I was quite concerned to learn that the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of Justice has announced that it intends to terminate the Structured Sentencing Program in March. This program has operated for two years at a very low budget. · ́It provides states with technical assistance, financial assistance, computer assistance, national conferences and resource materials to aid in their efforts to develop sentencing guidelines. As you know, South Carolina has recently enacted legislation to provide for sentencing guidelines. Kansas, Colorado and Oklahoma have also just enacted such legislation. To end this program now when the interest is so high would be a signal to the states that the federal government does not support their efforts to make the most effective use of their criminal justice ́. systems. My understanding is that the Department is telling states interested in this program that they are free to apply for block grants. The four states involved, including South Carolina, all are operating under tight deadlines. South Carolina does not have the time to wait for a funding cycle, apply and then hope that we get the grant. We need to know that funding and technical assistance will be available in the short term. Moreover, block grants are in no way a replacement for this program. The program provides technical assistance across state lines. It has held three national conferences where people in the process of drafting guidelines can meet and share ideas with people in the same situation and with people who have already completed their efforts. That technical assistance.. plus the constant access to the unique expertise of the staff of the program are an invaluable asset that saves states from needless duplication of effort and resources. It is cheaper to bring experts together to talk to four states at once than it is to give four states money to each separately bring in the same expert to their jurisdiction. States like South Carolina that are in the crucial early stages of this effort will suffer a serious setback if this program is ended or even interrupted. I feel certain that you will wish to avoid that. I strongly Page 2 urge you to seek an immediate legislative solution that will continue the program as it is now for at least two years. Indeed, since guideline sentencing appears at long last to be gaining widespread acceptance throughout the country, I would hope that federal support for this effort will continue for several years to come. It assuredly will be needed for that long. Dear Senator Biden and Members of the Committee: As Chairman of the Louisiana Sentencing Commission, I feel compelled to inform you of our concerns and the concerns of several other states regarding the recent regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, changing the technical assistance provider within the National Structured Sentencing Program. This program has been highly successful in assisting several states to address the failure of uniform prosecution and incarceration of serious felony and drug offenders through the creation of a sentencing commission and the implementation of sentencing guidelines. This effort is a vital part of the war on drugs at the state level, since it permits states to quickly and efficiently restructure state sanctioning policy to meet the demands of the rapidly changing crime problems generated by drug abuse and the serious criminal offenses related to it. Our concerns can be briefly summarized as follows: 1. In Louisiana, as in several other states, we have found that the most effective proven method for addressing the failure of the traditional state sanction systems to insure the uniform prosecution and incarceration of serious felony and drug offenders is through the implementation of a sentencing commission and sentencing guidelines. The success of these efforts depends on the unique experience and expertise provided through the National Structured Sentencing Program since 1987. This private technical assistance provider has been invaluable in resolving complex issues involving state legislatures, law enforcement, court personnel, prosecution, and corrections officials--an expertise the new provider does not possess. 2. Several of these state sentencing commissions, including Louisiana, are near completion and are about to promulgate guidelines, but still must resolve a number of complex issues. In order to meet the urgency created by the states' war on drugs, these commissions are dependent on the continued advice and support from the technical assistance provider who has helped the sentencing commissions come as far as we have in a short period of time. 3. The new provider proposed by the Department of Justice, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, is not an adequate alternative provider of technical assistance for the following reasons: a) The Bureau of Justice Assistance apparently has no statutory authority to transfer funds to a federal judicial branch agency as it proposes to do so. b) The new provider apparently has no legal authority to make grants or to give technical assistance to states under any circumstances. c) A recent GAO report described the research and organization policies of the new provider to be "in disarray" and apparently lacks the technical expertise and administrative :apability to make such grants in an efficient and effective manner. (U.S. Sentencing Commission: Changes Needed to Improve Effectiveness, Statement of Lowell Dodge, Director, Administration of Justice Issues. Before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives; March 7, 1990). 4. Since the Bureau of Justice Assistance delayed the issuance of a spending plan for discretionary grant funds (FY 1990) for over six months, several state commissions, including Louisiana, have been forced to terminate vital data collection programs and personnel as well as delaying the targeted completion date of the guidelines. This delay has impeded the states' efforts to fully immplement the war on drugs and associated violent crime. In view of these these concerns, we would request that the Bureau of Justice Assistance be instructed to return the National Structured Sentencing Program to its original (FY 1989) form, with the original technical assistance provider, and thereby allow the states to get on with the much needed work of structured sentencing. We must do this if the states are to be able to insure the uniform prosecution and incarceration of serious felony and drug offenders; without which the war on drugs is meaningless. Respect fully submitted: Thoma W. Jan Judge Thomas W. Tanner, Retired |