[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 104 (Tuesday, August 2, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      THERE HAS TO BE A BETTER WAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, we learn oftentimes that the slogan 
``There has to be a better way'' is more than a slogan. It should be a 
lifestyle for the Members of Congress in both this House and in the 
other House. We oftentimes will take a very complicated approach to 
something that, in reality, could be quite simple.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why this evening I rise in support of H.R. 4592, 
which is a bill that I have cosponsored along with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]. This bill is called the Tax Rebate to 
Fight Crime Act. It is very simple. It goes on this philosophy: that 
the best people who know how to fight crime are those who are closest 
to it, the local sheriffs, chiefs of police, mayors, county 
administrators, county boards, city councils, and eventually the 
Governor, of course.
  This bill recognizes the fact that this body is not in a position to 
preempt the wisdom and knowledge of, for example, the chiefs of police 
on how to fight crime.
  What does this bill do? Mr. Speaker, this bill says that 2 percent of 
all of the individual Federal income taxes that are paid by each State 
is rebated back to the State by an automatic check as soon as the money 
comes in to the Federal Government, to the Department of the Treasury.
  That means, for example, the State of Illinois would receive 
somewhere between $600 million and $700 million each year with no 
strings attached, a continued amount of money obviously that will 
increase as the economy grows and more income taxes are paid.
  Now, what can the State and local government officials do with that 
money? First of all, there are no Washington strings attached, and 
today we have the ignominious splendor taking place in this country 
where the American taxpayer sends a tax dollar to Washington where it 
is legally shrunk by 41 cents, and the remaining 59 cents is held up 
and waved by a Federal bureaucrat to the State and local officials who 
are saying, ``If you want this money, which really belongs at home 
anyway, then you must apply for a grant and at our discretion,'' at the 
bureaucrats' discretion, ``then the money will go back to the States 
from whence it came initially.''

                              {time}  1730

  This bill says eliminate the bureaucrats in Washington and let the 
people back home determine how to spend that money. The problem with 
the present crime bill, the $33 billion crime bill, is that it sets up 
a huge group of programs; in fact, 50 of the new programs being set up 
are programs that are already in existence of the some 600 Federal 
programs already available to the States and local governments.
  What does this bill do? It says the State and local officials can use 
the money to pay police officers, to build and operate prisons, to pay 
criminal court judges, prosecutors, criminal defenders, or even rebate 
the money back to the taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill based upon a very simple 
concept: that chiefs of police, mayors, law enforcement officers are in 
a much better position to know how to spend taxpayer dollars than 535 
people located here in Washington, DC.
  A unique approach, yes, but it speaks of something called federalism, 
the division of power, the separation of powers of the Federal 
Government from the State and local governments. It empowers State and 
local officials to use the taxpayer dollars, keep them at home and 
battle crime.
  When I talk to the States' attorneys back home about how a bill like 
this would work, they say, ``Hooray, we need something like that,'' 
because in many instances the money that a State's attorney will need 
will be to hire clerks in the circuit court's criminal division to take 
care of the amount of paperwork. Some States' attorneys, chiefs of 
police want to increase jail space, some want to have more probation 
officers, some need more prosecutors, some need more cops. But leave 
those decisions, leave all those decisions, let us put feet to the 
proposition that crime is local, that crime is best fought at the local 
level. Let us empower our State and local officials with the money and 
means, without red tape, to fight crime.
  The documents referred to are as follows:

      [From the Heritage Foundation Issue Bulletin, Aug. 2, 1994]

             The Crime Bill: Few Cops, Many Social Workers


                              introduction

       Congress this week will vote on final passage of a crime 
     bill which purportedly puts 100,000 new police officers on 
     the beat, funds the construction of new prison space, and 
     directs billions in federal funds toward ``crime 
     prevention.'' In reality, the bill provides funding to 
     increase the number of uniformed police officers by only 3 
     percent nationwide, places a huge new unfunded mandate on the 
     states, and will finance an expensive new layer of social 
     welfare programs.
       Specifically, the bill:
       Guarantees full funding for only 20,000 permanent new cops 
     over the next six years, or one-fifth the number claimed by 
     the bill's supporters. This is equivalent to adding about one 
     new officer to every police department in the nation.
       Assumes state and local governments will pick up as much as 
     $33 billion in new expenditures over the next six years if 
     the bill is to meet the target of 100,000 officers.
       Gives the Attorney General the discretion to decide which 
     cities and states receive the Community Policing funds. This 
     invites handouts to politically connected big-city mayors and 
     politicians.
       Adds at least $8.7 billion in new social spending, and 
     nearly 30 new social programs, to a welfare system which has 
     cost taxpayers over $5 trillion since the War on Poverty was 
     created in 1965.
       Will put two new social workers on the street for every new 
     cop it fully funds.
       In short, the crime bill turns out to promise more cops on 
     America's streets. In reality, it means few cops, a big tab 
     for cities, and plenty of new social programs and social 
     workers.


                     WHY THE NUMBERS DO NOT ADD UP

       The most publicized portion of the crime bill is the $8.845 
     billion Community Policing grant program. The White House 
     claims this measure will put 100,000 now cops on the street 
     over the next six years. But a closer inspection of this 
     claim reveals that the figures simply do not add up.
       The intention of the Community Policing grant program in 
     reality is to provide ``seed'' money to local governments to 
     hire 100,000 new police officers, not to fully fund these 
     positions. So the bill assumes that once these new officers 
     have been hired with Washington's help, state and local 
     governments will find the billions of new dollars to keep 
     them on permanently. The bill actually provides just one-
     fifth of the funds needed to keep 100,000 new cops on the 
     street for the next six years, leaving the states with the 
     massive cost of fulfilling the bill's promise. Even worse, 
     the bill allows local governments to use some of these 
     Community Policing funds for purposes other than hiring new 
     cops, so there is no guarantee that even 20,000 new officers' 
     positions will actually be funded and cops hired.
       Based on salary levels for police officers and overhead 
     costs reported by police departments, the cost of putting one 
     new cop on the street for one year in a high-crime area is 
     estimated at between $70,000 to $80,000.\1\ Therefore the 
     actual cost of putting 100,000 cops on the street is at least 
     $7 billion per year, or a minimum of $42 billion over the 
     six-year life of the bill. But the crime bill provides only 
     $8.845 billion over the six-year period, or $1.475 billion 
     per year. Thus in order to permanently place 100,000 new 
     police officers on America's streets over the next six years, 
     state and local governments who apply for Community Policing 
     grants will have to supplement Washington's contribution with 
     some $33 billion of their own funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This highly publicized crime bill provides only one-fifth 
     the necessary funding for 100,000 permanent new police. If 
     cities do not cut back on other services or raise taxes, the 
     funds provided in the bill can keep at most just 20,000 
     permanent cops on the street over the next six years. There 
     are some 600,000 uniformed police officers nationwide, so 
     20,000 represents an increase of just 3 percent, or the 
     equivalent of adding just one new officer for every police 
     department in the nation.\2\
       Another way to look at this financial sleight-of-hand is to 
     calculate how much funding the bill provides per police 
     officer per year. On average, the bill authorizes $1.475 
     billion per year for 100,000 new officers. This amounts to 
     just $14,750 per cop per year--roughly the poverty level for 
     a family of four. Since it is ridiculous to think that 
     quality police officers could be hired for minimum wage 
     salaries, state and local governments would have to absorb 
     the remaining roughly $60,000 per year cost of hiring and 
     keeping each of these new cops. To meet the 100,000 target, 
     local governments would be responsible for some $6 billion 
     per year in total new costs.
       Supporters of the bill no doubt will argue that local 
     governments will not be stuck with a big tab. They might say, 
     for instance, that the bill caps at $75,000 the amount local 
     governments may spend initially to hire a new cop and it also 
     limits the federal share of this cost at 75 percent. But this 
     changes the real-world scenario very little. If, for 
     instance, Chicago were to spend $75,000 to hire a new cop and 
     contribute 25 percent of this cost, the federal share of this 
     new hiree would be over $56,000. Now, dividing this amount 
     into the $1.47 billion the bill provides annually for new 
     police would mean it funds only 26,222 permanent new cops. 
     This is still far short of the 100,000 promised.
       However the computation is made, the result is the same: 
     the bill actually funds only a small fraction of the promised 
     new officers.
       An often overlooked detail, moreover, is the fact that the 
     bill does not require local governments to use all of these 
     Community Policing funds to hire new cops. Indeed, 15 percent 
     of these funds can be used for a variety of social or 
     community activities only tangentially related to law 
     enforcement, and 20 percent of the remaining funds can be 
     spent on equipment, computers, and overtime for existing 
     officers.
       For example, cities may use the funds in the following 
     ways:
       To enhance police officers' ``conflict resolution, 
     mediation, problem solving, service, and other skills needed 
     to work in partnership with members of the community'';
       To ``develop new technologies to assist State and local law 
     enforcement agencies in reorienting the emphasis of their 
     activities from reacting to crime to preventing crime''; and
       To ``develop and establish new administrative and 
     managerial systems to facilitate the adoption of community-
     oriented policing as an organization-wide philosophy.''
       Cities actually have an incentive to use Community Policing 
     funds for other purposes because such programs will not add 
     the future costs of a police officer's pension and other 
     benefits to the municipal budget. Spending the money on items 
     other than new police officers means a city does not have to 
     find ways of covering a funding shortfall after the first 
     year of the bill. Such an incentive system virtually 
     guarantees that fewer than 20,000 new cops will be hired, let 
     alone the purported 100,000.
       Supporters of this bill, moreover, have been less than 
     forthcoming in noting that 75 percent of these Community 
     Policing funds can be distributed at the discretion of the 
     Attorney General. This means that there is no guarantee that 
     the funds will be targeted toward cities that are in greatest 
     need of new police. It does mean, however, that the 
     Administration may play politics with these funds and reward 
     politically loyal mayors and local politicians, rather than 
     addressing areas of greatest need.\3\


                          social welfare pork

       Roughly $8.7 billion of the funds in the crime bill is 
     dedicated to creating nearly 30 new ``crime prevention'' 
     programs ($7.4 billion for programs identified as 
     ``prevention'' and $1.3 billion for new ``Drug Courts''). It 
     turns out that many of these new programs are little more 
     than social welfare pork barrel, adding a new layer of 
     programs onto a welfare system that already costs taxpayers 
     at all levels of government over $310 billion per year.\4\
       Unlike the Community Policing grants, these new grant 
     programs are permanent and will not require matching funds by 
     local government or the private social service organizations 
     who receive the funds. This means that recipients will have 
     more incentive to apply for these funds than the grants 
     intended for new cops. Thus new social service workers will 
     be much less costly for jurisdictions to hire than new police 
     officers. Indeed, if all this new social welfare money goes 
     toward hiring new social workers, the bill will add a minimum 
     of 40,000 social workers per year--at least two social 
     workers will be hired for every cop the bill puts on the 
     street.\5\
       The assumption behind these new social programs is that 
     potential criminals can be steered away from a life of crime 
     by targeted government initiatives aimed at altering their 
     environment. In other words, crime will be reduced if 
     government provides community development aid, social 
     services, job training, and recreational activities.
       This argument may sound attractive to many taxpayers. But 
     it belies the fact that society has spent $5 trillion on the 
     War on Poverty since 1965, yet the national crime rate stands 
     at its highest level ever. As shown in Chart 1, welfare 
     spending since 1965 has grown in real terms by 800 percent 
     while the number of major felonies per capita today is 
     roughly three times the typical rate before 1960.\6\ While 
     these two sets of statistics may not be directly correlated, 
     welfare spending appears to have little impact on reducing 
     the crime rate.
       Chart 2 shows that government already has spent lavishly on 
     programs identical to the ones created in the new crime bill. 
     Since 1965, government has spent $161 billion on community 
     development and economic aid programs, $202 billion on social 
     service programs, $204 billion on job training programs, and 
     $292 billion on targeted education programs. These are 
     exactly the types of federal assistance boosted in the crime 
     bill. They have not cut crime. Moreover, the new programs 
     created by this bill will duplicate at least 50 existing 
     federally funded ``crime prevention'' grant programs. Among 
     other things, this will compound the overall problem of 
     duplication and overlapping programs identified last year by 
     Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review. The 
     Performance Review found that:
       Some ``14 separate government departments and agencies 
     invest $24 billion a year, through 150 employment and 
     training programs.''\7\
       Washington spends ``about $60 billion a year on the well-
     being of children. But we have created at least 340 separate 
     programs for families and children, administered by 11 
     different federal agencies and departments.''\8\
       ``Much of Washington's domestic agenda, $226 billion, to be 
     precise,'' is allocated to state and local governments 
     ``through an array of more than 600 different grant 
     programs.''
       Ten such examples of the 30 new programs added to the 
     current 600, include:
       1) Local Partnership Act. This new community aid program 
     will hand out $1.8 billion to local governments on a formula 
     basis. The formula is written to reward areas with high tax 
     rates, high unemployment, and low personal income. In other 
     words, cities which have overtaxed their residents will 
     benefit most from the Local Partnership Act.
       2) Model Intensive Grants. This program gives the Attorney 
     General the discretion to award $895 million to 15 high-crime 
     areas. These funds are intended to accomplish the vague goals 
     of relieving ``conditions that encourage crime'' and 
     providing ``meaningful and lasting alternatives to 
     involvement in crime.'' In reality, this is likely to be a 
     traditional pork barrel program because priority will be 
     given to areas marketed by the ``deterioration or lack of 
     public facilities, inadequate public services such as public 
     transportation, street lighting * * * or employment services 
     offices.''\9\
       (3) Youth Employment Skills (YES). This problem will spend 
     $650 million to ``test the proposition that crime can be 
     reduced * * * through a saturation jobs program.'' The 150 
     job training programs already being funded seem to have done 
     little to reduce the crime rate. The bill's supporters assume 
     spending more will have an impact.
       (4) Ounce of Prevention. This program creates a new 
     interagency council to distribute $100 million for summer and 
     after-school programs, mentoring and tutoring programs, 
     substance abuse treatment, and job placement. This program 
     duplicates dozens of established federal programs and 
     countless programs run by local governments and non-profit 
     organizations.
       (5) Family and Community Endeavor Schools (FACES). This 
     program authorizes the Secretary of Education to dole out 
     some $270 million to ``community-based'' organizations. These 
     organizations can use the funds for activities such as ``work 
     force preparation, entrepreneurship, cultural programs, arts 
     and crafts,'' dance programs, and supervised sports programs. 
     However, community organizations ``may not use such funds to 
     provide sectarian worship or instruction.''\10\
       (6) Midnight Sports. This well-publicized $40 million 
     program directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development to establish so-called midnight basketball 
     leagues. The bill specifies how many teams must be in a 
     league, how many players must be on each team, and requires 
     that at least half of the players must live in public 
     housing. Youth involved in this program must live in an area 
     with a substantial drug problem, high crime rates, large 
     numbers of people infected with AIDS, and high illegitimacy 
     rates. One problem apparently overlooked by those supporting 
     the midnight league is that many of the cities toward which 
     this program presumably is targeted have curfews for 
     adolescents.
       (7) Violence Against Women. This $1.8 billion program funds 
     an array of grant programs intended to assist law enforcement 
     agencies and nonprofit groups develop strategies to prevent 
     crimes against women. A large portion of these funds must go 
     to ``nonprofit nongovernmental victim services.'' The bill 
     establishes the Attorney General's Task Force on Violence 
     Against Women at a cost of $500,000. The Task Force may hire 
     an Executive Director at an annual salary of some $69,000 
     (GS-15 level) and pay consultants up to $200 per day.
       (8) Drug Courts. Though not officially designated a 
     ``prevention'' program, this $1.3 billion grant program is no 
     different from the other new social programs. The Drug Court 
     grants are to be used by local governments or private 
     organizations involved in ``continuing judicial supervision 
     over specified categories of persons with substance abuse 
     problems, and that involve the integrated administration of 
     other sanctions and services.'' These ``other services'' 
     include: substance abuse treatment, health care, 
     education, vocational training, job placement, housing 
     placement, and child care or other family support 
     services.\11\
       9) Juvenile Drug Trafficking and Gang Prevention Grants. 
     This $125 million program authorizes the Director of the 
     Bureau of Justice Assistance to make grants to local public 
     and nonprofit organizations for projects intended to steer 
     young people away from gangs and drug activities. Such 
     projects include ``school programs that teach that drug and 
     gang involvement are wrong,'' and ``programs such as youth 
     sports and other activities, including girls and boys clubs, 
     scout troops, and little leagues.''
       10) Missing Alzheimer's Patients. The bill approves $3 
     million in grants to establish a Missing Alzheimer's Disease 
     Patient Alert Program. Many Americans may approve of such an 
     effort, but it is unclear how this would eliminate violent 
     crime in America's streets.


                               conclusion

       The crime bill conference report Congress will act on this 
     week does not live up to supporters' promises to put 100,000 
     new police officers on the beat. At best the bill will fully 
     fund only 20,000 permanent new cops. Most likely it will mean 
     far fewer because of the strong incentive it gives local 
     governments to use the Community Policing grants for other 
     programs. Still, the bill is good news for social workers: 
     the bill funds a massive expansion of the social welfare 
     system and could put two social welfare workers on the street 
     for every new police officer officer.

                                               Scott A. Hodge,

                                          Grover M. Hermann Fellow
                                     in Federal Budgetary Affairs.
       Research interns Brad Hodge and Bill Knee assisted in 
     preparing this study.

              The Crime Bill's New Social Welfare Programs

New social program                           Six-year cost ($ millions)
Local partnership act.............................................1,800
National community economic partnership.............................300
Model intensive grants..............................................895
Ounce of prevention.................................................100
Child-centered activities...........................................630
Family and community endeavor Schools (FACES).......................270
Violence Against Women............................................1,800
Youth Employment Skills (YES).......................................650
Prison Drug Treatment (State).......................................300
Prison Drug Treatment (Federal).....................................125
Juvenile drug trafficking gang prevention...........................125
Midnight sports......................................................40
Community youth academies............................................40
Hope in youth........................................................20
Gang prevention services.............................................20
Anticrime youth councils..............................................5
Boys and girls clubs.................................................30
Police partnerships for children.....................................20
Safe low-income housing..............................................10
Triads................................................................6
Olympic youth development............................................50
Youth violence prevention............................................50
Child visitation.....................................................30
Gang resistance education and training (GREAT).......................22
Missing Alzheimer's patients..........................................3
Family unity.........................................................22
Urban parks and Recreation............................................5
Safe seniors corridors................................................2
                                                       ________________

    Prevention total..............................................7,370
                                                       ================

Drug courts.......................................................1,300
                                                       ________________

Total new social welfare programs.................................8,670

    Fifty current programs duplicated by the crime bill--dollars in 
                                millions

                                                              Estimated
                                                            fiscal 1994
CFDA number  Program                                            funding
16.001  Law Enforcement Assistance--Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs--
  Laboratory Analysis..............................................3.73
16.004  Law Enforcement Assistance--Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs 
  Training.........................................................5.79
16.005  Public Education on Drug Abuse--Information................3.59
16.304  Law Enforcement Assistance--National Crime Information Cent7.73
14.218  Community Development Block Grants.....................2,871.00
16.300  Law Enforcement Assistance--FBI Advanced Police Training..13.74
16.540  Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention--Allocation to 
  states..........................................................72.11
16.541  Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention--Special Emphas8.89
16.542  National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
  Prevention......................................................13.90
16.544  Juvenile Gangs and Drug Abuse and Drug Trafficking.........5.60
16.547  Victims of Child Abuse.....................................8.00
16.548  Title Delinquency Prevention Program......................13.00
16.550  Criminal Justice Statistics Development....................2.20
16.574  Criminal Justice Discretionary Grant Program...............0.15
16.575  Crime Victim Assistance...................................65.46
16.576  Crime Victim Compensation.................................60.68
16.577  Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance...............0.22
16.579  Drug Control and System Improvement--Formula Grant.......358.00
16.580  Drug Control and System Improvement--Discretionary Grant..24.76
16.601  Corrections--Training and Staff Development................2.03
16.602  Corrections--Research and Evaluation and Policy formulation0.22
16.603  Corrections--Technical Assistance/Clearinghouse............3.50
17.201  Apprenticeship............................................16.52
17.250  Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)....................2,412.35
27.004  Federal Employment For Disadvantaged Youth--Summer.............
36.001  Fair Competition Counseling and Investigation of Complaint92.66
84.013  Chapter 1 Program for Neglected and Delinquent Children...35.41
84.014  Follow Through.............................................8.48
84.047  Upward Bound.............................................182.94
84.184  Drug-Free Schools and Communities--National Programs......15.00
84.186  Drug-Free Schools and Communities--State Grants..........372.97
84.188  Drug-Free Schools and Communities--Regional Centers.......15.60
84.207  Drug-Free Schools and Communities--School Personnel Traini13.61
84.233  Drug-Free Schools and Communities--Emergency Grants.......24.55
84.253  Supplementary State Grants for Facilities, Equipment, and other 
  Program Improvement Activities.......................................
93.102  Demonstration Grants for Residential Treatment for Women and 
  their Children..................................................29.23
93.122  Cooperative Agreements for Substance Abuse Treatment and 
  Recovery Systems for Rural, Remote and Culturally Distinct 
  Populations......................................................4.00
93.144  Demonstration Grants for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other 
  Drug Abuse Among High-Risk Youth................................57.38
93.580  Family resource Centers....................................5.91
93.600  Head Start.............................................3,326.29
93.608  Child Welfare Research and Demonstration...................6.47
93.645  Child Welfare Services--State Grants.....................294.62
93.647  Social Services Research and Demonstration................13.83
93.648  Child Welfare Services Training Grants.....................4.44
93.657  Drug Education and Prevention for Homeless Youth..........14.60
93.660  Youth Initiative/Youth Gangs..............................10.65
93.671  Family Violence Prevention and Services...................27.68
93.67  Community-Based Prevention Program..........................5.27
93.902  Model Comprehensive Drug Abuse treatment Programs for Critical 
  Populations.....................................................40.21
93.903  Model Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment for Incarcerated 
  Populations, Non-incarcerated populations and Juvenile Justice 
  Populations.....................................................31.00
                                                               ________

    Total.....................................................10,605.98


                               footnotes

     \1\According to the Census Bureau's March 1993 Current 
     Population Survey, the nation-wide average salary for a 
     police officer is $36,366, and for larger cities the figure 
     is closer to $40,000. A fiscal officer in the San Francisco 
     Police Department reported in a telephone interview that the 
     actual cost of putting a new officer on the street is at 
     least $71,000. Salary and benefits for this officer are some 
     $61,000 and the cost of recruiting, examination, and 
     background checks is at least $10,000. Moreover, for every 
     three new officers hired a typical department must purchase 
     one new police vehicle. This and other administrative costs 
     are not included in the above figure. These one-time costs 
     mean the costs of the typical officer rise to over $71,000. 
     In addition, quotas and other hiring practices--which are 
     mandated in the crime bill--will make the cost of hiring new 
     officers very expensive, reports the financial officer in the 
     San Francisco Department. To hire 50 qualified officers 
     meeting the quota standards, that department assumes it must 
     recruit, screen, and test at least 200 applicants.
     \2\But the impact of this additional officer will be slight. 
     Because of rotational schedules, most large city police 
     departments require at least five officers to cover a beat in 
     a 24-hour period.
     \3\Last year, Congress passed an emergency supplemental bill 
     which included $150 million in aid to hire 2,000 new police 
     officers. Nearly 45 percent of these funds went to four 
     states: California, Florida, Illinois, and Texas.
     \4\Robert Rector, ``A Comprehensive Urban Policy: How to Fix 
     Welfare and Revitalize America's Inner Cities,'' Heritage 
     Foundation Memo To: President-Elect Clinton No. 12, January 
     18, 1993, p. 17.
     \5\According to the Current Population Survey, the typical 
     social worker earns less than $23,000 annually--fully one-
     third less than the average police officer. Most social 
     workers, especially those working in the non-profit agencies 
     largely funded by the bill, do not have as generous benefits 
     packages as unionized police officers or the training costs 
     (The typical recreational worker earns less than $12,000 
     annually). This calculation assumes that the value of a 
     social workers benefit package is half-again as much as their 
     salary, or some $12,000, for a total cost per social worker 
     of $36,000.
     \6\Rector, op. cit.
     \7\The National Performance Review, Creating a Government 
     that Works Better and Costs Less (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
     Government Printing Office) September 7, 1993, p. 49.
     \8\Ibid., p. 51.
     \9\This specific language was contained in the House version 
     of the crime bill (H.R. 4092) pages 111-112. The Conference 
     Committee language was not available at the time this 
     analysis was written.
     \10\H.R. 4092, p. 120.
     \11\H.R. 4092, p. 149.

                          ____________________