Use of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

Program Grant Funds for Administrative Purposes

F u n d s originally aw ard ed to states by the L aw E nforcem ent A ssistance A dm inistration 

for p rogram m atic purposes, under T itle I o f the O m nibus C rim e C ontrol and Safe 

S treets A ct o f 1968, m ay be used to supplem ent exhausted adm inistrative funds.

A lum p sum appropriation can be used for any purpose consistent w ith the purposes o f 

the authorizing statute, and an ag en cy ’s representation to C ongress as to how it 

proposes to allocate ap p ro p riated funds is legally binding on the agency only to the 

extent its proposed allocation finds its w ay into the language o f the appropriation 

statute itself.

June 5, 1980

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR 

THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

This responds to your request for our opinion on the question 

whether the states may be permitted to use a portion of certain unexpended federal grant funds in their possession for purposes other than 

those for which they were originally intended. We conclude that they 

may.

The funds in question have been awarded to the states over the past 

several years pursuant to agreements with the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) under Title I of the Omnibus Crime 

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3701-3796 (1976) 

(hereafter Crime Control A ct).1 Under the terms of these agreements, 

certain sums have been awarded to the states for administrative or 

planning purposes under Part B of the Crime Control Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 3721-25, and certain sums for programmatic purposes under Parts C 

and E of that Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3731-39, 3751-74. By the end of the 

present fiscal year funds awarded under Part B for administrative purposes will have been entirely obligated by the states; however, there 

will remain to be administered and expended over the next two years

1 Funds w ere aw arded by LE A A to the states for FY 1980 in accordance with categories established by the Justice System Im provem ent Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96-157, 93 Stat. 1167 (hereafter 

1979 Act). H ow ever, this A ct was not passed by Congress until after the beginning o f the 1980 fiscal 

year, so that aw ards which had already been m ade for FY 1980 w ere made under authority o f the 

Crim e C ontrol A ct. Transition provisions in the 1979 A ct intended to facilitate the shift to a new 

aw ard system provided authority for LE A A to aw ard funds already appropriated “in accordance with 

the provisions of the prior A ct . . . .” H.R. Rep. No. 655, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 80 (1979) (conf. rep.). 

Se*§ 1301 (d), (0. (h) o f the 1979 Act, 93 Stat. 1167, 1221.

674
some $600 million in programmatic funds awarded under Parts C and

E.2 The practical necessity of devoting some portion of these funds to 

administration has arisen because of Congress’ tentative decision to 

appropriate no new monies for any formula grant awards by LEAA for 

FY 1981. The question is whether LEAA’s agreements with the states 

can now be modified to permit states to use funds originally awarded 

for programmatic purposes to supplement their exhausted administrative funds.

The statutory provisions authorizing LEAA to make grants under 

Parts B, C, and E of the Crime Control Act set no relevant limits on 

the amount of money which LEAA can lawfully allocate to each 

Part.3 In theory, LEAA could, consistent with its authorizing act, enter 

into agreements with states under which grant funds could be used 

either for administration and planning or for programmatic purposes. 

There is, therefore, no obstacle in the authorizing statute to using some 

programmatic funds for administrative purposes.4

Nor do LEAA’s appropriation statutes constrain it in this regard. 

LEAA’s is a lump sum appropriation, and as such can be used for any 

purpose consistent with the purposes of the authorizing statute. See,

e.g., In re Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 55 Comp. Gen. 

812, 819-21 (1976). An agency’s representation to Congress as to how it 

proposes to allocate appropriated funds is legally binding on the agency 

only to the extent that its proposed allocation finds its way into the 

language of the appropriation statute itself. Nothing in the language of 

LEAA’s appropriations acts for the past three years suggests that funds 

awarded under Part B for administrative expenses could not be increased by agreement between LEAA and a particular state, or that 

obligated funds originally earmarked for programmatic purposes could 

not in the same manner be shifted to administration if necessary.

In sum, we see no bar either in the authorizing statute or the appropriations acts to LEAA’s entering into a modification of its grant 

agreements whereby the states will be permitted to use funds previously 

designated for programmatic purposes to accomplish necessary administrative tasks.

2 Under § 520 o f the Crim e Control Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3768, funds appropriated under Title 1 remain 

available for obligation until expended. Under the terms o f L E A A ’s agreem ents with the states, funds 

not obligated by the states by the end of the third.year after their appropriation, revert to LEA A .

3 Section 205 o f the Act provides for a minimum sum to be aw arded every state under Part B, with 

“the remainder of such funds available” allocated among the states in accordance with a formula based 

on population. 42 U:S.C. 3725. Section 520(a) provides that the sum allocated by LE A A to Part E will 

be no less than 20 percent o f the amount allocated to Part C. 42 U.S.C. § 3768(a). O ther than these 

tw o provisions, how ever, there is nothing in this authorizing statute which obligated LE A A to 

allocate appropriated funds among Parts B, C, and E in any particular manner.

4 The 1979 Act does set a ceiling on funds to be allocated for administrative purposes, see

§ 401(c)(1), 93 Stat. 1167, 1181. However, since none of the money in question was appropriated under 

authority of that Act, see note 1 supra, this ceiling would pose no obstacle to modifying agreem ents 

entered into under authority o f the Crime C ontrol Act.

675
Section 8 of the Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-132, 93 Stat. 1040, 1046-47 

(1979), contains a provision requiring each organizational component of 

the Department of Justice to give 15 days notice to specified congressional committees of any decision to “reprogram” funds in excess of a 

certain amount. In the case of LEAA, this amount is $500,000. Under 

the terms of the statute, notification must be given whenever funds are 

shifted within an agency from one “program” to another, as that term 

is defined in the Department of Justice’s submission to Congress in 

support of its authorization request. The notification requirement would 

apply, therefore, when LEAA shifts funds from one line item in its 

authorization submission to another, even though LEAA’s appropriation itself is in a lump sum.5 While the present situation could perhaps 

be distinguished from the more typical agency “reprogramming” 

action, some public action by LEAA will be necessary in any event to 

permit the states to accomplish the desired shift of programmatic funds. 

We therefore think that the appropriate congressional committees 

should be notified of LEAA’s intention to take this course of action.

L a r r y L . S im m s

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

5 This notification requirement is discussed in the com m ittee reports on the Justice D epartm ent's 

appropriation statute for 1980. See S. Rep. No. 251, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1979); H.R. Rep. No. 247, 

96th Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1979).