be doing,’’ 

despite the fact in the mid-1990’s we were experiencing an explosion of crime. 

The COPS program, though, has now, with some exceptions—and 

perhaps some of them are in the room—become seen as the classic 

democrat—with a small D—distribution of smart resources. We 

have had small towns, big cities all get additional cops out on the 

beat because of this program. 

There might be some who argue that it is no longer the job of 

the Federal Government to provide assistance to localities in trying 

to protect themselves, but those people do not include former attorney general John Ashcroft, for example, or former secretary of 

homeland security Tom Ridge who said famously before this Committee that homeland security starts in our hometown, that it is 

going to be hometown police departments that are ultimately going 

to be the way we stay safe not only from crime, but from threats 

from terrorists as well. 

The gentleman on the other side talked about some of the criticisms that remain of the program. He said that there is disagreement about how many cops were hired. Well, there are 118,000 additional cops on the street, according to the GAO, according to our 

own stats, according to the COPS Office of the Bush administration. There are additional cops on the street because of this program. 

Now we have gone through this period where in Congress have 

said repeatedly that we believe the COPS program should be continued. In a bipartisan way, we reauthorized the Justice Department which included language that said fund the COPS program. 

We said that there are some changes that needed to be made, for 

example, to reflect the idea that there are more terrorism jobs that 

localities have, that we might want to do some things to incentivize 

local police departments to hire troops returning from the front 

with these grants and to allow more use of technology. 

One of the things that the gentleman points out, there is some 

controversy about exactly how many cops were added. Well, one of 

39

the things the COPS program has done has said that if you can invest in your local police department, you might not need more officers, but you might need technology to make it possible for them 

to leave their police car or leave their desk and go out and patrol 

the streets. We count that as an additional cop on the street, as 

I thought most good Government people would. 

We are doing in this House, frankly, what has been supported in 

a bipartisan fashion. We have several—I think over 25—Republican cosponsors in addition to virtually every Democratic Member 

of this House. 

If my colleagues believe that it is our job to help law enforcement 

do their jobs in localities, the COPS program has been a success, 

and it has not just been a success in big cities like New York. It 

has been a success in tiny counties and tiny villages all across this 

country, and now we are here to say let’s not let that success end. 

And finally, let me point out one other thing. You know, while 

the Bush administration has continued to provide funding for the 

COPS Office, we have gradually become—over the course of years, 

less and less of the COPS funding is going to actually hiring cops. 

In 1995, 81 percent of the money went for cops, and 19 percent 

went for non-hiring parts of the program. In 2006, it went for zero 

for hiring—not a single new officer was hired—all of the funds 

were used for non-hiring elements of the COPS program. Our bill 

reverses that. 

It is going to be passing in the other body, we are going to pass 

it here, and citizens of the United States are going to be safer because of it. 

And I thank you, Congressman Scott and Mr. Chairman, for taking the lead on this. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, and I thank the gentleman for his comment. 

As I indicated, we have several votes, and it will be probably 

about half an hour or so before we get back. We will be back as 

soon as we can. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SCOTT. The Committee will come to order. And we apologize 

for taking so much time, but when the speaker calls, then we have 

to respond. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here to help us consider the important issues of the day. 

Our first witness, Laurie Robinson, currently serves as the director of the Master of Science program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Criminology, a position she has held since 

2004. Prior to that, from 1993 to 1999, she served as the assistant 

attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice. In that capacity, she headed the Office of Justice Programs, the department’s research, statistics and State and local criminal justice assistance 

arm, which includes the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

Our next witness, the honorable Douglas Palmer, was elected in 

1990 to serve as Trenton’s mayor, the first African-American to 

hold that post. In 2003, he was appointed to serve as president of 

the National Conference of Democratic Mayors, and just 3 years 

later, in 2006, he became president of the bipartisan U.S. ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:44 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\042407\34926.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
40

ference of Mayors. Through his tenure, Mayor Palmer has focused 

on improving health care, particularly for children, the elderly and 

poor. Mayor Palmer is a graduate of Hampton University, where 

he received a Bachelor of Science degree in business management. 

Our third witness is police chief Ed Mosca. He joined the Old 

Saybrook Police Department in 1960, rose through the ranks, being 

promoted from detective to sergeant to lieutenant and ultimately 

appointed chief of police in 1971. Past president of the Connecticut 

Chiefs of Police Association and a past member of its board of directors, he attended Springfield College and the University of New 

Haven. He also attended the Connecticut Chiefs of Police Academy 

where he graduated first in his class. He also attended the Command Training Institute of Bapson College, the FBI National Academy and the FBI-sponsored LEEDS course. 

Our next witness, Kamala Harris, is currently the district attorney for the City of San Francisco. In December 2003, she was elected as the first woman district attorney in San Francisco’s history 

and the first African-American woman in California’s history to 

hold that office. A successful prosecutor in Alameda County and 

San Francisco, she served in the San Francisco district attorney’s 

office as the managing attorney for the career criminal unit from 

1998 to 2000. She then headed the San Francisco city attorney’s division on families and children. Throughout her tenure, Attorney 

Harris has touted a smart on crime approach, vigorously prosecuting criminal offenders while remaining committed to rehabilitation and preserving civil liberties. She holds a bachelor’s degree 

from Howard University and obtained her doctorate from the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law. 

Our fifth witness, Mark Epley, currently serves as senior counsel 

to the deputy attorney general of the United States. In this role, 

he provides advice on budget and legislative matters and oversees 

the grant-making components of the Department of Justice. In addition to his other duties, he is charged with being the lead within 

the deputy’s office for the attorney general’s Project Safe Childhood 

Initiative, a nationwide effort to protect children from online exploitation and abuse. 

Our final witness, John Monaghan, currently serves as a consultant on police policy and procedure. In this capacity, he provides assistance on research writing and expert witnesses to various organizations, including the New York City law department, the Sergeants’ Benevolent Association and the Lieutenants’ Benevolent Association. Prior to assuming his current responsibilities as a consultant, he served for more than 20 years with the New York City 

Police Department, rising through the ranks of sergeant to captain 

and ultimately to lieutenant. He holds a Bachelor of Science in 

criminal justice from John Jay College and a master’s in public administration from Harvard University. 

Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be made as part 

of the record in its entirety. 

I ask each witness to summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less, and to help stay within that time, there is a timing 

light at the table. When you have 1 minute left, the light will 

switch from green to yellow, and finally to red when 5 minutes are 

up. 

41

So we will begin with Professor Robinson. 

TESTIMONY OF LAURIE ROBINSON, DIRECTOR, MASTER OF 

SCIENCE PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. ROBINSON. After a decade of decline, we know that violent 

crime and homicide is now increasing in many cities across the 

country. The Police Executive Research Forum released a report 

just last month that found dramatic increases in violent crime 

among 56 jurisdictions surveyed, more than a 12 percent increase 

in robberies and a 10 percent in homicides. 

And crime is again in the center of public concern, as we have 

seen in mayoral races now ongoing in Dallas and Philadelphia. 

Philly, in fact, has had more homicides so far this year than the 

much larger cities of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. 

As I talk to thoughtful law enforcement and criminal justice 

leaders around the country, they are struggling. They are confronting very difficult gun, gang, drug and violence problems, but 

working with fewer officers, reduced budgets and added homeland 

security duties 

Despite the fact that in our system of Government, States and 

localities have the major responsibility, of course, for public safety, 

I know from the 7 years that I spent as assistant attorney general 

in the Justice Department that effective Federal leadership in addressing crime is critical. 

And in thinking about the best way that the Federal Government 

can assist, I think it is helpful to recall the history of the Federal 

criminal justice assistance program which goes back to the highly 

acclaimed report of the 1967 Johnson Crime Commission. 

In my written statement, I discuss the appropriate Federal roles 

that the commission reports laid out, many of which were reiterated in the Reagan administration’s violent crime report in 1981 

and which are still timely and pertinent today. 

For purposes of this oral statement, I will make four points. 

First, Federal dollars should be used to ensure we learn what 

works, as Mr. Forbes laid out, and to spread that knowledge. Federally supported research to understand what is effective in controlling and preventing crime, field experiments conducted in concert with police and other practitioners, are terribly important just 

as we would conduct drug trials in NIH in the field of medicine. 

The difference is that in medicine, there are hundreds of millions 

of dollars being invested, but in crime, only a few million dollars 

are spent. 

And then we need to spread that knowledge very broadly. I have 

urged creation in OJP of something like a what works clearinghouse. Nothing like that now exists. I wish I had set that up before 

I left. 

Second issue: Federal leadership can support innovation, something local communities often do not have the money to pay for on 

their own. Examples here would be initiatives like the COPS Office 

has launched on school violence or methamphetamine or OJP’s 

work over the last decade with drug courts. 

Third issue: One of the most cost-effective ways Federal money 

can be spent, in my experience, is on technical assistance and 

42

1Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation. See http:/

/www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelim06/table3.htm 2 Chief Concerns: Violent Crime in America: Alarming Trends, Police Executive Research 

Forum, Washington, D.C., March, 2007, at 2. 3 ‘‘Poll: Crime tops election issues,’’ The Dallas Morning News, Mon., March 12, 2007. 

training, and here I would mention the COPS Office’s Regional 

Community Policing Institutes. I think they are an excellent example. 

Fourth, despite our limited ability to scientifically measure the 

effectiveness of the large block grant programs, like Byrne or JAG 

or the COPS Office program, where spending is invested in a limitless number of locally chosen programs, I think they have done 

much good. 

Even those who have opposed using Federal dollars with COPS, 

for example, to pay local police salaries have frequently acknowledged that COPS has helped dramatically to spread community policing, and it has certainly reinvented the way a Federal grant 

agency relates to its constituents. 

The fact is that State and local criminal justice right now is in 

a twofold crisis: dealing with rising crime on the one hand and juggling additional responsibilities in the post-9/11 world on the other. 

In the spirit of the 40-year criminal justice assistance program, 

in my view, Federal leadership and support is vital to help States 

and localities deal with the challenging problems they are now facing of rising crime and homicide, drugs and gangs. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Robinson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURIE ROBINSON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Laurie Robinson. I served from 1993 to 2000 as Assistant Attorney 

General for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in the U.S. Department of Justice, 

overseeing an annual budget of more than $4 billion to work in partnership with 

states and localities in addressing crime. During my last year at OJP, the agency 

was administering some 42,000 grants. I currently direct the Criminology Master 

of Science Program at the University of Pennsylvania. 

I appreciate the invitation to appear before you today to talk about the recent increase in violent crime nationally—and why it is crucial that the federal government 

provide support to states and localities struggling to combat the problem. 

WHY FEDERAL LEADERSHIP—AND SUPPORT—IS IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW

IN ADDRESSING CRIME

While crime is largely a state and local responsibility, federal leadership and federal support is necessary—especially at a time, like today, when violent crime is on 

the rise—to ensure citizen confidence in public safety and the fair administration 

of justice. No one local jurisdiction, no one state can address these problems alone. 

After a decade in which it was on the decline, violent crime is now increasing in 

many cities across the country: The FBI tells us that crime in the U.S. increased 

in the first half of 2006 by 3.7% (compared with the previous year)—including a 

1.4% increase in murder and 9.7% increase in robbery.1 A report released by the 

Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) last month found dramatic increases in 

violent crime among 56 jurisdictions surveyed—increases of 12.27% in robberies and 

10.21% in homicides.2

And after years when crime was not a major national issue, it is again squarely 

in the center of public concern. As voters are going to the polls this May in Dallas 

to elect a new mayor, crime is cited as the top issue facing the city in recent polls.3

And in Philadelphia, where I spend much of my time, the central issue in the upcoming mayoral race this spring is violence on the city’s streets. We have suffered 

more homicides so far this year than the far larger cities of New York, Los Angeles 

and Chicago. 

As I talk to thoughtful leaders in law enforcement and criminal justice around 

the country, many are struggling. With lessons learned from years of federally supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:44 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\042407\34926.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
43

4 ‘‘The Role of the Federal Government in Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice,’’ March 2005,See http://www.ncja.org/Content/NavigationMenu/GovernmentAffairs/

FederalGovernmentandJusticeAdministrationWhitePaper/default.htm 5 Attorney General’s Task Force on Violent Crime, Final Report, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C. (1981). 

ported research, they know a great deal about how to deal with crime—that comprehensive approaches involving prevention, treatment and community engagement 

are critical, along with enforcement and punishment, to ensure public safety. But 

they are confronting problems of gangs, drugs, and violence (some of it committed 

by very young teenagers) that are difficult to address. They are stymied by working 

with fewer officers, reduced budgets, and the burden of added homeland security responsibilities. Anti-terrorism duties have, in fact, drawn attention and resources 

away from day-to-day crime fighting, while none of those longtime problems have 

gone away. 

Indeed, some of the high profile ‘‘glamour’’ of the terrorism focus frustrates local 

cops. I asked a former student of mine, who is high up in the ranks of the Philadelphia Police Department, whether his colleagues had used federal Department of 

Homeland Security funds to conduct training on suicide bombers. He looked at me 

somewhat scornfully and said, ‘‘Laurie, we’ll get around to that if we ever have a 

suicide bombing in Philadelphia. Right now, we’re just busy trying to keep up with 

the shootings we see out here every day.’’

The fact is—as the National Criminal Justice Association has aptly put it—that 

federal funding for homeland security and for state and local criminal justice should 

not be an ‘‘either/or’’ proposition.4 Safe streets, safe neighborhoods and safe cities 

are the predicate for a secure homeland, in both a conceptual and a practical sense. 

One can’t neglect the former and expect the latter to exist. And—at the end of the 

day—we need to recognize that both rely on the same public safety infrastructure. 

REFLECTING ON HISTORY

It is helpful to look at the history of the federal criminal justice assistance program when thinking about the appropriate federal role in reducing crime—and what 

is needed and can be most effective today. 

Criminal justice in the United States has historically been, and still remains 

today, largely a state and local enterprise. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of all the adults who went through the justice system in 2002, 94% were convicted in state court—not the federal system. Our justice system is also more decentralized than almost any other in the world. With 18,000 separate law enforcement 

agencies in the U.S., something as simple as training police in a new 

counterterrorism procedure becomes very complicated. By contrast, in the United 

Kingdom, an order could simply be issued from the Home Office and sent to the 

mere 45 police agencies throughout Great Britain. 

The federal role in addressing crime was first defined in a document that is still 

very timely today—40 years later—‘‘The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society,’’ the 

report of President Lyndon Johnson’s Crime Commission in the 1960s. Chaired by 

former Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach (someone I’ve had the pleasure to get 

to know over the past two years), the Commission has had a profound influence on 

criminal justice in this country. 

It called for a federal role in

• research

• fostering innovation in criminal justice

• gathering statistics and

• improving criminal justice.

It also called for establishment of a small federal office to fund state and local 

innovations in criminal justice—the seed that led in later years to the creation of 

the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) and to the Office of Justice 

Programs in the U.S. Department of Justice. Many of the core federal functions that 

I describe in this statement had their origins in the Katzenbach Commission’s report. 

These recommendations did not reflect partisan politics. They were re-affirmed in 

the Reagan Administration’s report of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Violent 

Crime (1981), which stressed the unique role of the federal government in demonstrating and promoting what works in crime prevention.5

44

WHAT ARE THE KEY FEDERAL ROLES IN REDUCING CRIME?

There are six core ways in which the federal government can—and should—assist 

state and local government in addressing crime. It is important to underscore that 

five of these six roles do not entail large investments of federal dollars.

1. Developing knowledge is a central federal role in public safety 

Just as research and experimental trials have led to better ways to prevent 

and treat heart disease, the same has been true for crime over the past four 

decades. We now know a great deal more about how to deal with crime than 

we did in the 1960s. Two key differences between medicine and crime, however, 

are that, first, there are no business investors (like pharmaceutical companies 

in medicine) funding research relating to public safety and, second, the federal 

dollars devoted to crime research are in the low millions—not in the billions (as 

at NIH). 

But the federal government, in fact, has a crucial role to play in supporting 

social science research and evaluation to learn ‘‘what works’’ in addressing 

crime. Aside from an occasional private foundation, no one else pays for this 

work to get done. Nor is it realistic to think local jurisdictions can afford to do 

this themselves. 

Why is this knowledge so important? The answer is that, particularly at a 

time of tight budgets, we need to be investing in evidence-based approaches that 

can actually help reduce crime and we need to stop funding programs that don’t 

work, even when they have great popular appeal. 

Research also leads to the next breakthroughs—such as data-mining that is 

identifying the most likely murderers in the phalanx of 52,000 probationers in 

Philadelphia. Or the survey that tells us how law enforcement is really using 

closed circuit television in different cities. Or the randomized controlled experiment that demonstrates whether an in-prison treatment for pedophiles can be 

effective in reducing future offending. 

Research and development for new technologies to serve and support criminal 

justice agencies has also been an important role of LEAA and OJP. The Science 

& Technology Office within the National Institute of Justice has made enormous contributions to the field—including its network of National Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology Centers that conducts demonstration projects 

and provides invaluable assistance to law enforcement to help it assimilate new 

technologies.

2. The federal government should collect and disseminate independent and 

credible national statistics on crime 

The highly respected National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reported 

by BJS since 1973 has provided what the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports has 

never attempted to produce: a count of crime that includes serious offenses, like 

rape, that may never be reported to police. This past year, however, BJS was 

threatened by budget shortages for its crime victims’ survey. While this year’s 

survey is going forward, the threat to a three-decade data series is a reflection 

of the limited funding that has been made available for this central federal 

function. 

Too often, BJS—despite its irreplaceable role—has been the ‘‘poor stepsister’’ 

of the OJP agencies. In fact, at a time of rising crime, BJS should be charged 

by Congress with a broadened role in helping in our understanding of victimization. BJS should be mandated to measure crime on a state-by-state basis, even to the level of large cities, and provided with appropriate funds to support this 

mission. At present, the survey cannot provide this level of information. 

The integrity of crime statistics is crucial to ensuring their credibility. No one 

questions Bureau of Labor Statistics reports because no one would dare to 

‘‘mess’’ with its products. Yet a political appointee of the current Administration 

did try to rewrite the press release describing the findings of a key BJS report 

on racial profiling several years ago. After BJS’s Director objected to this political interference, he was fired by the White House. For that reason, I urge this 

Subcommittee to consider legislation to give BJS explicit authority to issue its 

statistical reports and explanatory press releases independent of any outside 

clearance.

3. Federal dollars should support the innovation that localities cannot fund 

on their own 

Supporting pilot projects through discretionary grants has been a central feature of the federal criminal justice assistance program from its earliest years—

as the 1967 President’s Crime Commission recommended. Funding of this kind 

allows jurisdictions to implement programs that have been proven effective or 

45

6See http://www.nida.nih.gov/PODAT—CJ/faqs/faqs1.html#3 and http://

www.evidencebasedprograms.org/Default.aspx?tabid=150, for example. 7See, for example, Reconsidering Incarceration: New Directions for Reducing Crime by Don 

Stemen, Director of Research, Center on Sentencing and Corrections, Vera Institute of Justice, 

January 2007. 8See http://coexgov.securesites.net/index.php?keyword=a432fbc34d71c7 and http://

www.evidencebasedprograms.org/

to undertake experimentation. Local jurisdictions can rarely free up money to 

undertake these kinds of initiatives. Once established and shown to be successful in local settings, however, city councils or other budgetary officials will frequently buy into their continuation. Drug courts are a good example of this phenomenon. 

But probably the best illustration of this is the work of the COPS Office—

which has literally changed the face of policing across the United States since 

it was established in 1994. What is telling is that it is not just the hiring grants 

that caused this revolution to occur. Perhaps more important was the change 

in the culture of policing—and police/community relationships—that occurred as 

a result of a myriad of COPS innovation grants, conferences, and other initiatives. 

Other examples of LEAA/OJP-supported innovations include:

• Problem-oriented and hot spots policing

• Problem-solving courts (drug courts, mental health courts, domestic violence courts, etc.)

• Victim/witness programs

• Career criminal prosecution units

• Bulletproof vests

• Forensic applications of DNA technology

• Drug testing programs

• Less-than-lethal weapons

4. There is no more central federal role than diffusion of knowledge 

As I stated before, we already know a great deal about what can be done to 

prevent and control crime. For example, we know that, correctly used, drug 

treatment in the criminal justice system can play a powerful role in helping 

change offender behavior and reduce post-incarceration recidivism.6 We also understand that, beyond a certain level, increasing rates of incarceration (while 

adding a staggering burden to state budgets) may not be as effective in reducing 

crime as other strategies (such as increasing numbers of police and reducing unemployment).7

But we have done a poor job—especially at the federal level—in getting information out. While I take credit for many things accomplished in the seven years 

I headed OJP, this is an area where I did not do enough to advance the ball. 

A strong recommendation I have therefore made to the House Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science is to mandate that OJP fund a 

‘‘What Works Clearinghouse’’ that summarizes—in brief, layperson’s language—

what is known from research about evidence-based approaches to addressing 

crime. Although it’s hard to believe, no such resource now exists. A clearinghouse of this kind should provide information written in succinct, non-scientific 

language that is easily accessible to criminal and juvenile justice practitioners. 

Information for busy legislators and policymakers could be distilled into onepage summaries—something their staffs will do for them in any event. 

This is an ideal role for the OJP agencies to undertake—in fact, it’s hard to 

think of a more central federal role than this one. Three important resources 

here are:

• Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, edited by Lawrence W. Sherman, David 

Farrington, Brandon Welsh, and Doris MacKenzie (Routledge, 2002). This 

is an update of a Congressionally-mandated report which OJP commissioned and published in 1997 entitled, ‘‘Crime Prevention: What Works, 

What Doesn’t, What’s Promising.’’

• The Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, a project of the Council for Excellence in Government in Washington, D.C.8

46

9See http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/index.asp and http://

www.campbellcollaboration.org/CCJG/index.asp

• The Campbell Collaboration—an international non-profit organization that 

prepares systematic reviews of effects of interventions, among others, in the 

area of crime and justice.9

5. Technical assistance and training are two of the most effective federal public safety investments 

During the years I spent at the Department of Justice I don’t think I saw 

a better expenditure of federal dollars (other than on research) than those spent 

on technical assistance. Helping practitioners do their jobs better—on the front 

lines—is the ultimate way that the federal government can assist in conveying 

evidence-based best practices. It’s one of the most cost efficient ways federal 

money is spent. And it’s not about spreading the wisdom of high-priced Washington consultants; the best T.A. I saw provided was ‘‘peer-to-peer’’: Having 

drug court judges from Portland, for example, host teams from other jurisdictions. Judges trust what other judges tell them. So we’d provide training for 

courts to serve as ‘‘mentors’’ and fund travel so others could visit. 

Another good example of successfully integrated technical assistance and 

training are the Regional Community Policing Institutes (RCPIs). I’ve been a 

fan of these since their creation by the COPS Office in the late 1990s. They provide high quality but low cost (or free) training for law enforcement agencies 

on topics ranging from community policing and gangs to school safety and meth 

labs. The RCPIs have provided a national presence with access to local practitioners, but they are about to be a victim of the dramatic cuts at COPS—a perfect example of a wonderful (but low profile) investment of federal money that 

has built infrastructure and credibility in the field, but now may be dismantled. 

Yet another illustration of the federal government’s central role has been in 

encouraging better information sharing. The Justice Information Sharing Initiative enables agencies to get the information they need to be effective within and 

across jurisdictions.

6. Larger federal grant programs—like JAG/Byrne and COPS—play a vitally 

important role 

None of the core federal criminal justice assistance functions are expensive. 

Research, statistics, information sharing, technical assistance and training, innovative pilot programs—these are minimal investments in the scheme of the 

federal budget. While each could surely use more money, none requires substantial appropriations. The same, of course, is not true of the large block grant programs, or large discretionary grant programs like COPS, which have been a 

mainstay of the LEAA/OJP program since the passage of the 1968 Safe Streets 

Act. 

The COPS program, in particular, has been distinctive. Even those who have 

questioned the value of federal subsidies of local police salaries have acknowledged that the COPS Office has helped dramatically to spread the concept of 

community policing and has reinvented the way a federal grant agency can relate to its constituents. Continuation—and strengthening—of the COPS program is something I strongly support (and passage, therefore, of legislation like 

H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvement Act of 2007, makes good sense). 

In general, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure in any scientific way the impact of large programs like the Byrne Justice Assistance 

Grant (JAG) program, for which spending is invested in an almost limitless 

number of locally chosen programs. Despite that, however, I come down in 

strong support of continued federal funding of COPS and of JAG/Byrne. State 

and local criminal justice right now is in a two-fold crisis, dealing with rising 

crime, on the one hand, and juggling additional responsibilities in the post-9/

11 world, on the other. In the spirit of the 40-year criminal justice assistance 

program, federal leadership and support is vital to help states and localities deal 

with the challenging problems they are now facing of rising violent crime and 

homicide , drugs, and gangs. 

I would offer these suggestions, however, regarding these programs and the 

pending legislation before the Committee:

• Strongly encourage block grant program grantees to consider funding programs of proven effectiveness. Creation of a ‘‘What Works’’ clearinghouse 

would allow state and local practitioners and policymakers to find that information much more easily.

47

10Lawrence W. Sherman, ‘‘Reducing Homicide by Enhancing High-Risk Probation and Parole: 

A Peer-Reviewed Grants Program,’’ Testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, February 15, 2007. 

• Consider placing a four-year limit on federal funding for projects, in light 

of the fact that federal money should primarily be used for innovation, rather than ongoing support.

• Emphasize the strengths of programs—e.g., in COPS, to support community 

policing initiatives for crime prevention and crime fighting, not just putting 

officers on the streets (so to allow flexibility to support gang task forces, 

anti-meth lab activities, and other specific initiatives to target problem 

areas).

• Ensure and require coordination between DOJ’s efforts and those in DHS.

I hear from state and local practitioners examples of their need to coordinate ‘‘on the ground’’ when the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have not adequately collaborated from inside the Beltway. That kind 

of collaboration is tough in Washington. But it needs to be done better.

• Support repayment of student loans for individuals who remain employed 

as public prosecutors or public defenders. The John R. Justice Prosecutors 

and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007, H.R. 933, deserves support because 

of the worthy goal of encouraging young lawyers to enter public service in 

those areas. Too frequently, recent law graduates are saddled with such 

heavy loans that they have little choice but to enter large law firms in order 

to repay those debts. My only suggestion here is that—at some time in the 

future—this Committee consider extending this program to encompass 

those earning graduate degrees in programs such as the Masters Program 

in Criminology at Penn and entering positions in probation, corrections and 

law enforcement. Shouldn’t young people in these areas of public service deserve our support as much as young lawyers do? 

FINAL CRIME CONTROL RECOMMENDATION: REDUCING HOMICIDE BY FOCUSING ON

PROBATION AND PAROLE POPULATIONS

I want to end with a positive suggestion regarding an area where federal investment of dollars could make a substantial difference in reducing crime. For reasons 

that are hard to discern, federal grant programs over the years have largely ignored 

probation and parole populations. There are 6 million convicted offenders on probation or parole in the nation, compared to only 2.2 million offenders or defendants 

behind bars. Offenders in the community clearly present the greatest risk to public 

safety, yet they receive little attention from the criminal justice system or from public budget allocations. 

My Penn colleague Lawrence W. Sherman (Director of the Jerry Lee Center of 

Criminology) has pointed out that the majority of the 406 murders in Philadelphia 

last year were committed by—or against—individuals on probation, parole or pretrial release. He estimates that persons under the supervision of Philadelphia’s 

Adult Probation and Parole Department (APPD) committed 22% of all homicides in 

the city in 2006 and made up 16% of murder victims. ‘‘This would mean that almost 

4 out of ten murders involved an APPD case as victim or offender,’’ Sherman 

notes.10

Using statistical data-mining techniques pioneered by another Penn colleague, Dr. 

Richard Berk, we are now working with Philadelphia’s probation department to 

identify the handful of offenders most likely to kill or be killed. But with caseloads 

of 185 probationers per probation officer, such offenders usually receive minimal 

oversight. A small demonstration project with just five officers whose caseloads do 

not exceed 15 offenders is now testing a new way to prevent homicide. On a national 

scale, this approach could test a wide variety of murder prevention strategies—including clinical treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, drug abuse and mental illness—to prevent violence. 

If this kind of approach could be undertaken in carefully designed randomized 

controlled experiments under a federal grant program, using collaborations between 

local probation agencies and universities, there is real promise, using scientific 

knowledge, of reducing homicide in many violence-ridden communities around the 

country—a prime example of the kind of innovative federal/state/local partnerships 

this criminal justice assistance program has fostered over four decades. 

48

CONCLUSION

Because of my longstanding involvement in the program, I have twice convened 

reunions of leaders of the LEAA/OJP agency—in 1996, as Assistant Attorney General, and again in 2006, as a private citizen. In both instances, I was struck by the 

support—across every era and from individuals of both political parties—for the federal criminal justice assistance program. The program has benefited from that passion, which has translated, I believe, into strong leadership over 40 years. For those 

of us who have had the chance to serve in that position, it has been an honor and 

a privilege to do so for a program dedicated to reducing crime and ensuring justice. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee, 

and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. Your time has expired. 

Next, we will hear from Mayor Douglas Palmer. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS H. PALMER, 

MAYOR OF TRENTON, NEW JERSEY, PRESIDENT OF THE 

UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 

Mayor PALMER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

It gives me great honor to be on this very distinguished panel 

and talk about an issue as president of the United States Conference of Mayors, a bipartisan organization of mayors representing 

over 1,100 cities in this country, something we are all united on. 

You have a 10-point plan that talks about Strong Cities, Strong 

Families for a Strong America, and, quite frankly, you cannot have 

a strong America, strong cities or strong families unless we have 

safe cities. As has been mentioned, it is very important that we 

have homeland security, but hometown security is equally important. 

About 389 days ago, I happened to be in Los Angeles with Mayor 

Villaraigosa and Attorney General Gonzales and other chiefs of police and mayors, and we talked about the issue of rising crime. 

After that hearing was over—it was on a Friday—my police director got a call. He said to me, ‘‘Hold on a minute, Mayor,’’ and he 

came back and said, ‘‘We had a shooting,’’ which was the second 

one in 2 days. 

This time, it was a warm Friday afternoon, a 7-year-old girl by 

the name of Tajahnique Lee, who was doing what most young girls 

and boys would do on a summer day, while riding her bike, got 

caught in a crossfire of rival gangs and was shot in the face. This 

is something that happens far too often in all of our cities, suburban areas and across this Nation. 

As mayors, we understand. We have to make the phone calls. I 

had to make a phone call to her mother an hour later while she 

was in the hospital with her daughter and, of course, the things 

that her mother was saying to me, I could not really repeat, but 

I understand. 

As mayors, we are the ones that have to make the phone calls, 

and that is why the work that you are doing is so very, very important. As you have said many times, mayors are on the front line 

of these issues. We have to make the calls. We get the calls in the 

middle of the night. We confront the families. We go to the funerals. 

As crime has increased, we see a reduction in the COPS program, a program that is cost-effective, efficient and that works and 

49

achieves results. As we talk about a surge in Iraq and needing 

more soldiers, we talk about hometown security, we need a surge 

of police officers in our cities. 

It is unfortunate, and as someone that was educated in Trenton 

and at Hampton University and as an African-American man, it is 

very upsetting to me to have to say that we need to have more police, we need to arrest the bad guys out here, but quite frankly, we 

do. 

We need to make sure that we have common-sense gun approach. We need to make sure that we can close the gun show loophole. We need to make sure that we can deal with the Tiahrt 

amendment and have police officers be able to trace data. We also 

need to go after the cultural violence that permeates the airways. 

We also need the resources that critical for our police officers. 

Part of our 10-point plan is also about prevention, and I know 

the district attorney is doing great things as a result of re-entry 

and other kinds of issues that we support. 

But when we talk about the COPS program, I am urging a bipartisan way that we give the police officers the resources that they 

need, that we make sure that the funding is flexible so that some 

areas may not need as much police officers as they need help with 

other kinds of programs like technology or other kinds of things, 

but have it in a block grant approach. 

The mayors want to be held accountable and our police chiefs 

and police directors want to be held accountable for the results. 

We are at a critical time in this Nation’s history where we see 

terrorism abroad, we see terrorism at home in the form of gangs 

and drugs and guns, and I think as a Nation we have to say 

enough is enough, that we need a comprehensive proactive approach, but we also need to have the resources that these police officers need to have more police on the streets. 

It is ironic that in England just last year when they foiled a terrorism plot, it was not the terrorism experts that did it. It was the 

cop on the block because the cops in these cities on the blocks know 

the neighborhood, know the people and know when something is 

wrong. 

This is a form, quite frankly, of helping fight domestic terrorism, 

and I urge the passage of the reauthorization of H.R. 1700 as well 

as, I think, that H.R. 933 is a great idea to help States and cities 

with witness protection. 

I thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Palmer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS H. PALMER

Good afternoon. I’m Doug Palmer, Mayor of Trenton, New Jersey and President 

of The United States Conference of Mayors. I have been Mayor of Trenton since July 

1990, and became President of The U.S. Conference of Mayors in December of 2006. 

I want to thank my good friend Chairman Scott for calling today’s hearing on 

issues related to crime in America’s cities, as well as Ranking Member Forbes, and 

the entire Subcommittee. 

This hearing is being held in the shadow of the April 16 tragedy at Virginia Tech 

University, where more than 30 people lost their lives, and many more are still suffering with injuries. 

I want to express my personal sympathy for the victims, and the parents, families, teachers and friends of those killed or injured in this terrible attack. And I 

want to especially express my support to both Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 

Forbes, who both represent the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

50

As this tragedy continues to demonstrate, gun violence and crime know no geographic boundaries. Whether at Columbine High School, or the Amish schoolhouse, 

or Virginia Tech University, or in cities across the nation every day, crime and violence are increasing. 

How do I know this is a life and death matter? 

In my own city, just over a year ago, seven-year-old Tajhanique Lee was out in 

the neighborhood riding her bike on a Friday evening. Unbeknownst to her, she rode 

right into a gang war, a reckless crossfire. And even though she was not the target, 

this beautiful little girl was shot through the mouth, the bullet going through both 

of her cheeks. Miraculously, she lived. 

As our country and our people united to address the reality of terrorism after the 

attacks of 9/11, we must unite now to address the reality of gun violence and crime 

which continues to ravage our cities, suburbs and rural areas alike. 

We must act now to prevent acts of violence and provide positive alternatives and 

help to those in need. 

To be very honest, I am angry. 

I am angry that after Columbine, Congress would not act to close the gun-show 

loophole, which allows criminals and others to buy guns without a background 

check. 

I am angry that the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire. 

I am angry that Congress has limited the ability of local law enforcement to trace 

illegal crime guns through the Tiahrt Amendment. 

And I am angry that positive law enforcement partnership programs like COPS 

and the local block grant have been eviscerated. 

We simply have to act now, and the nation’s mayors are ready, willing, and able 

to stand with this Subcommittee and everyone in Congress who wants our help in 

moving forward a positive law enforcement and prevention agenda. 

Mayors know that our first responsibility must be public safety. Only when our 

cities are safe can we focus on other priorities such as public education, job creation, 

and affordable housing. That’s why one of the top priorities in our new Mayor’s 10-

Point Plan on Strong Cities, Strong Families for a Strong America is support for 

anti-crime programs. 

In the 1990’s, mayors and police chiefs put extensive effort into increasing public 

safety. And as we all know, there were dramatic results. Many cities saw crime 

rates drop to historic lows. 

We recognize that there were a number of factors for this reduction in crime—

including a strong economy and tougher prosecution and sentencing practices, mainly of drug related crimes. 

However, additional police officers on the streets and greater support for innovative prevention programs had a major impact on crime. 

And, the partnership developed between the federal government and local governments—under programs such as COPS and the Local Law Enforcement Block 

Grant—greatly helped cities deploy more officers and change the way policing is 

done in America. 

I know that in Washington, there is debate as to whether these programs made 

an impact. In my city, and in thousands of cities across the nation, there is NO 

QUESTION that these programs made a significant difference. 

In my city of Trenton, we are confronting a small number of heavily armed street 

thugs who are intent on committing violence against one another. 

New Jersey, with huge public support, has some of the most stringent gun laws 

in the nation—but criminals circumvent those laws simply by crossing the state 

line—which is our city line—into Pennsylvania. There, an assault rifle can be purchased at a gun show for about a hundred dollars. Life should not be that cheap. 

I have been to Harrisburg to urge legislation addressing guns and gangs and now 

I am here before you . . . again making the case against a gun market that feeds 

those who are severely mentally ill . . . or whose ruthless drug trade often involves 

the assassination of young African American or Latino men. 

Rampant gun violence is more than a national tragedy. It is a disgrace. 

Recently in Trenton our police arrested a murder suspect. At the time of the killing, he was out on bail. He was awaiting trial on the charge of shooting at a Trenton 

police officer. 

Two years ago, a young man was arrested on gun charges four times in six 

months. Only on the fourth arrest was bail set high enough to keep him locked up. 

Clearly, we have to address this ‘‘revolving door,’’ which is why I am urging the 

New Jersey General Assembly to create a special ‘‘gun court’’ to focus on weapons 

crimes and the small number of repeat offenders who are responsible for so much 

violence. 

51

Like all mayors, I am responsible to the residents of my city for keeping our 

streets safe. Working for tougher gun laws everywhere in America is what I have 

to do to meet that responsibility. 

In my city, as in many in the Northeast, we are the objective for an interstate 

gun market. Half the guns confiscated by our police come from Pennsylvania. They 

come up from Virginia, Georgia, and Florida. 

Who in their right mind would twist this situation into a threat against the rights 

of hunters? We must confront the real threat—to innocent citizens. We must put 

some reasonable curbs on what is a scandalous supply line to chronic offenders who 

use guns—and to do so we need leadership and partnership, not rhetoric. 

While the history of the 1990’s was one of partnership and crime reductions, what 

has happened in recent years has been very different. Cities lost more than $2 billion annually as the COPS hiring program was eliminated, and the local block grant was merged into the Byrne Justice Assistance 

Grant program—and then slashed. And now many cities are seeing significant crime 

increases. 

The latest findings from the Police Executive Research Forum found that some 

cities are experiencing double-digit or even triple-digit percentage increases in homicides and other violence. 

PERF’s 56 city survey found that over a two year period:

• Total homicides were 10.21 percent higher;

• Robberies increased 12.27 percent;

• Aggravated assaults increased 3.12 percent; and

• Aggravated assaults with a firearm increased by almost 10 percent.

Funding cuts are not the sole cause of the recent crime increases. But they DID 

have a major impact. 

In my city, crime dropped 27 percent last year—but our focused enforcement required us to exceed our budget by $6 million. 

Cities face many problems related to crime such as:

• the growth of gangs;

• the increased availability of illegal guns—something made harder to address 

by bad federal policies;

• drug abuse, including new drugs such as meth; and

• the return of more than 600,000 ex-offenders annually to our cities.

There is also a growing culture of youth violence and disrespect on our streets—

fueled by negative media and entertainment images and messages—that is contributing to the increase in crime. 

And all of this is happening at the same time that local governments are being 

asked to do more to help secure our nation from terrorist attacks. 

I know that the federal government has increased anti-terrorism grants, but the 

increased support for ‘‘homeland’’ security has unnecessarily come at the expense of 

‘‘hometown’’ security. 

We need to once again form a strong partnership between the federal and local 

governments to fight crime. And we also need to focus greater attention on successful efforts to prevent crime, and create meaningful alternatives for children and 

young adults. 

Chairman Scott recently participated in a meeting of our Criminal and Social Justice Committee. Half-way through a discussion on crime prevention, the mayors 

switched to a discussion of education and after-school programs. Clearly, the issues 

of crime, education and opportunity cannot be separated. 

In Summits we have held across the country, the Conference of Mayors has been 

focusing on finding innovative ways to:

• improve early childhood education;

• strengthen school learning;

• reduce school dropout rates;

• promote after-school opportunities; and

• increase college and workforce preparedness.

Law enforcement officers can be a critical resource in not only enforcing laws, but 

in preventing crimes and creating positive environments in schools and communities. 

The Conference of Mayors has adopted policy which calls for the reauthorization 

of the COPS program, and we urge passage of H.R. 1700, sponsored by Representatives Weiner, Scott and Keller. As this bill moves forward in the House and the SenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:44 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\042407\34926.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
52

ate, we hope that it will contain a number of elements supported by our policy including:

• Funding for the hiring or re-deployment of additional officers, with a continued emphasis on community oriented policing in and around schools;

• Significant retention funding beyond the initial three years of the program for 

officers where local fiscal conditions require continued support;

• Much needed flexibility to pay overtime so long as it results in an increase 

in the number of officers deployed in community oriented policing;

• A significant increase in the per-officer funding limitation;

• Significant support for crime-fighting technology including: improved public 

safety communications and crime mapping; expansion and replacement of facilities necessitated by the hiring of additional officers; and crime solving 

technologies including crime lab improvements and DNA backlog reductions; 

and

• Support for the criminal justice system including efforts to increase community prosecutions.

We also commend the new Congress for increasing funding for COPS and the JAG 

program—the first time in years that the programs were not cut—and urge that 

both programs be fully funded in Fiscal Year 2008. 

And while we have not adopted official policy on the matter, I think that H.R. 

933—which would establish within the United States Marshals Service a short-term 

State witness protection program to provide assistance to state and local district attorneys to protect their witnesses in cases involving homicide, serious violent felonies, and serious drug offenses—could be very helpful. 

All levels of government need to work closer together to find innovative ways to:

• Reduce the availability of illegal drugs;

• Increase access to drug treatment;

• Help ex-offenders successfully re-enter society;

• Keep kids out of gangs, and prosecute gang crimes with all available resources; and

• Fight the illegal gun trade and adopt common sense gun laws.

I want to end on this last point. April 16, 2007 is a national day of tragedy. 

We need a common sense approach to guns in America. 

We must allow the police to do their jobs and trace illegal guns by defeating the 

Tiahrt Amendment. 

We must close the gun show loophole which allows guns to be sold without background checks. 

We must prohibit the sale of military-style assault weapons and large capacity 

ammunition clips. 

We must make sure that records are accurate and shared regarding those who 

should be prohibited under current law from purchasing a firearm. 

The federal government must actively enforce all the current gun laws, and make 

sure the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)—which has 

been a strong partner with local governments—is provided all the resources and 

staff it needs to help keep America safe. 

Beyond legislation, a new effort must be made against the use and trafficking of 

illegal weapons. Weapon buyback programs and ballistics tracking offer the hope of 

reducing the toll these weapons take on our citizens, our communities, our children. 

And in our communities, we can do more to help teachers, coaches and family members intervene where predictors for violent behaviors exist. 

But comprehensive legislation at the federal level can take the lead in ensuring 

uniform protections and bringing safety to our communities. The dangers raised by 

inadequate protections in any given state threaten us all. 

Our nation lost more than 30 people at Virginia Tech University, and we lose 

thousands more in cities across America every year to gun violence and crime. 

This issue has been labeled gun control and cast in the terms of sacred, abstract 

constitutional arguments. 

But respectfully, I am here to tell you that there is nothing abstract about innocent victims being wounded and killed. 

Yes, we have a Second Amendment, but we also have a Declaration of Independence and there is something to be said for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Bi-partisan, common sense action must be possible, and we call on Congress and 

the President to act now. 

Thank you.

53

Mr. SCOTT. Chief Mosca? 

TESTIMONY OF EDMUND H. MOSCA, CHIEF OF POLICE, OLD 

SAYBROOK DEPARTMENT OF POLICE SERVICES, OLD 

SAYBROOK, CONNECTICUT 

Chief MOSCA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here representing 

the International Association of Chiefs of Police as its legislative 

chairperson this afternoon, and I appreciate this opportunity. 

The IACP has been and continues to be a strong supporter of the 

COPS program and the COPS Office. Since its inception in 1994, 

the COPS program and the community policing philosophy that it 

fosters has been very successful in helping law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reduce crime rates and maintain safer 

communities. That is why we are so pleased to be here today to express our strong support for H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvement 

Act. 

The COPS Improvement Act will, if enacted, allow us to build 

upon and extend the success of the COPS program when the COPS 

program was fully funded almost a decade ago. Communities 

throughout the Nation witnessed a remarkable decline in the crime 

rate. Years of innovative and effective efforts by Federal, State, 

tribal and local law enforcement agencies enabled us to transform 

our neighborhoods from havens of fear to safer, more secure communities. 

I can speak from personal experience about the value and the 

benefits of the COPS program provided to the local police departments. In the 1990’s, the COPS program made a profound impact 

on the ability of my department to protect the citizens that we 

served. 

I was able to hire additional officers, purchase equipment, provide training that would have been otherwise out of reach for a 

smaller department like mine. We were also able to establish a 

highly successful and acclaimed school resource officer program 

which provided a practical level of security within our school system. 

As a result of this assistance, my officers were better equipped, 

better trained and better positioned to fulfill their mission on a 

daily basis. 

However, the success of the COPS program is not derived solely 

from the amount of Federal assistance funds that have been made 

available to State, local and tribal law enforcement agencies, but 

also in the manner in which the program has operated. 

The key to the success of the COPS program is that it works 

with individuals who best understand the needs of their States, 

communities—State, tribal and local law enforcement executives. 

By adopting this approach, the COPS Office ensures that the right 

funds are provided to correct agencies to address appropriate 

needs. 

Yet despite the best efforts of our Nation’s law enforcement officers, the disturbing truth is that each year in the United States, 

well over a million of our fellow citizens are victims of violent 

crime. Unfortunately, in the last 2 years, we have seen a steady 

increase in the rate of violent crime in the United States. According 

to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, violent crime rose at a rate of 

54

2.5 percent during 2005. To put that into perspective, that is an additional 31,479 victims. 

This increase in the crime rate appears to be accelerating for the 

first 6 months of 2006. The crime rate rose at a percent of 3.7 percent when compared to the same frame in 2005. If this rate holds 

for the final 6 months—and I am sorry to say that I believe that 

it will—it will mean an additional 47,000 Americans found themselves victims of violent crime. 

Further, for violent crime in general, cities with populations of 

25,000 to 50,000 are seeing the fastest-growing incidents. From 

2004 to the first 6 months of 2006, the violent crime rate in these 

communities rose by more than 8 percent. In towns with populations of 10,000 to 25,000, the homicide rate went up more than 

6.5 percent over the same 2-year period. 

I believe it is important to note that when compared to fiscal 

year 2002, the funding level of $3.8 billion, the Administration’s fiscal year 2008 proposal represents a reduction of more than $3.2 billion, or 85 percent, and no program has been hit harder than the 

COPS program. 

It is for these reasons that the IACP is such a strong supporter 

of the COPS Improvement program. By reauthorizing and expanding the mission of the COPS program, this legislation will ensure 

that the COPS program continues to serve and assist the State, 

tribal and local law enforcement communities. 

For 51⁄2 years, law enforcement agencies and officers have willingly made the sacrifices necessary to meet the challenges of fighting both crime and terrorism. They have done so because they understand the critical importance of what they are sworn to do and 

they remain faithful to fulfilling their mission of protecting and 

serving the public. 

However, the expenditure of resources necessary to maintain this 

effort has left many police departments in a financial situation so 

dire that their ability to provide the services their citizens expect 

and deserve has been threatened and, in fact, diminished. This 

must not and cannot continue. 

If our efforts to reduce crime and promote homeland security are 

to have any chance of succeeding, it is absolutely vital for Congress 

and the Administration to make the necessary resources available 

that would America’s first line of defense, law enforcement, to 

mount successful and effective anti-crime programs, which are also 

effective anti-terrorism programs. 

That concludes my statement, and I would certainly be pleased 

to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Mosca follows:]

55

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDMUND MOSCA


EMA0001.eps
56


EMA0002.eps
57


EMA0003.eps
58


EMA0004.eps
59


EMA0005.eps
60

ATTACHMENT


EMB0001.eps
61


EMB0002.eps
62


EMB0003.eps
63


EMB0004.eps
64


EMB0005.eps
65


EMB0006.eps
66


EMB0007.eps
67


EMB0008.eps
68


EMB0009.eps
69


EMB0010.eps
70


EMB0011.eps
71


EMB0012.eps
72


EMB0013.eps
73


EMB0014.eps
74


EMB0015.eps
75

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you. 

Ms. Harris? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KAMALA D. HARRIS, 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. HARRIS. Good afternoon, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Forbes and other Members of the Committee. My name is 

Kamala Harris. I am the District Attorney of the City and County 

of San Francisco, and I also serve on the board of directors of the 

National District Attorneys Association. 

I will be speaking about each of the three bills, beginning with 

H.R. 933, Witness Intimidation. 

Nationwide, witness intimidation is among the most urgent and 

important challenges facing prosecutors and police, and the issue 

seriously undermines our efforts to catch and prosecute the country’s most dangerous and violent criminals. In many jurisdictions, 

in fact, it has become an epidemic. 

District Attorney Dan Conley of Boston, a colleague serving on 

the National DA’s Association, reports that 90 percent of his office’s 

gun-and gang-related cases involve some form of witness intimidation. Baltimore states attorney Pat Jessamy also estimates that 

there has been witness intimidation in 90 percent of her homicide 

cases. 

In a recent Massachusetts survey of children and teenagers, 64 

percent said that people will not report gang-related crime because 

they are afraid of retaliation or being killed. Recently, this hit 

home for us in San Francisco. 

We had basically a real tragedy occur when one of our witnesses, 

who I will refer to as a hero, was murdered in the streets of San 

Francisco simply because he had the courage to come forward and 

be willing to testify about this most outrageous crime. His name 

was Terrell Rollins. 

Terrell Rollins was shot, and he was seriously injured by the alleged shooter in the homicide case. He agreed to come forward and 

be relocated through our witness relocation program, and as a result of his safety during that time in the program, he successfully 

testified before the grand jury, which returned an indictment. 

Tragically, however, he returned to the old neighborhood, and he 

was killed, as we could have predicted. 

He was a witness and the only witness in that case, and as a result, the court had to dismiss that homicide case against a killer 

who is now walking the streets. And by the way, no witnesses have 

come forward to talk about the killing of Terrell Rollins. 

Last year, in San Bernardino, California, two witnesses were also 

killed. Eighteen-year-old Melquiades Jose Rojas testified before two 

gang members and against two gang members in a murder case. 

After he testified, he was found dead, shot 25 times. 

In another case in San Bernardino, a defendant broke into a 

witness’s home and killed the witness and the witness’s father and 

wounded the witness’s infant son. 

In 2003, in Shenandoah County, Virginia, Mr. Forbes, a 17-yearold girl was found stabbed to death on the banks of the river. She 

was 4 months pregnant. She had cooperated in the investigation of 

76

a Texas gang homicide but left the Federal Witness Security Program. Four gang members were charged with her murder. 

Each of these cases underscores the urgent need for H.R. 933. 

Law enforcement must have the tools we need to bring order to 

communities that are too frequently being overrun and overwhelmed by gang violence. 

H.R. 933 is critical also because local and State witness relocation programs are severely under funded. In fact, California only 

has $3 million per year for witness protection for the entire State. 

In 2005, Baltimore only had $400,000 to relocate 184 families. Federal support is necessary because effective witness support is essential to our ability to respond to an increasingly rising tide of violence, as the chief of police has indicated. 

And certainly, if law enforcement is unable to ensure safety for 

its own witnesses, who can? We cannot ask courageous witnesses 

to come forward, putting their lives on the line, if we are not willing to dedicate all and any resources necessary to protect them, to 

keep them safe and then to ensure serious consequences for those 

who are committing murders and gang violence in our community. 

As it relates to H.R. 1700, I agree with what the speakers have 

said before me. I believe that it will help to address violence and 

witness intimidation in addition. More violent crime, but fewer witnesses, as I have mentioned, are coming forward to help police and 

prosecutors get violent criminals off the street. Many murders, in 

fact, remain unsolved throughout this country and not because 

there are no witnesses, but because no witnesses will come forward. 

For example, in San Francisco, out of 181 murders occurring in 

2005 and 2006, police have only cleared 30 percent. In Philadelphia, half the murders since 2002 remain unsolved. In Palm Beach 

County——

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Harris, could you——

Ms. HARRIS. I will close it up, and I think I have made my point, 

which is that we have a situation where we absolutely have to ensure that we are protecting witnesses. I believe the COPS funding 

will help police officers on a local basis do that. 

And finally, I would ask your support of the ability for prosecutors and public defenders to receive support in reducing their loan 

debt so that they can continue to do the important work they do 

pursuing criminal justice and justice in our courthouses across this 

country. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KAMALA D. HARRIS

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Scott, Member Waters, Member Forbes, and Members of the Committee on the Judiciary: 

My name is Kamala D. Harris, and I am the District Attorney for the City and 

County of San Francisco. I have served in this capacity for the last three years and 

have been a career prosecutor for the last seventeen years. Prior to being elected 

District Attorney, I served as a prosecutor in Alameda County, California specializing in the prosecution of child sexual assault cases, homicides, and other violent 

crimes. I also served as Chief of the Career Criminal Unit of the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office and the Chief of the City Attorney’s Division of Families and 

77

1 Johnson, Claire, Barbara Webster, and Edward Connors, ‘‘Prosecuting Gangs: A National Assessment,’’ Research in Brief, National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice, 

February 1995. 

Children. I currently serve on the board of the National District Attorneys Association. 

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Chairman Scott for inviting me to 

speak on these urgent issues. I am very grateful for the opportunity to address the 

Committee regarding House Resolution 933, the ‘‘Witness Security and Protection 

Act of 2007,’’ H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvement Act of 2007, and H.R 916, the 

‘‘John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007.’’

H.R. 933: WITNESS INTIMIDATION—THE SCOPE AND IMPACT ON CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

It is fitting that we are considering the pressing matters of witness intimidation 

and witness security during National Crime Victims’ Rights Week. Nationwide, witness intimidation is among the most urgent and important challenges facing prosecutors in the pursuit of justice for crime victims. 

Simply put, across the country, witnesses are increasingly refusing to come forward to provide information to law enforcement or to testify in serious and gangrelated criminal cases. Many witnesses simply refuse to cooperate with law enforcement and are fearful of being labeled a ‘‘snitch’’ or becoming victims of violence 

themselves. Many have received threats or have been otherwise intimidated. 

This problem of witness intimidation strikes at the very heart of the American 

criminal justice system. Without witnesses coming forward to provide information 

leading to the arrest and prosecution of violent criminals, law enforcement cannot 

apprehend and prosecute those accused of serious and violent crimes. Indeed, the 

structure of our adversarial system presumes that witnesses will be available and 

willing to testify. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the accused the right to confront witnesses against him because it assumes that 

witnesses will come forward. But in an increasing number of cases, witnesses are 

being intimidated, threatened or even killed. 

While it has been difficult for researchers to quantify the scope of witness intimidation, the vast majority of prosecutors and police believe that witness intimidation 

is a paramount concern. The available data strongly support their view. District Attorney Daniel Conley of Suffolk County, Massachusetts reports that 90% of his office’s gun and gang-related cases involve some form of witness intimidation. Baltimore’s State’s Attorney, Patricia Jessamy, estimates that 90% of her office’s homicide prosecutions involve some form of witness intimidation or coercion. Between 

2000 and 2005, the Los Angeles Police Department reported a yearly average of 

more than 778 gang-related witness intimidation offenses. 

The data suggest a troubling increase in witness intimidation compared to a decade ago. According to the National Institute of Justice’s 1995 study of witness intimidation, only 51 percent of prosecutors in large jurisdictions and 43 percent in 

small jurisdictions said that the intimidation of victims and witnesses was a major 

problem.1 Prosecutors across the country believe that the issue of witness intimidation is the single biggest hurdle facing any successful gang prosecution. 

Perhaps the most compelling evidence of the broadening scope of the witness intimidation problem is its impact on the attitudes of teens and young adults toward 

testifying. Their attitudes toward law enforcement and testifying are critical, as 

young people are often the eyewitnesses to gang-related crimes in their neighborhoods. The mere perception of retaliation profoundly impacts their willingness to cooperate with law enforcement. In a recent study, ‘‘Snitches Get Stitches: Youth, 

Gangs, and Witness Intimidation in Massachusetts,’’ sponsored by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and the National Center for Victims of Crime, 

641 young people between 12 and 18 years old who attend Boys and Girls Clubs 

in Massachusetts were surveyed. Twenty-five percent of survey participants said 

that none of their neighbors would report a gang-related crime, and 64 percent said 

that people will not report such crimes because they are afraid of retaliation or 

being killed. The number of young people who reported these attitudes was far higher than the 12% of participants who had actually been threatened for reporting a 

crime. 

There is a very high level of fear of retaliation, fear which may often by driven 

by recent, high-profile crimes committed against witnesses who participated in witness relocation and protection programs. 

78

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT’S NEED FOR EXPANDED WITNESS RELOCATION AND

PROTECTION SERVICES

As H.R. 933 recognizes, witness relocation and protection programs are law enforcement’s primary tool to respond to witness intimidation. Unfortunately, most 

local and state-level witness relocation and protection programs are temporary, severely underfunded, and provide few services to witnesses. Above all, these relocation programs are voluntary, and witnesses can, and often do, leave at any time. 

Indeed, in several recent cases, witnesses have left relocation programs against advice, returned to their old neighborhoods, and were killed. As detailed below, one 

such case occurred in San Francisco, others have occurred around the state of California, and there are other similar examples across the nation.

• San Francisco, CA. Last year, an heroic young witness, Terrell Rollins, was 

killed by three masked gunmen after leaving my office’s Witness Relocation 

and Assistance Program and returning to his old neighborhood. Mr. Rollins 

had testified before a grand jury in a homicide case in which he had also been 

shot and severely injured. His life was threatened for testifying, so he agreed 

to be relocated from his old neighborhood. Tragically, he returned to that 

neighborhood and was gunned down in broad daylight. He was a hero, and 

his death sparked a major outcry from the community. I convened a citywide 

summit of faith, community and law enforcement leaders after he was killed 

to develop a community-based plan for supporting victims and witnesses who 

agree to testify in court. The homicide case in which Terrell was to testify 

was dismissed. Meanwhile, no witnesses have come forward to help the police 

solve Terrell’s murder.

• San Bernadino, CA. Two witnesses in San Bernadino were killed after coming forward to testify in violent criminal cases. Eighteen year old Melquiades 

Jose Rojas testified against two alleged gang members in a murder case in 

San Bernadino. Shortly after he testified, he was found shot to death on the 

side of a road. He had been shot twenty-five times in the head and chest. He 

had qualified for witness relocation, but he had returned home and had not 

relocated at the time he was killed. In another case, a defendant broke into 

the home of a witness who had testified against him. The defendant also 

killed the witness’s father and wounded his infant son.

• Baltimore, MD. A 17-year-old cooperative witness to a gang murder was 

shot in the back of the head by two members of the suspect’s gang.

• Shenandoah County, VA. In 2003, a 17-year-old girl, who was four months 

pregnant, was found stabbed to death on the banks of the Shenandoah River. 

She had been a witness to a gang murder in the state of Texas and had been 

in the federal witness protection program, which she voluntarily left and rejoined her gang, the notorious Mara Salvatrucha gang, commonly known as 

MS-13. She was apparently killed for past cooperation with law enforcement. 

Four MS-13 members were charged in federal court for her murder.

These cases are tragic, and they contribute to the climate of fear and intimidation 

in communities under siege by gangs and violence. These cases also dramatically 

underscore the urgent need for H.R. 933 and additional resources for local law enforcement to relocate and protect witnesses who courageously come forward. 

Many local witness relocation, assistance and protection programs are severely 

under-funded, to the extent they even exist as formal programs. Operating on shoestring budgets, local law enforcement agencies often can only provide temporary 

services for no longer than the duration of the underlying criminal prosecution. 

Even in California, our state only budgets $3 million per year for witness protection 

for the entire state. In 2005, 184 families were relocated from Baltimore, but the 

city only has a $400,000 budget for witness relocation. In smaller jurisdictions and 

states, witness relocation or protection consists of giving a witness rent money for 

a hotel or helping them move in with relatives or friends. 

Effective witness relocation, support and protection are essential to our ability to 

respond to a rising tide of violence in our country. If law enforcement is unable to 

ensure safety for its own witnesses, who can we protect? It is unacceptable for us 

to ask heroic witnesses to come forward, putting their lives and the lives of their 

families on the line, if we are not willing to dedicate the resources necessary to keep 

them safe. The problem of gang violence and intimidation is most acute in our nation’s most struggling communities. We must make real the promise of safety for 

those neighborhoods. We cannot tolerate in America that there are zones of lethality 

in urban centers across the country, zones of lethality a few miles from where we 

sit today, zones that those of us fortunate enough to have the option, never drive 

through, and where we certainly do not linger. 

79

Law enforcement must have the tools necessary to bring order to those communities overrun by gang violence. And let us not suppose that the rest of us are immune from the effects of that violence simply because we may live in a different 

zip code. We are all at risk when murderers and violent gang members are left free 

to commit crime in a lawless environment. There must be consequences for violent 

crime. Accountability for the perpetrators so often rests on the ability of witnesses 

to participate in our criminal justice process. 

I believe the Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007 will provide critical resources to local and state law enforcement agencies to shore-up local efforts to relocate and protect our witnesses. It would establish within the United States Marshals Service a short-term witness protection program to provide assistance to state 

and local prosecutors to protect their witnesses in serious criminal cases. This assistance will be especially critical for smaller jurisdictions and in states where there 

are few, if any, existing resources for witness relocation and protection. 

ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS FOR WITNESS RELOCATION AND PROTECTION SERVICES

In addition, I suggest that the Committee consider funding a more comprehensive, 

victim-centered approach to witness relocation and protection. Relocation must be 

a long-term option for witnesses and their families. Many witnesses have left their 

neighborhoods for the first time, and they often return home to danger against the 

advice of law enforcement because their participation is voluntary. To ensure that 

witnesses remain in their new, safer communities, witnesses and their families 

should receive comprehensive advocacy to connect them with services and opportunities in their new environment. In my office, I assign a Victim Advocate to each 

witness and family in relocation. The Victim Advocate works to connect witnesses 

and their families with counseling, treatment, education, recreation programs, and 

local service providers, so they can productively occupy their time and become 

grounded in their new host community while they are relocated. The goal is to 

meaningfully connect them to their new community so they are more likely to resist 

the pull of the familiar and return to their old neighborhood where they face danger. 

It is imperative to make this investment, so that witnesses remain relocated, available to testify at trial, and murderers can be brought to justice. 

H.R. 1700: THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES

AND IMPROVING COOPERATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT

Addressing intimidation and retaliation is necessary but, on its own, not sufficient 

to ensure broad and sustainable cooperation from witnesses. Across the country, in 

large and small communities, witnesses are simply are not coming forward and will 

not cooperate with law enforcement. This is a community-wide problem that requires a community-wide approach, particularly federal support for community policing efforts. 

The primary evidence of this broad reluctance to cooperate with law enforcement 

is the high number of unsolved murders in urban and suburban America. While the 

impact is most severe in predominantly poor, minority neighborhoods in major 

American cities, smaller and more rural areas have been impacted as well. In many 

unsolved murder cases, there were several, if not many, eyewitnesses to the murders, none of whom have been willing to come forward. 

For example, in San Francisco, out of 181 murders occurring in 2005 and 2006, 

police have only cleared 30%. There have been murders in my city committed in 

broad daylight where we know there were 10 or more eyewitnesses, yet no one has 

come forward and the crimes remain unsolved. The killers remain on the loose, 

surely prepared to kill again. In Philadelphia, half of the murders since 2002 remain 

unsolved. According to my good friend and colleague Professor David Kennedy at 

the City College of New York, who is among the nation’s leading experts on criminal 

justice issues, recently stated that the solve rates for homicides in some urban communities have dipped into single digits, far below the national standard of roughly 

60%. A similar trend is occurring in smaller and medium-sized jurisdictions. In 

Palm Beach County, Florida, all of the county’s seven murders this year remain unsolved. In Pomona, California, only 44% of the city’s homicides had been solved at 

the end of 2006. 

Many witnesses perceive cooperating with law enforcement as ‘‘snitching.’’ Over 

the last few years, a ‘‘Stop Snitching’’ phenomenon has developed in youth culture, 

reflected in underground DVD’s and the ubiquitous ‘‘Stop Snitching’’ t-shirts people 

wear in courthouses across the country, including parents who have worn the shirts 

to their children’s court hearings in our juvenile courthouse in San Francisco. In 

Boston, the presiding judge saw so many of the t-shirts in his courtroom that he 

banned ‘‘Stop Snitching’’ attire from the court building and property. 

80

2 Heather Wells Jarvis, Financing the Future, Responses to the Rising Debt of Law Students,

2nd Edition, Equal Justice Works, 2006, citing National Association for Law Placement (NALP) 

2006 Public Sector and Public Interest Attorney Salary Report. 

My experience with young people in my jurisdiction also reflects the strong influence of the ‘‘Stop Snitching’’ attitude and refusal to report crime. In the aftermath 

of the murder of Terrell Rollins that I described earlier, I organized a citywide summit on witness intimidation with faith, community, youth and law enforcement leaders. We held a focus group with four young adults between 16–28 years old, who 

said that fear of ostracism from their community was a primary reason for refusing 

to ‘‘snitch’’ on others. 

This suggests that entire communities are experiencing a reluctance to come forward. Witnesses fear being cast out of their communities and labeled ‘‘snitches’’ in 

addition to literal retaliation. This requires a broad, community-based response 

from police and prosecutors in close partnership with a broad cross-section of partners—in other words, an aggressive commitment to community policing. 

Community policing is the cornerstone of efforts to build the bond of trust between police and prosecutors and the communities we serve. I strongly support restoration of the cuts imposed on the COPS program and urge the Committee to support the program. 

Community policing promises a durable, meaningful partnership between police 

and citizens to prevent crime, solve problems and conditions that encourage crime, 

and work together to hold perpetrators accountable for committing crimes. Most 

models of community policing focus on the delivery of police services that includes 

aspects of traditional law enforcement, as well as prevention, problem-solving, community engagement, and partnerships. 

Community policing is the most important component of the very best response 

to crime, preventing it in the first place. Significant spikes in violent crime in many 

urban centers threaten to reverse many years of tremendous improvement in crime 

rates. Restored funding for the COPS program will increase the number of police 

officers on the street at a time when we face a critical juncture in crime control for 

our country. This funding is, again, vital to our duty to protect from crime and violence every citizen, every neighborhood, no matter how poor or marginalized. But 

we cannot be shortsighted enough to think that the recent increases in violent crime 

will remain isolated in pockets of poverty. Crime is on the rise and our response 

must be swift and substantial so that violence is quickly brought under control before it spreads and becomes more acute. 

H.R. 916: THE LAW SCHOOL STUDENT LOAN DEBT PROBLEM FOR PROSECUTORS AND

PUBLIC DEFENDERS

It is imperative that prosecutors’ offices are able to recruit the best and brightest 

attorneys and retain the most qualified and experienced prosecutors in their offices. 

The ‘‘John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act’’ will provide a modest incentive to attract prosecutors and public defenders to public service and help 

them maintain that commitment throughout their careers. 

This is an issue on which the National District Attorneys Association believes urgent Congressional action is needed. I should note that I am also advocating on behalf of both prosecutors and public defenders. We are united in this effort to ensure 

that our offices are fully staffed with trained and experienced attorneys because we 

have an equally strong interest in maintaining confidence in the criminal justice 

system. 

Prosecutors continue to be paid low salaries compared to those in the private sector. In 2006, Equal Justice Works reported in Financing the Future, Responses to 

the Rising Debt of Law Students that starting salaries for state and local prosecuting attorneys averaged approximately $44,000.2 Prosecutors’ offices simply cannot compete with private firms to attract the best and brightest lawyers. With major 

law firms offering starting salaries of over $125,000 per year, the modest salaries 

young prosecutors earn pale in comparison. And it is not a lack of commitment to 

public service that draws many law school graduates away from public service, but 

their student loans. Burdened with loan debt from undergraduate and graduate 

studies, the Equal Justice Works study concluded that the ‘‘average amount borrowed in law school by the class of 2005 was $78,763 at a private school and 

$51,056 at a public school. Many lawyers in my office owe over $100,000 in law 

school debt alone. 

This unfortunate combination inevitably causes high turn-over rates that result 

in less experienced prosecutors in courtrooms across this country handling more and 

more serious criminal cases. Neither the safety of victims and the public, nor due 

81

process protections for the accused, should be short-changed while a new prosecutor 

or public defender ‘‘learns the ropes.’’

SURVEY OF THE NATION’S PROSECUTORS REGARDING STUDENT LOAN DEBT

In 2005, the National District Attorneys Association’s Office of Research and Evaluation and the National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators conducted a national 

survey of prosecutors on law school student loan debt and the associated issues. Researchers received 2,119 responses from prosecutors all over the country, most of 

whom graduated from law school between the years 1998 and 2003 and had worked 

as prosecutors for an average of four years. 

Analysis of the survey results revealed that more than 50 percent of the responding chief prosecutors and supervisors had between one and five prosecutors leave 

their offices in 2005. This may seem like an insignificant number, however, it becomes quite significant when you learn that 64 percent of prosecutors’ offices that 

responded to the survey were comprised of ten or fewer assistant prosecutors. The 

end result is that attrition was 50 percent or higher in the responding small offices. 

In addition, 53 percent of the chief prosecutors reported in the survey that law 

school student loan debt was a very significant factor in their ability to retain staff 

and 62 percent of the chief prosecutors reported that student loan debt is a very 

significant factor in their ability to recruit staff. Chief prosecutors reported on average that low salaries and student loan payments were the causes for nearly a third 

of the prosecutors who left their offices. Two-thirds of the responding prosecutors 

advised that law school student loan debt is an important consideration in deciding 

to become a career prosecutor. More than 55 percent of the respondents reported 

that they would continue prosecuting for 20 to 30 years if law schools loans were 

forgiven. 

Public defenders are subject to the same difficulties in retaining attorneys. With 

starting salaries of about $35,000, new defenders cannot afford to repay their student loans. As a result, over a three and a half year period, the Saint Louis, Missouri Public Defender’s Office saw 36 attorneys exit their office that employs only 

28 defenders. 

These unfortunate retention figures signify that inexperienced attorneys are handling cases beyond their capabilities and training. There are numerous criminal 

cases that are particularly difficult because of the dynamics involved. To name just 

a few—child abuse, elder neglect, domestic violence, identity theft and public corruption. The stakes are simply too high to allow any attorney other than experienced 

prosecutors to handle these matters. 

A memo from an Assistant District Attorney (‘‘ADA’’) to a supervisor in Pennsylvania illustrates this very problem, stating:

‘‘Nearly half of the ADAs in the Major Trials Unit and in the Family Violence 

and Sexual Assault Unit were hired in 1995 or after. In the Felony Waiver 

Unit, our most experienced ADA has been in the unit for approximately 4 

months, and we have 8 lawyers who have been in the office 15 months or less. 

For the first time since I have been chief of the Felony Waiver Unit, there is 

not one lawyer currently assigned here who is ready to try a Major case (one 

will be ready in another month or so). There is no question that the departure 

of a significant number of lawyers with 3–5 years experience would have an adverse impact on this office, especially since most of the ADA’s in this unit are 

6 months or more away from being capable of trying the complex and serious 

cases in the more advanced units.’’

Beyond recruitment and retention difficulties caused by the high cost of attending 

law school and the low salaries paid to local prosecutors, chief prosecutors and supervisors cited other effects in their offices such as increased caseloads per prosecutor, increased costs for training, decreased morale, and increased risk of prosecutorial error. 

The questions then become ‘‘How can society, in good conscience, ask prosecutors 

and public defenders to sacrifice so much for so little pay?’’ How long should they 

be required to postpone purchasing a home, getting married, starting a family, or 

buying a car? In some instances prosecutors are sacrificing even more. 

Some may be unable to purchase safe housing. Some may be driving unsafe cars 

because they cannot afford repairs or replacements. Some may even be unable to 

pay for necessary medical and dental care. Falling behind in their loan payments 

due to inadequate salaries leads to accrued interest, making the task of paying the 

debt off even more daunting. Trying to pay off student loan debt may also leave 

many unable to pay for utilities, food, and clothing. In the end, there is simply no 

solution to the impending financial disaster except a move to the private sector. 

82

3 A Survey of Assistant District Attorney Student Loan Indebtedness in 16 New York State 

Counties, The Office of the Queens County District Attorney, Information Services, March 2001.

Following are just some of the comments from New York prosecutors made during 

a student loan survey conducted by the Office of the Queens County District Attorney’s Office, Information Services (March 2001),3 illustrating their dire financial situations: 

• ‘‘My wife and I live paycheck to paycheck . . .’’

• ‘‘I can only afford to pay $400 a month ? this payment does not cover the interest. Therefore my balance keeps going up!’’

• ‘‘I currently have all of my loans in forbearance because of an inability to pay 

due to inadequate earnings. Forbearance will cause my total indebtedness to 

increase as interest accrues.’’

• ‘‘I have had to obtain a waitressing job on the weekends to supplement my 

income.’’

• ‘‘. . . I am forced to choose between paying rent or paying off my loans. I cannot afford to live in an area where I feel safe and pay off my loans at the 

same time.’’

• ‘‘I had to obtain part-time employment in an effort to make sufficient money 

to remain an ADA.’’

• ‘‘Please make sure this bill is passed. I?m currently living in poverty.’’

• ‘‘Nearly half of my take home pay goes towards my loans.’’0

• ‘‘. . . I am treading water until I can make more money.’’

A PROVEN AND SOUND LOAN REPAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The ‘‘John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act’’ is modeled after 

a similar program currently used effectively by many federal agencies as a recruitment and retention tool. The program would allow the repayment of up to $10,000 

of student loan debt per year for state and local prosecutors and public defenders 

with a limit of $60,000 imposed. Because the program requires that a recipient commit to employment for at least three years, the problems with attrition and inexperience will certainly be alleviated. As a career prosecutor and on behalf of the nation’s 

prosecutors, I strongly believe that the ‘‘John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders 

Incentive Act’’ is a wise and urgently needed investment in the integrity of the 

criminal justice system. 

CONCLUSION

I deeply appreciate this opportunity to discuss these important issues with the 

Committee. I thank you for your time and attention, and I welcome any questions 

from the Committee.

TESTIMONY OF MARK EPLEY, MARK EPLEY, SENIOR COUNSEL, 

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. EPLEY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Forbes, distinguished members of the panel. My name is Mark 

Epley. I work for the deputy attorney general of the United States 

Department of Justice, and I am glad for the opportunity to speak 

to you today about violent crime in America and what the department is doing to assist our State and local partners with the prevention and control of crime. 

Due in large part to the hard work of State and local law enforcement, in 2005, the crime rate remained near historic lows, according to National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI’s Uniform 

Crime Report. After rising to an alarming peak in the early to mid1990’s, violent crime in America has fallen precipitously ever since. 

Although in 2005, we do observe an increase in violent crime as 

to murder, robbery, to some extent aggravated assault—rape actually went down—it is important to note that the rate of crime 

83

measured in 2005 is the second-lowest ever recorded or reported by 

the UCR. The lowest recorded was in 2004. 

When we look at the crime data, there is no obvious nationwide 

trend. Rather, what we observe is an increase in certain crimes in 

certain communities. In general, for example, while the United 

States experienced a 2.4 percent increase in the rate of homicide, 

in New England, that increase was 5.3 percent. In the South, it 

was 0.8 percent. In the West, it was 1.7 percent. 

In addition to regional variation, we also see that cities have experienced crime based on their size. Those cities that were a million persons or more barely registered a change at all. As Mr. 

Forbes mentioned, Los Angeles and New York saw a decrease. 

Small cites, those 10,000 to 25,000, saw a decrease. But those cities 

100,000 to 250,000 saw a measurable increase in violent crime. 

What is also not obvious when we look at the data is what the 

cause or causes of the regional or the localized increases on crime 

that are observed. To better understand the situation, the Department of Justice visited a number of communities across the country, those both experiencing an increase in crime and those that 

have seen a decrease, and from these meetings, the department 

sought to learn from local leaders what works and what their law 

enforcement challenges are. 

One consistent theme we heard is the importance of Federal-local 

partnership. A specific example that arose was Project Safe Neighborhoods. Through Project Safe Neighborhoods, local law enforcement and prosecutors are able to refer gun crimes to the Federal 

system for prosecution, and through this partnership, we have doubled the number of gun crime prosecutions over the last 6 years 

when compared to the preceding 6 years. 

Another form of partnership in action is law enforcement task 

force activity. Some examples of those led by Federal law enforcement include the FBI’s Safe Streets Task Forces, the ATF’s Violent 

Crime Impact Teams and the U.S. Marshals’ Regional Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces. 

Whether partnerships through prosecution or operations, we 

want to continue to find ways to shore up our relationship with 

State and local law enforcement. But we appreciate that sometimes 

cooperation on their part takes resources. 

The President’s fiscal year 2008 budget request reflects that concern. It seeks $200 million for the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Initiative. This initiative will make money available to 

State and local law enforcement task forces to address violent 

crime in those communities that are having a challenging time, 

and they are able to fashion a law enforcement solution that is well 

suited to the problem that they see. 

In addition, the department has begun to consolidate certain 

grant programs in order to ensure effectiveness. The Byrne Public 

Safety and Protection Program in the President’s fiscal year 2008 

budget will consolidate the department’s most successful State and 

local law enforcement assistance programs into a single, flexible, 

competitive grant program. This new approach will help State, 

local, tribal governments develop programs appropriate to the particular needs of their jurisdictions. 

84

And training will continue to be an important part of helping our 

State and local partners grow capacity in the face of emerging 

crime trends. 

The Department of Justice is committed to helping our State and 

local partners prevent and control crime, but we must understand 

that crime is not evenly distributed across the United States. Rather, some regions, some counties, cities and towns experience more 

crime than others. One-size-fits-all solutions are not well suited to 

the crime challenges as we observe them in the field. 

By better understanding emerging crime trends and the nature 

of crime in the United States, we can more effectively partner and 

more effectively target resources to where they are most needed 

and we are committed to doing that. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Epley follows:]

85

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK EPLEY


ME0002.eps
86


ME0003.eps
87


ME0004.eps
88


ME0005.eps
89


ME0006.eps
90


ME0007.eps
91


ME0008.eps
92


ME0009.eps
93

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Monaghan? 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN MONAGHAN, CONSULTANT,

NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK 

Mr. MONAGHAN. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to 

testify. 

As has been mentioned, the FBI crime reports show a 3.7 percent 

increase in violent crime. In contrast, the city of New York has a 

3.1 percent decline in violent crime. In fact, overall crime is down 

in New York for that time frame 7 percent. 

When you realize that the NYPD is the same size roughly as the 

United States Coast Guard and we police a city of over 8 million 

people, yet have kept crime down under the national average, we 

need to look at the management innovations as well as technological ones that have helped us do that. 

But, first, before we examine those innovations, I would like to 

put to rest the notion that there is some overarching socioeconomic 

shift in society that has caused this sustained decrease in crime. 

It is policing. It is better policing. 

You know, we would be hard-pressed 30 years ago to find a college or an institution that offered criminal justice degrees. Today, 

you could hardly find one that does not. The entire profession itself 

has really taken steps forward in recent years. You know, just the 

criminal justice program at Harvard’s Kennedy School is only 25 

years old. 

In order to sustain this particular innovation in policing, we 

must continue to respect the profession by duly crediting it with 

the overall reduction in crime nationwide. 

So why is New York ahead of the curve? CompStat, in a word. 

But there is a lot more to it. 

Back in 1988 was the first time a police department in New York 

City had educational mandates for promotion. We needed 64 credits to become a sergeant, 96 to become a lieutenant, and a bachelor’s degree to become an executive officer and the rank of captain. 

This laid the groundwork and filled the middle ranks with educated people. For the mid-1990’s, there was actually a management 

revolution within the NYPD. Never before, mid-level managers promoted to the top of the agency. We had one-star chiefs become fourstar chiefs overnight. It energized a more educated department, 

and, you know, CompStat was really just the first manifestation of 

that revolution. 

From that time forward now, CompStat and all the innovations 

at NYPD have been managed. We have one-star chiefs now with 

less than 20 years on the job. I mean, that is unheard of in policing. The entire, not just the demographics of the NYPD have 

changed dramatically, but the attitude of the entire agency. It has 

become a mantra in government in New York lately that we are 

going to do more with less, and they really have been in New York. 

We have less cops now than we had in the past. 

So let’s talk about CompStat. It really is the greatest innovation 

in policing in our generation. It has run a course, it has been very 

94

successful, but it does have limitations, and New York does recognize that. 

Recently, they started the Real Time Crime Center in order to 

combat crime while it is occurring. 

I will say less about CompStat before the red light goes off, okay. 

Before the crime center, cops in the field would get information 

from witnesses and victims. They would have to go back to the station-house, run the information through whatever database they 

felt was pertinent to the investigation. This could take days or 

weeks. It now happens in moments. 

In policing, the term rapid deployment had always meant lights 

and sirens. But now with the crime center, we rapidly deploy information to the field. It is staffed with about two dozen investigators, 

and it processes in puts from the field and runs them through billions of records. 

Just a few months after the center opened, Bronx detectives responded to the abduction of a 4-year-old child that was perpetrated 

by a babysitter who had been fired. Using only the information 

available, which was a State identification number, the Real Time 

Crime Center produced seven names with seven different addresses, three dates of birth and six Social Security numbers, for that 

one ID number. 

Can you imagine how long it would take for human detectives to 

plow through that information? The Real Time Crime Center did 

it in moments. The common denominator was found, the child was 

recovered and the perpetrator arrested in a timely fashion. The Real Time Crime Center was an $11 million investment. It 

was funded mostly by the mayor’s executive budget, with $1.8 million coming from Federal funds and $1.3 million coming from the 

New York Police Foundation. Most of America’s 10 largest cities 

have supporting, non-profit foundations that provide funding not 

found in their city budgets. 

But again, with the second largest police department in the country being one-tenth the size of the NYPD, it is unfair to compare 

resources really. The New York Police Foundation has funded over 

400 programs to the tune of $70 million since its inception in 1971. 

Another innovation in policing that did not cost local government 

any funding at all had to do with some high-profile homicides that 

we had in New York related to some of our trendier nightclubs in 

past months. You may have heard of them. Since then, the New 

York City Council has enacted a law that mandates video surveillance in such cabarets as a licensing requirement, and, of course, 

the police have access to those videos if we need them for investigative purposes. 

I am over. Okay. You know what? It is the people. It is the people that man these machines. Otherwise, it is just an electronic 

tiger. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Monaghan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN MONAGHAN

Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes, Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting me here to testify today. 

As I’m sure we’re all aware the FBI crime reports for the first half of 2006 show 

a nationwide increase in violent crime of 3.7 percent. In contrast, the City of New 

95

York has recorded a 3.1 percent decline in violent crime for that same period. In 

fact New York City’s overall crime rate, which includes property crimes along with 

violent crimes, has declined 7.2% in that period. 

When you realize that the New York City Police Department is roughly the same 

size as the United States Coast Guard and they police a city of over eight million 

and have kept crime down under the national average making New York the safest 

big city in America, you have to look at their innovations in management and technology. 

But first, before we examine those innovations, I’d like to put to rest the notion 

that some overarching socioeconomic shift is responsible for this sustained decrease 

in crime. It’s better policing. In his new book, ‘‘The Great American Crime Decline,’’ 

Franklin Zimring at UC Berkeley’s School of Law attests to the fact that better policing is the real explanation for New York City’s success. In fact if there’s any demographic-like shift in our society that may account, in part, for the overall brighter 

picture in crime trends nationwide, it’s the evolution of the profession of policing 

itself. Thirty or more years ago, there were not many colleges or universities that 

offered classes or degrees in Police Science or Criminal Justice. Today, we’d be hard 

pressed to find an educational institution that doesn’t offer such programs. Even the 

Criminal Justice Program at Harvard’s Kennedy School is only 25 years old. 

So, why is New York ahead of the curve? We all know that New York City was 

the birthplace of CompStat but that was just the beginning. CompStat was merely 

the first recognizable product of an internal management revolution that took place 

in the NYPD in the mid-nineties. Never before in the history of that department 

had mid-level managers been elevated directly to top management positions. Educational mandates were put in place for promotion to Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain. In fact, the man who designed the CompStat system, the late Jack Maple, was 

only a Lieutenant when he was promoted directly to Deputy Commissioner to implement the CompStat system citywide. In the wake of those changes the attitude and 

demographics of the entire police department changed. The CompStat era was ushered in by a younger, more educated generation. This all points to the first management innovation that underlies the NYPD’s unprecedented success; a better-educated and highly motivated workforce. 

In order to perpetuate this particular innovation, we must continue to respect the 

profession by duly crediting it with the overall reduction in crime nationwide. 

CompStat is the greatest innovation in policing in our generation. One issue you 

don’t normally hear associated with CompStat however is funding. It’s a relatively 

inexpensive idea. The CompStat process has evolved however and has found its limitations. It does achieve accountability of command level managers, directs deployment of resources with pinpoint accuracy and has become a clearinghouse for effective tactics. However, crime statistics by their nature tell of crimes that occurred 

in the past. In an effort to prevent crime before it occurs or address it while it’s 

occurring, the New York City Police Department has created the Real Time Crime 

Center. This data warehouse combines cutting-edge technology with good old-fashioned police work. 

Before the Crime Center opened, officers in the field used to record facts, bring 

them back to the station house and manually run them through whichever databases their experience told them were pertinent. This haphazard process that took 

days or even weeks, is now streamlined and can happen in moments. 

In policing, the term rapid deployment has always meant lights and sirens. The 

Real Time Crime Center now rapidly deploys information at blinding speed. Staffed 

with about two dozen investigators the center processes inputs from the field and 

runs them through billions of records. Not only does it access information from 120 

million New York City criminal complaints, arrests, and 911 calls, it immediately 

accesses five million parole and probation files from the State and more than 30 million national crime records. The reconciliation engine that runs the data is an 

emerging, sophisticated technology that understands the meaning and relationship 

of terms used in policing and so is not limited to the commands input by the user. 

The system delivers information in context. 

A few months after the center opened, Bronx detectives responded to the abduction of a four-year-old child perpetrated by a former babysitter who had been fired. 

Using the only information available, a New York State Identification number, the 

RTCC produced seven names with seven different addresses, three dates of birth 

and six social security numbers. Each one of these pieces of information produced 

additional names, addresses and some phone numbers. The RTCC quickly found the 

common denominator and the child was recovered in a timely fashion and the perpetrator arrested. 

That same month detectives responding to a gunpoint robbery received only a generic clothing description along with the description of a tattoo on the gunman’s 

96

neck. Using only the description of the tattoo, investigators in the RTCC identified 

a man with a similar tattoo who had been arrested numerous times in two different 

jurisdictions within New York State. The detectives received a photograph of the 

suspected gunman who was then positively identified by the victim through a photo 

array. This man’s criminal records showed several addresses in two different boroughs within New York City. Good old-fashioned detective work combined with this 

new technology put that gunman in jail within a week. The Real Time Crime Center was an $11 million dollar investment funded mostly by the Mayor’s Executive Budget with $1.8 million coming from federal funds and 

$1.3 million coming from the New York Police Foundation, an independent, nonprofit organization. Most of America’s ten largest cities have supporting, non-profit 

foundations that enhance their effectiveness by providing resources not covered in 

their city budgets. But again, with the second largest police department in the country being about one-tenth the size of the NYPD, it’s difficult to compare resources. 

The New York Police Foundation, founded in 1971 has funded over 400 programs 

to the tune of $70 million dollars. 

Another innovation in policing New York City not funded by the government has 

to do with a recent rash of high-profile homicides related to some of the city’s 

trendier nightclubs. The New York City Council just enacted a new law requiring 

nightclubs operating under certain conditions to install video surveillance equipment as a licensing requirement. 

The list of technological advances being applied to policing in New York City goes 

on and on. From license plate scanning cameras deployed in radio cars to allowing 

911 callers to transmit photos taken with their cell phones, policing in New York 

is keeping pace with technology and streamlining its management style with every 

new innovation. 

All this technology however is just an electronic tiger without a dedicated workforce behind it. It has become a mantra of late in New York City that the government is being called upon ‘to do more with less.’

The dedicated men and women in law enforcement in New York City have answered that call. I thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today and 

I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, and I thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. Harris, I cut you off before you got to say much about the 

loan program. 

Ms. HARRIS. Basically, what we are looking at as State and local 

prosecutors is that we handle approximately 95 percent of all 

criminal cases in the country, and we are having a difficult time, 

frankly, recruiting and retaining eligible and qualified and really, 

frankly, the best and the brightest attorneys. 

It is simply because we cannot pay them enough, and we cannot 

pay them enough so that they can sustain a quality of life where 

they can actually afford to rent an apartment and maybe get married and have children and buy a house one day. 

We are losing lawyers, and I believe that the John R. Justice 

Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act will help us attract and 

retain these great lawyers and will help public defenders around 

the country do the same. The National DA’s Association, who I represent on this bill, believes that it is urgent, in fact, that it is 

passed. 

Mr. SCOTT. How much debt do the lawyers show up with? 

Ms. HARRIS. On average, we are showing that they have between 

$50,000 and $80,000 of debt. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you know what the monthly payments are on 

those stats? 

Ms. HARRIS. I do not have that information offhand, no. 

Mr. SCOTT. But if they have that kind of debt to start off with, 

then the lowest salaries become problematic. 

Ms. HARRIS. That is correct. And the average salary that we are 

showing is $44,000 a year for prosecutors in this country versus, 

97

for example, in private firms in Los Angeles, they are starting their 

attorneys at $160,000 a year. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Now, on the witness intimidation, we have laws against witness 

intimidation. Why are they insufficient? 

Ms. HARRIS. Well, we have laws against murder, and those are 

not sufficient. The reality is that we have people who have learned 

that they can actually benefit from threatening witnesses. 

There are the circumstances in the cases that all of these communities will know about when witnesses have been killed, and 

they will tell that story over and over again as not only justification, but as the reason why they will be reluctant or uncooperative 

with law enforcement in terms of testifying in a murder case. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if the criminal laws are insufficient, then we 

need to protect. How much does it cost to protect a witness from 

this kind of intimidation? 

Ms. HARRIS. What we do in San Francisco, which is what I believe is being done around the country, is that we relocate witnesses. So, once law enforcement, once the police officer and the 

homicide detective become aware of the existence of a witness, we 

talk with them. We find out and do an assessment in terms of their 

threat situation and their safety, and it is a voluntary program, 

and they will agree that it is best that they leave the dangerous 

place and be relocated to a safe place far away from their original 

home. 

Often, we relocate witnesses with their families. Many of our witnesses have young children, and we do not want to have the situation where they are removed from those children for what could be 

12 months or 18 months pending the prosecution of the case. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now has the witness protection been successful? 

Ms. HARRIS. It is successful when the witness cooperates, and 

that means when the witness who is there voluntarily stays in a 

safe place, which is why this legislation is significant, because it 

will give us the ability to put more resources into making that witness feel comfortable in the new place, become situated in the new 

place, and monitored and supported so that they will not go back 

to the dangerous place. 

Many of the witnesses in these cases have never been outside of 

the 10-square-block radius of the place where the crime occurred 

and the place where they grew up, and to then relocate them to 

a safe suburb, in many cases, is scarier for them than being in a 

high violence community. So what we have to do is we have to recognize that they have to be transitioned. 

Chairman, you could imagine if I said to you that, ‘‘You have now 

witnessed a crime, and I am going to relocate you tomorrow and 

take you to the middle of’’—we do not have Kansas represented 

here—‘‘Kansas, and you cannot call your old friends, and you are 

going to have to sit there for 12 months, 18 months while we prosecute that case’’—it is more than just relocating them. We need to 

support them. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Epley, you have indicated that you have doubled the number 

of gun prosecutions. Is that double the number of Federal prosecutions or double the number overall? 

98

Mr. EPLEY. Double the number of Federal gun prosecutions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. You indicated there was no national trend, but 

that trends are going different places. Have you noticed any trends 

within those trends? What were they doing in the areas where this 

crime was going down? What were they not doing where the crime 

was going up? Did you do any studies along those lines? 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Chairman, the department visited, in addition to 

talk to social scientists and others, criminologists and so on, 18 cities across the country, as I mentioned, some of which were observing increases in violent crime and others that were seeing decreases, and the experience was almost as varied as the number of 

cities visited. 

In some communities, we saw an increase in aggravated assaults, but a decrease in homicide, so a number of difficult-to-explain combinations of violent crime statistics coming back. Part of 

the explanation that statisticians that we consulted with and that 

worked with the department suggested is that it is difficult to 

measure changes over a single-year period. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I noticed 1 year they noticed a precipitous decline in murders in 

the Richmond, Virginia, area, and they, after close study, determined that it was because the medical college of Virginia had a 

new trauma unit—the same number of shootings, just fewer people 

were dying. 

Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me again just thank all of you for taking time to be here. I 

appreciate your expertise. I wish I could sit down with each of you 

for a period of time and pick your brains. Unfortunately, in the setting we get, it is impossible. There are six of you here; I have 5 

minutes. So I have to be curt and short, you know, as much as I 

can. 

Mr. SCOTT. We will have another round. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. The Chairman said we might be able to have 

another round. 

Ms. Robinson, two questions about this violence increase that 

you talked about. One, have you charted out the crime-prone age 

population for the last 15 years and have you looked at that as to 

how that correlates with any of the increases in crime that you 

were seeing? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Certainly, my colleagues at Penn have looked at 

that. 

Mr. FORBES. Have you looked at that? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I am not personally a statistician, but my colleagues who are have looked at that, and it would definitely be the 

18-to 25-year-old range. 

Mr. FORBES. Well, again, forgive me for being short. I would normally like to say please take all the time you want. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. 

Mr. FORBES. But one of the things that we have tracked over the 

years is we tried to watch when that crime age population bounces 

up and down. Sometimes those trends go right with it. 

My question that I would like to get at—and get back with us 

if you can or talk to some of your friends about it—is whether or 

99

not there has been any tick up in the crime-prone age population 

in the last few years or whether it has been decreased. Because 

sometimes that gives us a snapshot of crime. 

The other thing is testimony that we have had before this Subcommittee before has almost been across the board saying that the 

increase in violent crime has been related to gang activity, an increase in gang activity. 

The mayor talked about gang activity, and all of Ms. Harris’s testimony, which I have read—all of your analogies and examples 

were gang activity. 

Would you agree with that, that one of the big increases that we 

have has been in relationship to gang activity across the country? 

Ms. ROBINSON. I would agree with Mark Epley that it actually 

varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, yes, it is related to gangs, but, in many jurisdictions, it is 

not. 

For example, in Philadelphia, which I am very familiar with, it 

is not related to gangs. It is related to very young teenagers or 

mid-teenagers, and it is frequently youth involved in revenge-type 

violence. 

Mr. FORBES. And let me talk about revenge-type violence. 

I want to get to Ms. Harris before my time runs out. 

Chief, are you here today in your capacity as individually or on 

behalf of chiefs across the country? 

Mr. MONAGHAN. I am here today for IACP, representing the 

chiefs across the country. 

Mr. FORBES. Have you looked, then, at the areas where you have 

seen this uptick in violent crime, and can you tell me the situations 

on any of those areas where there has been this uptick in crime, 

has there been a decrease in the number of police officers on the 

streets? 

I am talking about just money coming from Federal Government. 

Has there been a decrease in police officers? 

Chief MOSCA. I cannot make that correlation exactly, but I would 

like to say that crime necessarily is not from gangs. Most of the 

departments in this country are smaller departments, departments 

of under 25 people. And while we talk about effective law enforcement programs from some of the larger cities, and my colleague 

talked about CrimeStat, some of his New York colleagues have 

gone across the country, used CrimeStat, and they have really displaced crime to a number of the smaller, less well-equipped communities to deal with. So we have seen an increase in violent and 

major crime, while some of those urban areas may have seen a decrease. 

Mr. FORBES. I think his testimony is that it has been smart policing and effective policing that has been very effective in New York, 

not necessarily always in the quantity, but in how they do it. 

Ms. Harris, my time is almost out. I want to, first of all, brag 

about you. As I look at your bio, since you have been in, there has 

been a 26 percent increase in felony trial conviction rates, 40 percent increase in the number of violent offenders sent to prison, all 

of which I compliment you on—also, double the trial conviction rate 

for felonies. 

100

The reason I say that is because in your testimony, you also say, 

‘‘The witness relocation protection programs are law enforcement’s 

primary tool to respond to witness intimidate.’’ As I mentioned at 

the outset, when we were in New Orleans, we heard a whole different story, not that witness relocation was not important. 

But I would ask you, first of all, to think about and give me 

when I get back a few minutes from now, how many people, if we 

could give you a blank check, would you relocate in a given year 

if you had that opportunity? 

And then I come back to what they told us in New Orleans. They 

said the thing that was problematic for them were two situations. 

One is that because they had such a low conviction rate and because the judges were not doing anything to these criminals, they 

were going back out on the street. 

We had a minister that came in from one of the local churches, 

Mr. Rafael, and he said, ‘‘How can I get my community to come in 

and testify, how can I get my police officers to come in and arrest 

these people and testify, when they know that those criminals are 

going to be back on the street before they get home from the courthouse?’’

But the second thing he talked about was something that I think 

really is important in our country, and I do not know how we get 

our hands around it, but he said one of the big things in witnesses 

was a culture. He said he did not know how to break through it, 

but he said he was trying. He said if he were shot in his neighborhood by a White policeman, he said witnesses would come out of 

the woodwork. He said, but if he was shot by somebody in the community to him, he said they could not get witnesses to come out. 

And a lot of the people in that neighborhood do not want to relocate somewhere else, you know, but they are not coming forward 

and testifying because they do not see anything happening to the 

people they are testifying against. 

And so, if I get a chance in just a minute when I come back—

oh, do you mind? Okay. 

The question I would ask for you is this: Have you had any impact based on the conviction rate that you have increased, in terms 

of people being more willing then to come in and testify because 

you have been very successful in putting people behind bars? 

Ms. HARRIS. It is a great question, and I think it begs the point 

that we have to look at these issues not through a plate-glass window but through a prism, because there are many aspects that 

really need to be addressed all at once. 

I think the COPS legislation, for example, addresses some of the 

point that you are raising, which is underlying the intimidation 

and reluctance issue, in addition to fear, is also this trust of law 

enforcement by many of these communities, and so we have to, as 

law enforcement, also do a better job, frankly, in being present in 

those communities in a way that they trust us and that they will 

report crime believing they will be treated with dignity and respect 

and due process. 

I think it is also a matter of showing the community that there 

are consequences when they do come forward, which means conviction, and that is a function also of having the local press and the 

101

communications chains get that information to communities that 

consequences are occurring. 

It is also the issue of rallying the natural partners of law enforcement in the community. For example, in San Francisco, when that 

witness was killed, I rallied our faith-based community, brought 

them together in an interfaith community, and basically said, ‘‘Listen, I need your help. In the church or the synagogue or wherever 

it is you pray, I need you to talk with your congregation about the 

fact that we need to support these folks who come forward and participate with law enforcement,’’ and we have to do it from the community as well as from law enforcement. 

So I think there are many ways that we can address this, but 

they will have to be coordinated and worked through a collaborative perspective, understanding that it is not just one area that 

is the problem. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for permitting the gentleman from Virginia to go a little bit longer. I 

would not have any objection if we wanted to do a couple more 

rounds because these are important witnesses who have waited for 

a while. 

Mr. Epley, I am curious about something you did continually 

through your testimony. You kept referring to 2005. Are you aware 

that 2006 FBI data is available? 

Mr. EPLEY. Congressman, the preliminary UCR data for 2006 

that covers the period January to June is available, yes. 

Mr. WEINER. Why don’t you tell us a little bit about that? Does 

that show violent crime up? 

Mr. EPLEY. Well, as you know, the preliminary data measures 

the absolute number of violent crimes reported by those agencies 

reporting. 

Mr. WEINER. I understand. The data you referred to in 2005 was 

that same data set, was it not, just for a different year? 

Mr. EPLEY. No, the 2005 that I referred to refers to all police departments that report. 

Mr. WEINER. Well, actually, let me just say the FBI data, the 

agency that you are here representing, shows that violent crime 

was up in 2006, and I do not want the impression to be left that 

there was some ambiguity because you referred to data from 2005. 

There is an organization, as you know, I am sure you are familiar with, that did a study of the change in crime, violent crime, in 

America for the period 2005 and 2006. I am going to tell you what 

they found in the 56 reporting jurisdictions. You are familiar with 

the organization, I am sure. It is the Police Executive Research 

Forum, a very respected, bipartisan, non-partisan organization. 

Mr. EPLEY. Yes, I am. 

Mr. WEINER. This is what they reported as going on between 

2005 and 2006. Twenty-eight out of 56 departments experienced an 

increase in homicide. Forty-two out of 56 departments, 75 percent, 

saw an increase in robbery. Aggravated assault with a firearm is 

up in 45 percent of the different precincts. In the number of police 

102

departments with an increase in violent crime overall, homicide 

was up in 71 percent in the years 2004 and 2006. 

Mr. Mayor, does that reflect your experience that crime is creeping back up? 

Mayor PALMER. Absolutely, and it is something that all of us are 

involved with. 

It is not a cookie-cutter approach. Different cities have different 

things that are going on. Like the professor said, in Philadelphia, 

I do not even know how high the homicide rate would be if they 

had actual gangs there because we found that you have more homicides when you have gangs involved, and so that is something that 

is very troubling. 

As well, something was mentioned about the aging. There is no 

cookie-cutter approach to age either. We have done surveys, and it 

depends on where a person is when they are incarcerated. In Newark, for example, when they surveyed individuals who were getting 

shot, who were getting murdered, they found that these individuals 

were older. 

They were older because when they did more research, these individuals had just gotten out of jail after being in jail 5 of 6 years. 

They were older. They have come back to the neighborhoods where 

they once ruled and see younger people in their spot, and then you 

have those kinds of things. 

Mr. WEINER. Well, let me just say, you know, one of the ways 

that we have had arguments about the efficacy of the COPS program—and this goes back to testimony in this Committee in 

2004—was people throw up the dust and say, ‘‘There are so many 

variables, we cannot possibly help with this problem.’’

So a couple of organizations have actually looked at this exact 

question, which is what contributes to the reduction in crime that 

we have seen, and the GAO was one of them. The GAO came back 

with a report that said that the COPS program contributed to 

about 7 percent of the 32 percent decline in violent crime from 

1993 to 2000. 

The University of Nebraska did a study that went into even more 

detail, and here is what they found. They found in cities with populations greater than 10,000, an increase of $1 of hiring grants, 

what we are talking about on the COPS program—the hiring 

grants, Mr. Epley, that your administration has eliminated, made 

zero—per resident contributes to a corresponding decline of 11 violent crimes and 28 property crimes per 100,000 residents. 

What they essentially did is they went back and, as an academic 

institution, they took out variables and tried to figure out where 

you put money for hiring, whether it contributes to a reduction in 

crime. One of the things that is good about the COPS program is 

that the COPS program has been about as democratic—with a 

small D—program as you can imagine, if you look at the distribution of police around Democratic areas, Republican places. 

Oklahoma got 10,054 cops under the COPS program. Let me 

show you what they got last year under the Bush administration’s 

hiring proposal. This is an easier one to read. You do not need to 

look that hard for Oklahoma. It is right here, O as in Oklahoma. 

I would ask: Are there any members of the panel, any of you—

and you can answer with a show of hands—that believe the resiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:44 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\042407\34926.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
103

dents of Oklahoma are safer because they have 1,000 fewer cops 

from the Federal Government on the payroll? Does anyone think 

that they are safer because of that? 

Mr. Epley, do you want to take a stab at that? Do you think they 

are safer? 

Mr. EPLEY. Congressman, the department has not thrown up its 

hands in the face of the disparate effect that we are observing of 

crime across the country. 

Mr. WEINER. Disparate effect? Is that your way of describing a 

violent crime rate that has risen about 4 percent in 2006? Is that 

the disparate effect you are talking about? 

Mr. EPLEY. Congressman, the 2006 data is not a crime rate. The 

2005 data that I referred to is a crime rate. What it does is it adjusts for population. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Epley, let me ask you another question. One of 

the things that you referred to was how you have taken block grant 

programs, and I think you said to make them more efficient, you 

have combined them into one. 

When you take the aggregate amount of those grant programs, 

what was the amount and the combined efficient grant amount 

that was in the last budget proposal that you suggested? 

Tell me what the amount was when you aggregate all the different ones and you make it more efficient and put it into one 

grant program. Can you tell me what the overall numbers were 

when you went from one method to another? 

Mr. EPLEY. I think that last year, the President’s budget request 

for State and local law enforcement and criminal justice assistance 

was approximately $1.2 billion, and this year, fiscal year 2008, the 

number is about the same. 

Mr. WEINER. What I am asking you is not just the JAG program. 

I am saying when you combine Byrne, the Byrne discretionary, the 

Byrne formula, the criminal justice block grant—you say you have 

combined them into one block grant program—isn’t it true that you 

reduced the overall amount by about 20 percent? 

Mr. EPLEY. The Byrne Public Safety and Protection program that 

I mentioned requested by the President’s 2008 budget—what it actually does—combines some of the most successful programs the 

department’s administered, for example, Weed and Seed. 

Mr. WEINER. Understood. I am saying it combines them, and I 

am asking you a mathematical question now. 

Mr. EPLEY. Right. 

Mr. WEINER. When you combined the various programs into one 

program, isn’t it true that you reduced the overall pot of funding 

going to the agencies that these folks represent? 

Mr. EPLEY. I think in the aggregate, like I mentioned, the President’s request in 2007 is just about the same as it is in 2008. 

Mr. WEINER. Can I ask you one final question? And perhaps I 

will have a second round. 

You are here on behalf of the Administration. This bill has been 

out there kicking around for some years now. It was part of the reauthorization of your agency that was passed, I think, 2 years ago 

in a bipartisan support. 

104

What is the Administration’s position on the reauthorization of 

the COPS program and a reinvigoration of the COPS hiring component? Are you all for it or against it? 

Mr. EPLEY. Congressman, the department does not have formal 

views on this bill. 

Mr. WEINER. I see. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, former Chairman of the 

Subcommittee, Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my delay 

in arrival, Mr. Chairman. I had two other meetings I had to attend. 

I appreciate you all being here. 

Mr. Epley, is there a direct correlation between decreased funding of Federal law enforcement programs and the increase in violent crime in the first 6 months of last year? 

Mr. EPLEY. Congressman, when you look back over not just the 

last 6 months, but even the last 10 years, it is difficult to see a 

powerful correlation between Federal spending on police protection 

and the crime rate. 

When we look back over time, we see that in the years 1999 and 

2003, the Federal contribution to police protection amounted to 

about 4.5 percent of all money spent on police protection in America. Right now, that number is approximately 2.5 percent, 2.3 percent. Over the same time, the same period of time, we saw the violent crime rate steadily going down. 

All I mean to suggest is that when you look at both the spending 

numbers, the Federal contribution to police protection and the 

crime rate, you do not see a powerful correlation. At the same time, 

Congressman, what we see is that State and local police protection 

spending has gone up over time every year for which we have collected that data, the most recent year being 2004. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I am going to have to move along, if you could 

wrap up, because I have two other questions I want to put out. 

Mr. EPLEY. My only point being that State and localities have 

spent money on police protection to keep pace with the crime challenges they have faced in large measure. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. 

Mr. Mayor, let me ask you this question to extend that line of 

thought. If you know, are cities appropriating fewer dollars for law 

enforcement in expectation of Federal monies forthcoming? 

Mayor PALMER. No, sir. We cannot afford to do that. Our citizens 

need safety. We have to spend whatever we have to spend, stretching our budgets, taking monies from other places because we are 

not going to sacrifice the safety of our residents. So we have to 

spend what we have to spend. 

Mr. COBLE. Okay. Thank you, sir. 

Professor, I agree with you that we need to be investing in evidence-based approaches that can actually help reduce crime and 

stop funding programs that simply do not work, even when they 

may have great popular appeal. Let me put a two-pronged question 

to you, Professor. 

How can the Federal Government help identify the programs 

that do, in fact, work, A; and B, does the COPS program currently 

105

assess the effectiveness of a program prior to issuing a grant, if you 

know? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Those are good questions. 

On the first, Congressman, Congress needs to be investing more 

money in evaluation of programs. Right now, the National Institute 

of Justice, which is the research arm of the Justice Department, 

has had a stagnant-level budget for 10 years. It spends about $12 

million a year on research and evaluation. That is a drop in the 

bucket, as you know, in the Federal budget. 

That number needs to be increased, and my recommendation 

would be that it be a percentage off the top of OJP and COPS 

budgets, 1 percent, for example, which is something you could do 

in an authorization bill, to assess, evaluate the program. 

And in answer to your second question, back when the COPS 

program was established, when the COPS crime bill was passed in 

1994, the appropriators allowed the Justice Department to take a 

percentage informally off the top of the program to transfer to NIJ 

for that purpose. 

Once that informal arrangement passed, I do not think that the 

COPS program has had the ability to take money to do that kind 

of evaluation. I would strongly recommend amending your legislation to allow for that kind of evaluation. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Professor. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, before the red light appeared. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Coble. You are the only one. 

We are scheduled to have a markup immediately after this hearing, so, as people are gathering, we will have another round. 

I was going to ask Ms. Robinson what research there has been 

so far on the COPS program. You said there had not been enough, 

but has there been any research to show that it works? 

Ms. ROBINSON. The congressman over here had cited some of 

that. There has been some other research that has looked at the 

overall program, but there certainly have been a number of studies 

that have looked at specific innovations, for example problem-oriented policing. 

This morning, we had a symposium, in fact, that looked at a 

number of studies that have evaluated and found very promising 

and effective some of those programs. But it is very difficult to 

evaluate a large multi-program initiative of that kind, but, yes, 

there have been others. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mayor Palmer, you indicated that you get results 

from the COPS program. Can you talk about some of the results 

that you have seen? 

Mayor PALMER. Absolutely. Referring to the congressman’s question, mayors are spending what they have to spend, but, quite 

frankly, it is taking away from other efforts that we are doing, and 

it certainly is hurting us. 

With additional police officers, even with the great technology 

and education that we are doing and with CompStat, we still see 

that when you have more police officers that are used in a targeted 

way, it helps reduce crime. It puts more eyes in your community, 

and it helps us also deal with domestic terrorism as well. 

106

Mr. SCOTT. Chief Mosca, when you hire police with the COPS 

money, there was an expectation that they would stay on board 

after they have been hired. What happens after they have been 

hired with Federal money? Do they kind of drift away after the 

money dries up? 

Chief MOSCA. In our experience, our programs were extremely 

successful, and they actually sold themselves to the community, 

and they were continued. As you may know, Congressman, there 

was a percentage decrease in the amount of money yearly, and the 

municipality provided for those funds and we kept the police officers. We have extremely effective programs within our school system simply because of the COPS program. 

Our community would not have been in a position to fund an experimental program, if you would, for several years to see if it was 

going to work because that amount of money would have been extremely important because in a small community, just like the 

mayor’s, they are dealing with highways and recreation and education and all the other things that a municipality has to deal with. 

So, while money may have been going up for law enforcement, 

it was money just to keep pace with what we needed because of 

salary increases and so forth. But our COPS program was fully 

kept by our community. 

If I may, one of the suggestions I might have, should this be reauthorized and personnel actually come out of it, is that Congress 

look at a mechanism to assist the community in keeping a police 

officer for more than the 3 years. 

In other words, you have funded it for 3 years. I would say you 

might look at 5 or 6 years with decreasing amounts of money because municipalities, faced with all their other problems, are reluctant to get into a new program knowing they are going to have to 

buy it in 3 years. 

So I think you could assist us, if you are able to do that, and that 

would be a great help to us. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Chief, and I do not ask you this to catch you in it, 

but I ask you seriously: Have you read the legislation on this bill 

that is before us today, just looked over it? 

Chief MOSCA. I have not read it personally. 

Mr. FORBES. That is okay. Let me just tell you something. If 

there was a provision in there that said the money could be used 

for technology instead of hiring more police officers, would you be 

opposed to that? 

Chief MOSCA. I would obviously take the technology. But I am 

saying, given a choice between technology and personnel, I would 

take the personnel. I would hope to be able to get both. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. Well, everybody does even when we come in 

here. 

But, Mr. Monaghan, that is not what New York did. I mean, as 

I understand reading your testimony, they said it is not sheer numbers, it is not just education, but we need to be smarter about what 

we do and how we do it. 

How did you determine, how did you select the programs that 

you need? How did you come up with the things that have apparVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:44 May 20, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\042407\34926.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
107

ently worked? And the proof is in the pudding in New York compared to other cities. How did you come up with that mix? 

Mr. MONAGHAN. Well, one issue you do not normally hear associated with CompStat is funding. It is a relatively inexpensive idea. 

You used the word ‘‘culture’’ earlier. It is just an overall management idea. 

Where it came from was a basement office underneath the New 

York City subway system. Many years ago, there was a man 

named Jack Maple. It goes in line with the educational and the advancement changes in NYPD. Jack Maple was a lieutenant in a little office underneath the subway in the transit police. 

Years before, when Commissioner Bratton first came to New 

York, he came as the commissioner of the transit police department 

first, made a lot of changes there, left and then came back as the 

police commissioner for New York City. 

One thing he was very astute at, Mr. Bratton, was personnel assessment, and he had heard about this lieutenant down in this office, and he went down and saw him, and his office was covered 

with maps of the entire system, little pins, and this is where 

CompStat started. This man had the entire city mapped out and 

was concentrating on robberies crime by crime. 

When Commissioner Bratton came back the second time to be 

the commissioner for the entire city, he took that lieutenant and 

made him a deputy commissioner in order to implement CompStat 

citywide. So it all came from within. 

And, you know, I cannot speak for the people of Oklahoma, but 

we have less cops in New York now than we have had in recent 

years, and I was just told today if we had COPS funding the hiring 

of cops at least 5 years out—our head count is lower now than it 

had been——

Mr. FORBES. Well, the reason I ask that question is because I do 

not think the chief could tell us today the magical number of cops 

you need to have in any particular locality in the country. 

And one of the things that I looked at in your testimony is you 

emphasized the importance of the database that you had and how 

important that database was. Can you tell us just very quickly 

about the database? 

Mr. MONAGHAN. Oh, yes. You know, I said to you could you 

imagine how long it would take two detectives to run down those 

leads, six dates of birth, six Social Security numbers off of one ID 

number. That would have taken a team of people a couple of weeks 

to run down. 

Mr. FORBES. So it would be better to have the database and 

maybe even fewer officers because we have had some chiefs that 

have come in here and said exactly the opposite of what the chief 

said. They said, ‘‘We do not need to hire more police officers. What 

we need is more technology so that we can have a smarter operation and more effective policing than what we have today.’’ Would 

you disagree with the request that they had made at that particular time? 

Mr. MONAGHAN. No, like you said—I was just talking to the department’s legislative representative here today—we have less 

cops, we have more technology, and we are more efficient. We have 

a lower crime rate. 

108

Mr. FORBES. And you have a lower crime rate. 

Mr. MONAGHAN. Yes. 

Mr. FORBES. And yet, if that were the case, I could hold up a 

chart here today that would say, ‘‘You have zero more cops, or you 

had less cops, actually’’—I could put that chart up—‘‘but your 

crime rate is still falling because you have been smart at how you 

have used the policing of the police officers that you have.’’ Fair 

statement? 

Mr. MONAGHAN. Right. 

Mr. FORBES. Good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from New York? 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you. 

There has been evidence today that the gentleman from Virginia 

has not read the bill. Technology is permitted under the COPS program only if it can be demonstrated to the COPS Office that buying 

that technology allows you to take a police officer——

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WEINER. Certainly. 

Mr. FORBES. Can you tell me what statement that I made that 

suggested that I did not read the bill because you are prone sometimes to kind of make those statements and accusations against 

members? 

Mr. WEINER. Certainly, you suggested——

Mr. FORBES. No, I asked a question as to whether or not——

Mr. WEINER. The gentleman asked a question on my time, and 

now I am answering it. 

Mr. SCOTT. The record will reflect that my colleague from Virginia has read the bill, and we can proceed. 

Mr. WEINER. Certainly. 

The fact of the matter is, lest the record be left with the impression that technology or manpower is a choice, that is not the case. 

What the COPS program does is allow police departments to invest 

in technology that they can show to the COPS Office allows them 

to put an additional police officer out on the beat. 

That is part of the flexibility that is built into the bill at the request of my colleagues at the other side who said, ‘‘We wanted 

more flexibility.’’ And it was a fair beef, it was a fair concern, that 

there is more to policing than just manpower. 

For example, if you can put a Sprint terminal in a police officer’s 

car that allows them to do less time at their desk and more time 

out patrolling the street, we give them credit for hiring another police officer and we fund that under the COPS program. It is one 

of the most successful elements of the program. It is a very flexible 

bill. It is one of the things we did to improve the bill. 

And finally, I think the gentleman from North Carolina in the 

context of the question—and the gentleman from Virginia did 

something similar—implied that—and, frankly, the gentleman from 

the Administration did this, too—it is so mysterious. How did these 

crimes fall? 

Well, it is not mysterious to GAO, it is not mysterious to the University of Nebraska, it is not mysterious to the Urban Institute, it 

is not mysterious to Yale University, and it is not mysterious to the 

109

report done by the Police Executive Research Forum, nor is it mysterious to the dozens of organizations, including many in Virginia, 

who say the COPS program has worked. This has been studied and 

studied and studied and studied and studied. 

This notion that if you just toss up all the variables that go into 

the rise or reduction in crime, you can somehow then argue against 

us doing anything comes back to a fundamental binary misconception that some of my colleagues have. The real choice is: Does the 

Federal Government help with local law enforcement? That is the 

question. 

If you believe the answer is yes, like so many Americans believe, 

like so many police chiefs believe, then you support a program like 

the COPS program. In fact, the Administration, who testifies here 

today, and my colleagues who ran this institution and this country 

for so many years, they had a different argument. They said, 

‘‘What we are going to do is keep zeroing out programs, renaming 

them and reducing the aggregate amount.’’ The final analysis is 

that COPS, in 1995, put $1,056,980,000 into hiring; in 2006, zero. 

Now if there is anyone in this room who believes that when you 

take out the Federal role of over $1 billion in hiring police officers 

and make it zero, you are safer, then I have to tell you we are even 

more detached from reality here in Washington than I thought. It 

is entirely intuitive to believe that you could hire a police officer 

but do not train him or do not have a court or do not have a prosecutor, it is not going to have as good an impact. But, undoubtedly, 

the number of police officers rising is a good thing. Every report 

that I just quoted says it. 

And I am a little bit concerned the final question might have 

been misunderstood. The CompStat program was very beneficial, 

but the fact of the matter is that people of the city of New York 

decided to tax themselves in the mid-1990’s to hire additional police officers. 

There is a direct correlation between that and the crime coming 

down, and it is the ultimate in irony that the same people who beat 

their chest on the floor saying, ‘‘We need more cops in Iraq to get 

this problem under control,’’ now argue that you need fewer cops 

on the beat in Virginia, in Maryland, in New York, in Oregon, in 

California to do the same thing. 

The COPS program has been a success. That is why police departments throughout this country in tiny Republican towns, big 

urban areas, have said, ‘‘Please, Congress, do not reauthorize this. 

Reverse the cuts the Bush administration has done, and get us 

back in the business,’’ and to hear my colleagues state it, I can only 

assume they believe that law enforcement at the end of the day, 

anti-terrorism at the end of the day, everyone is on their own. 

Well, some of us believe that is not right. Some of us believe that 

Congress made an important step in 1994 when we said we are 

going to get off the sidelines and we are going to get into the game, 

and if any of you want a sense of deja vu, just take a look at the 

transcript of the floor debate in 1994 when this was considered. 

The names are a little bit changed. It is the exact same stuff: 

‘‘You cannot believe what you read,’’ ‘‘The problem with crime is 

that we are not doing enough in the homes,’’ et cetera, et cetera, 

110

and then the COPS program passed, crime went down, and that is 

where we are today trying to reauthorize that program. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman. 

Does the gentlelady from Texas have questions? The gentlelady 

from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Many times, one would say ditto, but there are too many important witnesses here for me to ignore your expertise. First of all, let 

me thank you for your presence here today. 

And let me thank the Chairman. 

There are multiple hearings and markups that are going on, but 

I took rollerskates to try and make it here today because I believe 

there are some important elements that need to be raised. 

First of all, let me immediately put a dash or a hammer on any 

issue of cost on any of these programs. For the record, let me acknowledge, though I do not advocate for it, there’s $275 million 

being spent in Iraq today per day. That comes out to about $11 million, Mayor, an hour. I do not know if you had $11 million, how 

much you could do for your fine city. 

I come from Houston, Texas, where I had the opportunity to 

work with the father of community-oriented policing, then Chief 

Lee P. Brown, and I am gratified to have been one of his strong 

supporters for him to become Mayor Lee P. Brown. What an interesting time period that we lived in. 

We could document the measurement of crime going down, one, 

giving police officers a degree of flexibility, but, two, getting them 

to know the guys and gals on the block, the bad guys and the good 

guys. So you did not go into a neighborhood completely blind, you 

already knew where the bad guys were. 

For example, I was in my congressional district visiting an elderly person; a bunch of folk across the street, loud talking, phones 

going, profanity going, ‘‘I will kill you.’’ All of a sudden, they get 

in a car and speed off. I was looking to see them on the late night 

news. Community-oriented policing means that somebody knew 

what would be around or knew who those guys were. 

It is a disgrace what we have done to community-oriented policing and the COPS program in particular, and so let me focus my 

questions on the necessity of bringing back where we were before. 

My city is seeing an enormous increase in crime, and it is not 

the blame of the Katrina survivors. I make it a habit of stopping 

my law enforcement. I am a former member of the Houston city 

council, so I am used to talking to the men and women in blue or 

orange or whatever colors they are wearing, and I am not talking 

about orange incarcerated jail uniforms. We have a variety of colors 

in the State of Texas. But I asked them. There is a frustration. 

There is not enough. They do not have enough to be on the street. 

They are not on the beat. 

So, Mayor, let me ask this question. The bell is ringing. So let 

me ask you this question. 

And I want to welcome Reverend Daniels and Mike, and I will 

be with them in just a moment. 

Let me ask you the question on just, if you could just stay on 

this, Cops on the Beat. This latitude, this using of this money so 

111

that cities can get to the core of their crime problem by using more 

officers in a variety of ways, is that helpful and constructive in 

what we are dealing with today? 

Mayor PALMER. Absolutely. And mayors across the country want 

flexibility. We want to be able to say how we can use the money 

most effectively, whether it is in technology, whether it is putting 

more police officers on the streets, but it is definitely needed. 

And everything that your colleague from New York just said and 

others, it is just ditto to that as well. We need more resources, 

more police, and if we can make sure that we are trying to put soldiers and police in Iraq, I do not know why we cannot have it right 

here at home in the good old USA. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the diminishing dollars did not help you. 

The cuts were not helpful. 

Mayor PALMER. They were hurtful, and you have to take from 

other areas because you are going to have to do what you have to 

do to make your city safe. It cuts across the board, and you begin 

to take away from other vital services that also increased—poverty, 

which increases, drugs, crime—and it is a vicious cycle. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And there is something about knowledge, if 

you know where the guys are, if you know where they are, if the 

cops have the relationship. 

Chief, would you quickly answer? Because I do want to get to the 

district attorney. I welcome her, and I am not ignoring others, but 

my time is moving quickly. 

You are from a small city, and the one thing I liked about Cops 

on the Beat—I was here starting in 1995. The past Administration 

had this idea—is small cities are included as well. Is it a vital part 

of your staffing issues? 

Chief MOSCA. Thank God you asked that question, Congresswoman. Not to be lost in what the urban problems are and the successes of CrimeStat, in reference to the congressman’s question, 

smarter policing does occur in small communities, and we have a 

CompStat. We know our communities. We have a department of 

20-some-odd police officers. We know what our crime rate is. We 

know what the crime is. We meet on it. We react to it daily. It is 

no different than CrimeStat, but they are dealing with 8 million 

people; we are dealing with 12,000. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You can make a difference. 

Chief MOSCA. And so it absolutely makes a difference. It allows 

us an opportunity to try a program that has been researched. We 

put it into play, and we can watch it be successful. If, God forbid, 

it is a failure, we end it. 

But those programs have all been successful. They have been 

well thought out and the majority of law enforcement agencies in 

this country, over 85 percent of them, are small communities, small 

departments. 

So you cannot get lost in your dialogue in discussing just urban 

major cities. You have to think about the vast majority of law enforcement throughout the country, which is community policemen, 

community policing oriented. It always has been. We just did not 

know it. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentlelady from California? 

112

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I decided to serve on this Subcommittee because I truly want to 

understand what can be done to reduce the crime in our cities and 

in our towns. We are not talking about gangs today, but the gang 

problem is an absolute serious problem all across this country, and 

the crimes are being committed mostly by these young people in 

our communities. So I am really interested in solutions, and I know 

that lock-them-up-and-throw-the-key-away does not work, but I do 

not know what does work. 

So I am very pleased that we have our district attorney from 

California here today, District Attorney Kamala Harris, talking 

about community policing and community prosecution. I want to 

understand a little bit more about how it works. 

I know that you have been discussing this phenomenon of witnesses not coming forth and being called snitching and how prominent that has gotten according to some of your testimony here. 

They are wearing tee-shirts——

Ms. HARRIS. That is correct. 

Ms. WATERS [continuing]. Into courtrooms, and even mothers of 

some of the children who may have committed crimes are wearing 

tee-shirts to stop the snitching. That is really, really, really scary 

and off the hook. 

But I am glad that you are here. It is good to see you. And I am 

appreciative for the leadership that you are providing. 

Help me to understand a little bit about community prosecution 

and policing. 

Ms. HARRIS. Thank you, Congresswoman, and for your leadership 

in California. 

This issue is addressed in the COPS bill, which is that there 

should be support for the idea that prosecutors have the ability 

through engagement with the community and outreach to do the 

work of not only, again, encouraging witnesses to come forward, 

but having a presence in those communities to perhaps prevent 

crime from happening in the first place. 

So some of the work we are doing in San Francisco—and I know 

is being done throughout California—involves creating, for example, a DA liaison program. So I have lawyers in my office who actually have volunteered to be representatives to each of our police 

district stations and go out in the community and be known to be 

the representative for that area and to take information and attend 

community meetings. So that is some of the work we have done. 

Another effort that we have made is to work with communitybased organizations around, for example, domestic violence or child 

abuse, and encourage them. when there are cases happening in the 

courthouses, to attend and to be able to present and vocal and, in 

that way, feel connected to what is happening in our courts. 

We have also worked with community leadership around immediate response to crime when it happens. Often, when violent crime 

happens, everyone in the neighborhood is there or will turn out, 

and there is a lot of work that needs to be done not only in terms 

of investigation of the crime, but also in terms of de-escalation. 

Certainly, police officers make that attempt and do a good job, but 

113

if we are doing it with also partnership from prosecutors and community-based leaders, we find that we are being more effective. 

So that is some of the work that we have been doing that I believe is making a difference in terms of, again, being present in 

these communities. I often go out myself on Saturday mornings 

into various communities and hold what we call information fairs, 

and I invite the chief of police and others. We give in the community center information about the work that we can do not only 

protecting witnesses, but also giving services in terms of counseling 

and support and helping them in terms of other areas of their lives 

that are impacted by the crime that happens in their community. 

Ms. WATERS. I was in the Tallahassee area just yesterday, and 

I was in two little cities—one is Quincy, and the other one is Havana—and I had someone trying to explain to me a program that 

they have. It is like intervention where a young person commits a 

crime, and I guess maybe it is a non-violent crime, I do not know, 

but they like give them a ticket of some kind, and then they have 

to report on an ongoing basis. 

It is not probation. The first time I guess this person interacts 

with the criminal justice system. They have something that they do 

to have them report back, and I think they have requirements that 

they have to meet, and this is designed to deter them from the 

criminal justice system, not give them a record. They do not get a 

record for that crime that they committed. So it is probably a nonviolent crime. 

Have you heard of a program like that? 

Ms. HARRIS. We have something similar which we call community courts, and it is based on basically a village model, the belief 

that crime that occurs in communities that is non-violent crime 

that happens to be crime that is a nuisance to that community can 

be handled often by the elders in that community, the people who 

are the leaders in that community. 

So we will refer cases to these community courts that are set up 

as basically a tribunal of leadership from the various neighborhoods, and they review the case, and then they mete out the sentence that is appropriate and consistent with the mores of that 

community. 

So, for example, we have a number of cases that involve small 

storeowners selling alcohol to minors, which, of course, creates a 

big problem for those communities, and so the sentence, if you will, 

may involve and include not only a fine, but also that that offender 

be involved in activities that involve the youth in that neighborhood. 

So that is some of the work that is happening, community courts. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. It sounds good. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you. 

And I would like to thank all of our witnesses for your testimony. 

Members who have additional questions may submit them in 

writing. We will forward them to you and hopefully get answers as 

promptly as you can to be made part of the record. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 1 

week for the submission of additional materials. 

We have a markup scheduled right now. We will adjourn to go 

vote and ask Members to come back promptly after the vote. It is 

114

on the hate crimes legislation that is scheduled for markup tomorrow, so we would like to mark it up in Subcommittee right after 

the last vote. 

So, without objection, the Committee now stands adjourned, and 

we will reconvene immediately after the last vote. 

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(115)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, A REPRESENT- ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

The Subcommittee will now come to order. I am pleased to welcome you today to 

this hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security 

on H.R. 1700, the ‘‘COPS Improvements Act of 2007;’’ H.R. 916, the ‘‘John R. Justice 

Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007;’’ and H.R. 933, the ‘‘Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007.’’

The first of the three bills, HR 1700, the ‘‘COPS Improvements Act of 2007,’’

amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to expand the current authority of the Attorney General to make grants for public safety and community policing, or the ‘‘COPS’’ program. 

The COPS program was originally created in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime 

Control and Law Enforcement Act. Since its inception, the mission of the program 

has been to advance community policing in all jurisdictions across the U.S. The program achieves this objective by awarding grants to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies, so they can hire and train law enforcement officers to participate in community policing; purchase and deploy new crime-fighting technologies; 

and develop and test new and innovative policing strategies. Since 1994, the program has awarded more than $11.4 billion to over 13,000 law 

enforcement agencies across the U.S.; and at the end of fiscal year 2004, the program had been credited with funding more than 118,000 community policing officers. The second of the three bills, H.R. 916, the ‘‘John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007,’’ also seeks to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and 

Safe Streets Act of 1968. But, in the case of this measure, the legislation specifically 

directs the Attorney General to assume the obligation to repay student loans of any 

individual who agrees to remain employed, for at least three years, as either: (1) 

a state or local criminal prosecutor; or (2) a state, local, or federal public defender 

in a criminal case. 

The inherent difficulties associated with retaining qualified public attorneys is not 

new. And, there are multiple reasons why an attorney might choose the private sector over the public sector. The most frequently discussed reason centers around the 

need for higher paying jobs in the private sector to pay off any lingering student 

loan debt. 

The National Association for Law Placement (NALP) reports that the median sal- ary for a fifth year associate in private practice is $122, 500. In contrast, according 

to the NALP, the median salary for a fifth year state prosecuting attorney is merely 

$55,177; while a fifth year public defender makes even less at $54,672; and a fifth 

year local prosecuting yet and still makes even less at just $54,500. With significant 

pay disparities such as this, it’s easy to understand how public sector attorneys are 

easily lured away with the hope of obtaining a larger salary that can often be found 

in the private sector. 

The final measure that we are considering today, H.R. 933, the ‘‘Witness Security 

and Protection Act of 2007,’’ seeks to amend title 28 of the United States Code to 

establish within the U.S. Marshals Service a short term witness protection program 

for witnesses that are involved in a state or local trial involving a homicide, serious 

violent felony, or serious drug offense. To ensure the best possible use of limited federal resources, the legislation also directs the U.S. Marshals Service to give priority 

to those prosecutor’s offices that are located in a state with an average of at least 

100 murders per year during the five year period immediately preceding and application for protection. 

116

Witness intimidation reduces the likelihood that citizens will engage in the criminal justice system, which could deprive police and prosecutors of critical evidence. 

Moreover, it can also have the unwanted effect of reducing public confidence in the 

criminal justice system, and can create the perception that the criminal justice system can not adequately protect its citizens. 

I looking forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses on these latter points, 

as well as their thoughts on the previous issues mentioned with regard to the prior 

two bills. 

With that said, it is now my pleasure to recognize the esteemed Ranking Member 

of the Subcommittee, my friend and colleague, the Honorable, Randy J. Forbes, who 

represents Virginia’s 4th Congressional District. 

Without objection, all Members may include opening statements in the record at 

this point. 

f

117


B-1.eps
118


B-2.eps
119


B-3.eps
120

f


B-4.eps
121


C-1.eps
122


C-2.eps
123


C-3.eps
124


C-4.eps
125

f


C-5.eps
126


D-1.eps
127


D-2.eps
128


D-3.eps
129

f


D-4.eps
130

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GAVIN NEWSOM, MAYOR, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 

Chairman Scott, I want to commend the Subcommittee for holding this hearing 

today to focus on the recent increase in incidents of violent crime and the need to 

determine how best, on the Federal level, to help state and local law enforcement 

officials combat the rise in violent crime. One critical legislative solution is bringing 

the COPS program back as en effective tool to combat violent crime. I am very encouraged by the introduction of H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvement Act of 2007, and 

urge the Subcommittee to take immediate action on this important measure. 

The US Conference of Mayors reports that 2005 showed the largest single year 

percent increase in violent crime in 15 years. This trend continued in 2006 according to a Police Executive Research Forum survey. A number of factors contribute 

to this increase in crime, including a growing culture of violence among youth, 

gangs, a proliferation of illegal guns, drug activity, and social problems related to 

school truancy and lack of jobs. 

COPS provides grants to tribal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to hire 

and train community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crimefighting technologies, and develop and test innovative policing strategies. COPS has 

invested $11.3 billion to add community policing officers to the nation’s streets and 

schools, enhance crime fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and 

provide training and technical assistance to advance community policing. Since its 

creation in 1994, COPS has funded over 118,000 community policing officers and 

deputies nationwide. Since 1995, COPS has funded 267 police officers in San Francisco. 

As mayor I work hard every day to keep our community safe and have been frustrated that the current Administration has slashed federal funding for major Department of Justice law enforcement programs in recent years. Of special concern 

is the COPS program, which was once funded at almost $1.5 billion, and has now 

been eliminated in the President’s current budget. 

Along with crime prevention, job training, and youth programs, our cities need 

more police officers to walk the beat and keep our residents safe. At a time when 

homeland security dominates federal spending priorities, I urge Congress to reprioritize the need for hometown security and restore full funding to and enhance 

the COPS program. 

f

131


F-1.eps
132


F-2.eps
133

f


F-3.eps
134

1 Assuming a 10-year repayment term and an interest rate of 6.8%. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTIN S. PINALES, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS (NACDL) 

Yesterday brought news of a significant milestone in the criminal justice system: 

the 200th person exonerated through DNA evidence since 1989. According to the Innocence Project, these 200 exonerees served 2,475 years in prison for crimes they 

did not commit. While the importance of DNA analysis for purposes of exonerating 

the innocent and identifying the actual perpetrators cannot be denied, its usefulness 

as a forensic tool is limited to a small percentage of cases and crimes. As this Committee has recognized, ‘‘DNA alone will not eliminate wrongful convictions. . . . [B]iological evidence that can establish guilt or innocence is available in fewer than 

20 percent of violent crimes.’’ House Rpt. 108–711. 

Nonetheless, studying these wrongful convictions and their causes has helped to 

elucidate the problems in the criminal justice system that can lead to errors. By taking advantage of this learning moment, we can institute reforms that prevent future 

errors, thus enhancing public safety. 

Law student debt helps explain one piece of a serious problem in our criminal justice system: the often-inadequate representation of people who are accused of a 

crime but cannot afford an attorney. Most public defenders are burdened with huge 

caseloads and a lack of basic resources. Couple these systemic problems with constant staff turnover caused by low salaries and high educational debt, and even the 

most dedicated public defender organizations will find it hard to provide quality representation. Such inequities guarantee that injustice will be done and innocent persons will be wrongly convicted, leaving the actual perpetrators at large. 

The John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act (H.R. 916) represents a bipartisan effort to address this problem by providing education debt relief 

to lawyers who serve as public defenders and prosecutors for at least three years. 

The Act will help solve the problem of errors by making it easier for prosecutor’s 

offices and public defender organizations to recruit and retain the best and brightest 

attorneys. 

With today’s young lawyers often carrying $100,000 or more in education debt 

upon graduation from law school, many simply cannot afford to enter and continue 

employment as public defenders. 

Consider the following figures:

Public defender salary (average): $43,000

Monthly take-home pay (after tax): $2,606

Cumulative education debt (private, average): $78,763

Monthly loan payments: $906 1

Amount left for living expenses: $1,700

It is easy to see that housing, food, transportation and other basic necessities will 

swallow up the remaining take-home pay—making home ownership, parenthood, 

and retirement saving beyond the reach of the average public defender. As a result, 

lawyers carrying even the average education debt load are effectively priced out of 

public service, and prosecutors’ and public defenders’ offices have serious difficulty 

attracting the best-qualified candidates and retaining experienced attorneys. Indeed, 

many offices have vacancies that they cannot fill. 

Student loan debt is consistently cited as the overwhelming reason why attorneys 

decline or leave positions as prosecutors and public defenders. According to a survey 

conducted by the National Association for Law Placement, law school debt prevented 

two-thirds of law student respondents from considering a public service career. The 

barrier disproportionately affects minority attorneys, who often enter law school 

with fewer resources and leave with greater debt. 

The low salary makes it incredibly difficult for offices to retain attorneys. Even 

attorneys willing to make the sacrifices necessary to enter public service cannot continue to do so forever. As a result, many attorneys leave these offices after only a 

few years. Recruiting experienced attorneys to take their places is almost impossible 

because of the salary. As a result, the justice system is left operating with a dearth 

of experienced attorneys, and less experienced, less qualified attorneys are forced to 

handle complicated cases, with the accused and the community suffering the consequences. 

Frequent staff turnover also creates inefficiency in the justice system. Cases are 

frequently delayed because of turnover, and offices must constantly expend precious 

resources recruiting and training new staff. For this reason, the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs has concluded that loan forgiveness is ‘‘an important 

means of reducing staff turnover and avoiding related recruitment/training costs 

135

and disruptions to the office and case processing.’’ Improving Criminal Justice System through Expanded Strategies and Innovative Collaborations: Report of the National Symposium on Indigent Defense, NCJ 181344, February 1999. 

‘‘Nowhere in public service is it more important to encourage the recruitment of 

competent lawyers and the retention of experienced ones than in the disciplines of 

prosecution and public defense, where people’s lives and liberty hang in the balance.’’ Senate Rpt. 107–315. A reliable, fair, and efficient justice system requires 

competent attorneys representing the interests of government, protecting the rights 

of individuals, and ensuring that mistakes are not made. Skilled lawyers in the 

courtroom are the best safeguard against wrongful convictions of innocent people, 

an unconscionable miscarriage of justice in a system that is held out as a model for 

the world. 

Competent, experienced defense lawyers and prosecutors are essential to America’s time-honored adversarial system of justice. A revolving-door system, where new 

lawyers leave just as they begin to hit their stride, wastes tax dollars and denies 

us the talents and dedication of those attracted to a lifetime of public service. The 

John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act would help ensure public 

safety and fundamental fairness, as well as increasing efficiencies, by making it possible for the most qualified lawyers to choose and continue these noble and essential 

legal careers. 

NACDL is the preeminent organization in the United States advancing the mission of the nation’s criminal defense lawyers to ensure justice and due process for 

persons accused of crime or other misconduct. A professional bar association founded in 1958, NACDL’s 12,500 direct members—and 80 state, local and international 

affiliate organizations with another 35,000 members—include private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, active-duty U.S. military defense counsel, law professors and judges committed to preserving fairness within America’s criminal justice system. 

f

136


H-1.eps
137


H-2.eps
138

f


H-3.eps
139


I-1.eps
140


I-2.eps
141

f


I-3.eps
142


J-1.eps
143

f


J-2.eps
144


K-1.eps
145


K-2.eps
146


K-3.eps
147


K-4.eps
148


K-5.eps
149


K-6.eps
150


K-7.eps
151

f


K-8.eps
152


L-1.eps
153

f


L-2.eps
154


M-1.eps
155

f


M-2.eps
156


N-1.eps
157


N-2.eps
158


N-3.eps
159


N-4.eps
160


N-5.eps
161


N-6.eps
162


N-7.eps
163

f


N-8.eps
164


P-1.eps
165


P-2.eps
166


P-3.eps
167


P-4.eps
168


P-5.eps
169


P-6.eps
170

f


P-7.eps
171


Q-1.eps
172

f


Q-2.eps
173


R-1.eps
174


R-2.eps
175


R-3.eps
176


R-4.eps
177


R-5.eps
178


R-6.eps
179


R-7.eps
180


R-8.eps
181


R-9.eps
182


R-10.eps
183


R-11.eps
184


R-12.eps
185


R-13.eps
186


R-14.eps
187


R-15.eps
188


R-16.eps
189


R-17.eps
190


R-18.eps
191


R-19.eps
192


R-20.eps
193


R-21.eps
194

f


R-22.eps
195

Æ


S.eps