[House Report 117-441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
117th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 117-441
======================================================================
VIOLENT INCIDENT CLEARANCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIVE METHODS ACT
OF 2022
_______
July 26, 2022.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Nadler, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 5768]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 5768) to direct the Attorney General to establish a
grant program to establish, create, and administer the violent
incident clearance and technology investigative method, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended
do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 5
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 5
Hearings......................................................... 10
Committee Consideration.......................................... 10
Committee Votes.................................................. 10
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 17
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects.......................... 17
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost
Estimate....................................................... 17
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 17
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 17
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 17
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 17
Minority Views................................................... 18
The amendments are as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Violent Incident Clearance and
Technological Investigative Methods Act of 2022'' or ``VICTIM Act of
2022''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Research indicates that law enforcement agencies can
increase clearance rates by improving--
(A) investigative processes;
(B) detective capacities; and
(C) organizational oversight and supervision of
investigations.
(2) When a law enforcement agency expends additional
investigative effort, the law enforcement agency improves its
success in gaining cooperation of key witnesses and increases
the amount of forensic evidence collected.
(3) Effective investigation of shootings can prevent
subsequent related violence by--
(A) deterring retaliation; and
(B) providing interventions to individuals who may
continue to commit crimes or become victims of
retaliatory violence.
(4) Law enforcement agencies that demonstrate higher rates of
clearance for homicides and non-fatal shootings--
(A) have more structured oversight and formal
interactions between investigative units and agency
leadership;
(B) are more likely to have investigative units that
have collaborative relationships and robust information
sharing with other units of the law enforcement agency;
(C) have investigative units that have specific goals
and performance metrics for both the unit and for
investigators within the unit;
(D) have investigators who more frequently respond to
the initial crime scene shortly after crimes have been
reported to collect evidence and interview witnesses;
(E) have investigators who either have specialized
experience before joining investigative units or are
trained in investigations once they join those units;
(F) often have standard operating procedures for
investigations that establish policies and evidence-
based best practices for conducting and completing
homicide investigations; and
(G) have better relationships with the communities
they serve, even if no specific community-oriented
campaign or initiative exists between investigative
units and community groups.
(5) Criminal justice agencies should collaborate with each
other and share best practices for solving homicides and non-
fatal shootings.
(6) A comprehensive community engagement strategy concerning
gun violence is essential to improving clearance rates for
homicides and non-fatal shootings.
SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM WITH RESPECT TO VIOLENT INCIDENT CLEARANCE AND
TECHNOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIVE METHODS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Clearance by arrest.--The term ``clearance by arrest'',
with respect to an offense reported to a law enforcement
agency, means the law enforcement agency--
(A) has--
(i) arrested not less than 1 person for the
offense;
(ii) charged the person described in
subparagraph (A) with the commission of the
offense; and
(iii) referred the person described in
subparagraph (A) for prosecution for the
offense; or
(B) has cited an individual under the age of 18 to
appear in juvenile court or before another juvenile
authority with respect to the offense, regardless of
whether a physical arrest occurred.
(2) Clearance by exception.--The term ``clearance by
exception'', with respect to an offense reported to a law
enforcement agency, means the law enforcement agency--
(A) has identified not less than 1 person suspected
of the offense; and
(B) with respect to the suspect described in
subparagraph (A), has--
(i) gathered enough evidence to--
(I) support an arrest of the suspect;
(II) make a charge against the
suspect; and
(III) refer the suspect for
prosecution;
(ii) identified the exact location of the
suspect so that the suspect could be taken into
custody immediately; and
(iii) encountered a circumstance outside the
control of the law enforcement agency that
prohibits the agency from arresting the
suspect, charging the suspect, or referring the
suspect for prosecution, including--
(I) the death of the suspect;
(II) the refusal of the victim to
cooperate with the prosecution after
the suspect has been identified; or
(III) the denial of extradition
because the suspect committed an
offense in another jurisdiction and is
being prosecuted for that offense.
(3) Clearance rate.--The term ``clearance rate'', with
respect to a law enforcement agency, means--
(A) the number of offenses cleared by the law
enforcement agency, including through clearance by
arrest and clearance by exception, divided by
(B) the total number of offenses reported to the law
enforcement agency.
(4) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
State, Tribal, or local law enforcement agency or prosecuting
office, or a group of Tribal law enforcement agencies or Tribal
prosecuting offices.
(5) Grant recipient.--The term ``grant recipient'' means a
recipient of a grant under the Program.
(6) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement
agency'' means a public agency charged with policing functions,
including any component bureau of the agency (such as a
governmental victim services program or village public safety
officer program), including an agency composed of officers or
persons referred to in subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 2(10)
of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2801(10)).
(7) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the grant program
established under subsection (b)(1).
(b) Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a
grant program within the Office of Justice Programs under which
the Attorney General awards grants to eligible entities to
establish, implement, and administer violent incident clearance
and technological investigative methods.
(2) Applications.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under
the Program shall submit to the Attorney General an application
at such time, in such manner, and containing or accompanied
by--
(A) such information as the Attorney General may
reasonably require; and
(B) a description of each eligible project under
paragraph (4) that the grant will fund.
(3) Selection of grant recipients.--The Attorney General, in
selecting a recipient of a grant under the Program, shall
consider the specific plan and activities proposed by the
applicant to improve clearance rates for homicides, rapes,
other aggravated felonies, and non-fatal shootings.
(4) Eligible projects.--A grant recipient shall use the grant
for activities with the specific objective of improving
clearance rates for homicides, rapes, other aggravated
felonies, and non-fatal shootings, including--
(A) ensuring the retention of detectives who are
assigned to investigate homicides, rapes, other
aggravated felonies, and non-fatal shootings as of the
date of receipt of the grant;
(B) hiring and training additional detectives who
will be dedicated to investigating homicides, rapes,
other aggravated felonies, and non-fatal shootings;
(C) developing policies, procedures, and training to
improve the ability of detectives to effectively
investigate and solve homicides, rapes, other
aggravated felonies, and non-fatal shootings, including
implementing best practices relating to--
(i) improving internal agency cooperation,
organizational oversight and accountability,
and supervision of investigations;
(ii) developing specific goals and
performance metrics for both investigators and
investigative units;
(iii) establishing or improving relationships
with the communities the agency serves; and
(iv) collaboration with and among other law
enforcement agencies and criminal justice
organizations;
(D) training personnel to address the needs of
victims and family members of victims of homicides,
rapes, other aggravated felonies, and non-fatal
shootings or collaborating with trained victim
advocates and specialists to better meet victims'
needs;
(E) acquiring, upgrading, or replacing investigative,
evidence processing, or forensic testing technology or
equipment;
(F) development and implementation of policies that
safeguard civil rights and civil liberties during the
collection, processing, and forensic testing of
evidence;
(G) hiring or training personnel for collection,
processing, and forensic testing of evidence;
(H) hiring and training of personnel to analyze
violent crime and the temporal and geographic trends
among homicides, rapes, other aggravated felonies, and
shootings;
(I) retaining experts to conduct a detailed analysis
of homicides, rapes, other aggravated felonies, and
shootings using Gun Violence Problem Analysis (commonly
known as ``GVPA'') or a similar research methodology;
(J) ensuring victims have appropriate access to
emergency food, housing, clothing, travel, and
transportation;
(K) developing competitive and evidence-based
programs to improve homicide and non-fatal shooting
clearance rates;
(L) developing best practices for improving access to
and acceptance of victim services, including victim
services that promote medical and psychological
wellness, ongoing counseling, legal advice, and
financial compensation;
(M) training investigators and detectives in trauma-
informed interview techniques;
(N) establishing programs to support officers who
experience stress or trauma as a result of responding
to or investigating shootings or other violent crime
incidents; or
(O) ensuring language and disability access supports
are provided to victims, survivors, and their families
so that victims can exercise their rights and
participate in the criminal justice process.
(c) Federal Share.--
(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project
assisted with a grant under the Program shall not exceed--
(A) 100 percent if the grant is awarded on or before
December 31, 2032; or
(B) subject to paragraph (2), 50 percent if the grant
is awarded after December 31, 2032.
(2) Waiver.--With respect to a grant awarded under the
Program after December 31, 2032, the Attorney General may
determine that the Federal share of the cost of a project
assisted with the grant shall not exceed 100 percent.
(d) Report by Grant Recipient.--Not later than 1 year after receiving
a grant under the Program, and each year thereafter, a grant recipient
shall submit to the Attorney General a report on the activities carried
out using the grant, including, if applicable--
(1) the number of homicide and non-fatal shooting detectives
hired by the grant recipient;
(2) the number of evidence processing personnel hired by the
grant recipient;
(3) a description of any training that is--
(A) provided to existing (as of the date on which the
grant was awarded) or newly hired homicide and non-
fatal shooting detectives; and
(B) designed to assist in the solving of crimes and
improve clearance rates;
(4) any new evidence processing technology or equipment
purchased or any upgrades made to existing (as of the date on
which the grant was awarded) evidence technology or equipment,
and the associated cost;
(5) any assessments of evidence processing technology or
equipment purchased with grant funds to determine whether such
technology or equipment satisfies the objectives of the use of
the technology or equipment in increasing clearance rates, and
any policies in place to govern the use of the technology or
equipment;
(6) the internal policies and oversight used to ensure that
any technology purchased through the grant for the purposes of
improving clearance rates does not violate the civil rights and
civil liberties of individuals;
(7) data regarding clearance rates for homicides, rapes,
other aggravated felonies, and non-fatal shootings, including
the rate of clearances by arrest and clearances by exception,
and crime trends from within each jurisdiction in which the
grant recipient carried out activities supported by the grant;
(8) whether the grant recipient has provided grant funds to
any victim services organizations, and if so, which
organizations;
(9) the demographic information for victims of homicides,
rapes, other aggravated felonies, and non-fatal shootings, and
the length and outcomes of each investigation, including
whether the investigation was cleared by arrest or exception;
(10) the demographic information for each victim or family
member of a victim who received victim-related services
provided by the grant recipient; and
(11) identification of the services most used by victims and
their families and identification of additional services
needed.
(e) National Institute of Justice Evaluation and Report to
Congress.--
(1) Evaluation.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the
Director of the National Institute of Justice shall conduct an
evaluation of--
(A) the practices deployed by grant recipients to
identify policies and procedures that have successfully
improved clearance rates for homicides, rapes, other
aggravated felonies, and non-fatal shootings; and
(B) the efficacy of any services provided to victims
and family members of victims of homicides, rapes,
other aggravated felonies, and non-fatal shootings.
(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 30 days after
completion of an evaluation by the National Institute of
Justice under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall submit
to Congress a report including--
(A) the results of the evaluation; and
(B) information reported by each grant recipient
under subsection (d).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2023 through 2032.
(2) Percent for certain eligible entities.--The Attorney
General shall use 10 percent of the amount made available under
paragraph (1) for a fiscal year to award grants under the
Program to Tribal law enforcement agencies or prosecuting
offices, or groups of such agencies or offices.
Amend the title so as to read:
A bill to direct the Attorney General to establish a grant
program to establish, implement, and administer the violent
incident clearance and technology investigative method, and for
other purposes.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 5768, the ``Violent Incident Clearance and
Technological Investigative Methods Act of 2022'' or the
``VICTIM Act of 2022'' is bipartisan legislation that
authorizes a grant program within the Office of Justice
Programs to establish, implement, and administer violent
incident clearance and technological investigative methods
within law enforcement agencies to improve clearance rates for
homicides, rapes, sexual assaults, kidnappings, and non-fatal
shootings. VICTIM Act grants would be available to state,
tribal, or local law enforcement agencies and prosecuting
offices.
Background and Need for the Legislation
I. VIOLENT CRIME RATES
Nationally, the United States has experienced a substantial
decline in homicides and violent crime since the peak rates in
the early 1990's. While the homicide rate in 1991 was 10 per
100,000 people, the rate fell to 5 per 100,000 by 2014.\1\
According to research from the Council on Criminal Justice, the
number of homicides in 2021, in the 27 major cities studied,
increased by 5% from 2020 and by 44% from 2019.\2\ This
increase in homicides is significant, but is a statistical
aberration from the overall trajectory of a decline in all
crime, and homicide rates remain well below the peaks seen in
the early 1990s.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ 1\Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Underlying
Cause of Death Data for Homicides calculated per 100,000 people.
https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/
D76;jsessionid=7633FEC96290CE584FB63A862C17 (accessed 4/27/22).
\2\Rosenfeld and Lopez, Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S.
Cities: Year-End 2021 Update, Council on Criminal Justice, January 24,
2022, https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-
yearend-2021-update/.
\3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-fatal shootings, or gun assaults, have also increased
over the past several years. An analysis by the Council on
Criminal Justice of 15 cities found gun assaults rose by 8% in
2020 over 2019.\4\ A subsequent analysis of 12 cities showed an
additional 8% increase in gun assaults in 2021 over 2020.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Rosenfeld and Lopez, Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S.
Cities: Year-End 2021 Update, Council on Criminal Justice, January 24,
2022, https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-
yearend-2021-update/.
\5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. VIOLENT INCIDENCE CLEARANCE RATES
A law enforcement agency's clearance rate is determined by
calculating the rate of crimes resulting in an arrest and
charge divided by the total number of crimes recorded. Per the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, law enforcement agencies can clear, or ``close,''
offenses by either arrest or exceptional means.\6\ For a law
enforcement agency to clear by arrest, at least one person must
be arrested, charged with the commission of the offense, and
turned over to the court for prosecution. When a law
enforcement agency is unable to arrest and formally charge an
offender, such as when the offender is dead, they may clear the
offense by exceptional means. For an agency to clear by
exceptional means, they must identify the offender, gather
enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, turn the
offender over to the court for prosecution, identify the
offender's exact location so that the offender could be taken
into custody immediately, and encounter a circumstance outside
their control that prohibits them from arresting, charging, and
prosecuting the offender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-
2017/topic-pages/clearances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2020, law enforcement agencies solved 1,200 more
homicides than in 2019, an increase of 14%, but due to the
dramatic rise in homicides, the clearance rate in 2020 fell to
roughly 50%.\7\ This drop follows a consistent decline in
clearance rates historically from 83% in 1965 to 61% in 2007, a
number the rate hovered near until the drop in 2020.\8\ For
example, in 2020, the Kern County Sheriff's Office in
Bakersfield, California had a homicide clearance rate of 19%
and the Idaho State Police had a clearance rate of only 11%.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\According to the National Incident-Based Reporting System
(NIBRS), the clearance rate for homicides in the United States during
2020 was 49.8%. This includes 5024 incidents cleared by arrest and 406
incidents cleared by exceptional means. However, because NIBRS is a
voluntary reporting program through the FBI, these numbers do not
represent the total number of homicides or clearances in the United
States during 2020. https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/
downloads.
\8\Braga AA, Dusseault D. Can Homicide Detectives Improve Homicide
Clearance Rates? Crime & Delinquency. 2018;64(3):283-315.
\9\https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/01/12/as-murders-spiked-
police-solved-about-half-in-2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearance rates for non-fatal shootings are even lower than
that of homicides. In 2016, the Chicago Police Department
cleared less than 12% of nonfatal shootings, the San Francisco
Police Department cleared only 15% of its gun assaults, and the
Los Angeles Police Department cleared 17% of its gun
assaults.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\In Chicago between 2010 and 2016, annual clearance rates for
gun homicides ranged from 26% to 46% and from 5% to 11% for nonfatal
shootings. Improving Police Clearance Rates of Shootings: A Review of
the Evidence, Anthony A. Braga.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearance rates are influenced by factors both beyond and
within law enforcement control. The ability for police to solve
homicides, rapes, sexual assaults, kidnappings, and non-fatal
shootings can depend on a number of factors including specific
event characteristics such as circumstances, victim-offender
relationships, weapon type or method of killing or assault, and
crime scene setting.\11\ For example, crimes involving people
who know each other are more likely to be solved than crimes
involving strangers, especially drug or gang-related
crimes.\12\ Crimes involving guns are less likely to be solved
than crimes with non-firearms, such as blunt or sharp
instruments. This suggests that crimes requiring the suspect to
be in close contact with the victim increases the chance of
clearance, often because the victim can identify the suspect
and there is a greater likelihood of physical evidence being
recovered.\13\ Other factors that can influence the likelihood
of clearance include the location of the crime scene,
neighborhood dynamics and socio-economic status, and
investigative resources.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Braga, A.A., Turchan, B. & Barao, L. The Influence of
Investigative Resources on Homicide Clearances. J Quant Criminol 35,
337-364, 340 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-018-9386-9.
\12\Id.
\13\Id.
\14\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lack of resources and large caseloads for detectives can
also result in lower clearance rates and, in some
circumstances, a failure to even investigate a crime.\15\ A
2017 staffing report for the Baltimore Police Department showed
57 homicide detectives assigned 483 cases.\16\ In Flint,
Michigan, a 2013 audit found 14 detectives were working 927
cases, including homicides and other violent crimes.\17\ In
2017, more than 40 percent of cases were not assigned to an
investigator in the Oakland Felony Assault Unit,\18\ and 28
percent weren't assigned an investigator in Portland,
Oregon.\19\ A review of the Cleveland Division of Police's
Homicide Investigation Process by the Police Executive Research
Forum found that detectives in the Homicide Unit were carrying
very large caseloads due to unit understaffing and the shift
structure and found that any revisions to policy, training, or
other areas would not have the desired impact, unless the
Cleveland Division of Police committed to providing the
Homicide Unit with necessary staffing resources.\20\ In rural
communities with significant increases in homicide rates,
agencies are ill-equipped to respond to the increase. County
sheriffs are trying to hire more deputies and prosecutors are
working to equip their staff with the skills to handle complex
homicide cases.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/13/
feature/even-with-murder-rates-falling-big-city-detectives-face-
daunting-caseloads/?utm_term=.3ad18dd6ec4b; https://www.thetrace.org/
2019/01/murder-solve-rate-gun-violence-baltimore-shootings/.
\16\U.S. v. Baltimore Police Department, Consent Decree https://
www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/925036/download.
\17 \Flint Police Operational Report 2014 https://
www.documentcloud.org/documents/5691959-Flint-Police-Operational-
Report-2014-11.html.
\18 \Oakland Police Department Annual Report 2017 https://
www.documentcloud.org/documents/5691907-Oakland-Police-Department-
Annual-Report-2017.html.
\19 \Portland Police Bureau Case Assignments 2017 https://
www.documentcloud.org/documents/5691912-Portland-Police-Bureau-Case-
Assignments-2017.
\20\Review of the Cleveland Division of Police's Homicide
Investigation Process 2016 https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/32/01/
23872f754ec687bd3d9d163a3bb3/perf-december-20016.pdf.
\21\https://www.wsj.com/articles/violent-crime-rural-america-
homicides-pandemic-increase-11654864251?mod=hp_lead_pos7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same issues that result in low clearance rates for
homicides affect the ability of law enforcement to clear non-
fatal shootings, including a lack of resources and overburdened
investigators. However, those issues are magnified for non-
fatal shootings. Homicides are typically investigated by
detectives specifically assigned to homicides, whereas non-
fatal shootings are usually handled by non-specialist
detectives who are also responsible for large numbers of
robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, and other crimes.\22\
Beyond an initial response at the crime scene and continued
investigative work over the following two days, most nonfatal
shooting investigations do not receive extended follow-up
action by detectives.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Improving Police Clearance Rates of Shootings: A Review of the
Evidence, Anthony A. Braga.
\23\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The failure to consistently close homicide and non-fatal
shooting cases can have serious effects on the victims, as well
as on the law enforcement agency and the community it serves.
Failure to clear can harm the reputation of the agency and
impact public trust and confidence in law enforcement.
Additionally, failure to clear a case leaves the victim and
their family members without justice or closure. This failure
can lead some shooting victims to turn to violence to achieve
what they believe in their minds to be justice, when it cannot
be delivered by the criminal justice system.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Scott W Phillips, Greg M Drake, Irshad Altheimer, The
effectiveness of standardized investigative tactics in clearing non-
fatal shooting investigations, International Journal of Police Science
& Management, 10.1177/14613557221074986, (146135572210749), (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ability to clear cases can have positive impacts on law
enforcement agencies and their continued efforts to protect
public safety. Just as a failure to clear cases results in a
negative perception of the police's efficacy, consistently
closing cases results in a positive perception and leads to
greater cooperation with law enforcement by witnesses and
victims. Clearing cases consistently can improve future
cooperation in similar cases, making future investigative work
more effective.\25\ Finally, clearing homicides, rapes, sexual
assaults, kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings can deter future
criminal activity because the certainty of being caught is the
most effective deterrent.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Id.
\26\According to the National Institute of Justice in the
Department of Justice, ``research shows clearly that the chance of
being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian
punishment'' and ``the police deter crime when they do things that
strengthen a criminal's perception of the certainty of being caught.''
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devoting more resources to investigate homicides, rapes,
sexual assaults, kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings helps
increase the likelihood of an arrest. Certain factors within
police control can exert significant influence on clearances,
including the actions of the first officer on the scene, a
detective responding to the scene in less than 30 minutes, the
notification of the crime lab and medical examiner's office,
the number of detectives assigned to the case, and the
documentation of the crime scene.\27\ Additional research has
demonstrated the importance of training homicide detectives and
other personnel in improving the capacity of the police to
clear homicide cases.\28\ Case management systems, the
development of working relationships with outside criminal
justice agencies, a strong community policing presence,
collaboration with external agencies, and a culture dedicated
to innovation have also been cited by research as improving
clearance rates.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Braga, A.A., Turchan, B. & Barao, L. The Influence of
Investigative Resources on Homicide Clearances. J Quant Criminol 35,
337-364, 343 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-018-9386-9.
\28\Id.
\29\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2011, the Boston Police Department received a U.S.
Bureau of Justice Assistance Smart Policing Initiative grant to
engage in a problem-oriented policing enterprise to improve
homicide clearance rates. This initiative provided a series of
recommendations that were implemented in January 2012 to
increase the size of the homicide unit, enhance training of
detectives, and adopt new investigative practices and
policies.\30\ Specifically, they increased the size of the
homicide unit by 10 personnel, hired a civilian crime analyst
to enhance the unit's ability to search computerized databases
in real time and pursue analyses to generate investigative
leads, added a second Victim-Witness Resource Officer, and
strengthened their connections to victim assistance
organizations in an effort to improve relationships between
detectives and victims' families and witnesses.\31\ The
department also altered the structure of their investigative
squads, improved training for its Crime Scene Response Unit and
Forensic Group in cutting-edge investigative techniques, and
developed and implemented a comprehensive set of standardized
protocols to guide work activities across the different stages
of homicide investigation.\32\ Their Bureau of Investigative
Services command staff reviewed protocols to ensure
standardization was achieved and the homicide unit convened
monthly peer review sessions for all open homicide
investigations to increase accountability by ensuring all
possible avenues for identifying responsible offenders were
being pursued.\33\ A similar process was put in place to manage
the processing and testing of physical evidence by the
Forensics group and new forensic technology was also acquired
and used.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Braga AA, Dusseault D. Can Homicide Detectives Improve Homicide
Clearance Rates? Crime & Delinquency. 2018;64(3):283-315.
\31\Id.
\32\Id.
\33\Id.
\34\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. THE VICTIM ACT
Under the VICTIM Act, state, tribal, or local law
enforcement agencies and prosecuting offices would be able to
use federal funds to hire, retain, or train detectives to
investigate homicides, rapes, sexual assaults, kidnappings, and
non-fatal shootings; train police personnel to address the
needs of victims and family members; hire and train evidence
processing personnel; acquire, upgrade, or replace
investigative or evidence processing technology or equipment;
hire and train personnel to analyze violent crime; ensure
victim services are funded, staffed, and trained; provide
resources to victims and their family members, including mental
health treatment and grief counseling, funeral and burial
expenses, relocation expenses, emergency shelter and
transportation, and lost wage assistance; develop competitive
and evidence-based programs to improve clearance rates; or
develop best practices for improving access and acceptance of
victim services.
Within a year of being awarded a VICTIM grant, each
recipient must report to the Attorney General information on
the use and effectiveness of their grant, including the number
of detectives hired, the number of evidence processing
personnel hired, any training provided to detectives to assist
in solving crimes and improving clearance rates, any new or
upgraded evidence processing technology or equipment and
corresponding training, and data regarding clearance rates for
homicides, rapes, sexual assaults, kidnappings, non-fatal
shootings and related crime trends.
The VICTIM Act also requires the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) to conduct bi-annual evaluations of the VICTIM
grants and the practices deployed by the grant recipients to
identify policies and procedures that have successfully
improved clearance rates for homicides, rapes, sexual assaults,
kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings. The Attorney General is
required to report to Congress the results of NIJ's evaluation
and the information each recipient is required to report to the
Attorney General. Finally, to carry out the Program, the VICTIM
Act authorizes $100,000,000 a year for ten years.
Hearings
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII,
the following hearing was used to develop H.R. 5768: On March
8, 2022, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security held a hearing on ``Reimagining Public Safety in the
COVID-19 Era.'' The witnesses were: Thomas Abt, Chair, Violent
Crime Working Group; Madeline Brame, Chairwoman, NYS Victims
Rights Reform Council; the Honorable Nicholas W. Brown, U.S.
Attorney for the Western District of Washington; the Honorable
Satana Deberry, District Attorney, Durham County, North
Carolina; Edgardo ``Eddie'' Garcia, Chief of Police, Dallas
Police Department; Charles Fain Lehman, Fellow, Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research; Jerika L Richardson, Senior Vice
President, Equitable Justice & Strategic Initiatives, National
Urban League; and the Honorable Sylvester Turner, Mayor, City
of Houston. At the hearing, the witnesses explored a variety of
approaches to reducing violence and increasing public safety.
Committee Consideration
On June 15, 2022, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 5768, favorably reported with an
amendment, by a rollcall vote of 25 to 14, a quorum being
present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 5768:
1. An amendment by Mr. Roy to add findings related to
jurisdictions that have reduced funding for their police
departments was defeated by a rollcall vote of 15 to 22. The
vote was as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2. An amendment by Mr. Tiffany to prohibit funding under
the bill to any jurisdiction that has reduced its law
enforcement budget for any of the previous 5 fiscal years
without a corresponding reduction in revenue was defeated by a
rollcall vote of 15 to 25. The vote was as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
3. A motion to report H.R. 5768, as amended, was agreed to
by a rollcall vote of 25 to 14. The vote was as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1)
of House rule X, are incorporated in the descriptive portions
of this report.
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects
Pursuant to clause 3(d)1) of House rule XIII, the Committee
adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to
clause 3(c)(3) of House rule XIII and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested
but not received from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office, a budgetary analysis and a cost estimate of the bill.
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision
of H.R. 5768 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
House rule XIII, H.R. 5768 would increase public safety and
improve law enforcement practices by providing funding for law
enforcement agencies to improve clearance rates for homicides
and other serious crimes.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.R. 5768
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d),
9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion describes the bill as reported by
the Committee.
Sec. 1. Short Title. Section 1 sets forth the short title,
the ``Violent Incident Clearance and Technological
Investigative Methods Act of 2022'' or the ``VICTIM Act of
2022.''
Sec. 2. Findings. Section 2 provides findings related to
clearance rates.
Sec. 3. Grant Program with Respect to Violent Incident
Clearance and Technological Investigative Methods. Section 3
authorizes, for ten years, a grant program within the Office of
Justice Programs to establish, implement, and administer
violent incident clearance and technological investigative
methods to improve clearance rates for homicides, rapes, sexual
assaults, kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings. It also defines
relevant terms, establishes the specific projects that the
grant funds are eligible for, and requires state, tribal, or
local law enforcement agencies and prosecuting offices that
receive funding under the program to report to the Attorney
General information regarding the use of the grants. It also
requires the NIJ to conduct bi-annual evaluation of the
practices deployed by the grant recipients to identify best
practices for improving clearance rates for homicides, rapes,
sexual assaults, kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings and
submit any findings to Congress. This section Authorizes
$100,000,000 each year from fiscal year 2023 through fiscal
year 2032, setting aside 10 percent of each appropriation for
Tribal offices or agencies.
Minority Views
H.R. 5768, the ``Violent Incident Clearance and
Technological Investigative Methods Act of 2022'' or the
``VICTIM Act of 2022,'' creates a new grant program within the
Department of Justice authorized at $100 million dollars per
year for the next decade, for a total of $1 billion. The new
government program would use federal taxpayer money to pay for
activities that should be left to states and localities.
H.R. 5768 IS AN ELECTION-YEAR PLOY TO PAPER OVER THE DEMOCRATS' RADICAL
``DEFUND THE POLICE'' CAMPAIGN
During the last two years, the United States has seen a
spike in violent crime.\1\ In 2020, the United States tallied
more than 20,000 murders--the highest total since 1995 and
4,000 more than in 2019.\2\ While Democrat-run cities have seen
an increase in homicides, many of those cities chose to defund
their police. For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Amir Vera, Despite Covid-19 and Stay-at-Home Orders, 2020 Saw an
Increase in Homicides across the US, CNN (Jan. 1, 2021), https://
www.cnn.com/2021/01/01/us/homicides-2020-increase-coronavirus/
index.html.
\2\Jason Johnson, Why Violent Crime Surged Across America After
Police Retreated, USA Today (Apr. 9, 2021), https://www.usatoday.com/
story/opinion/policing/2021/04/09/violent-crime-surged-across-america-
after-police-retreated-column/7137565002/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In New York City, the NYPD's data shows the
overall crime rate rose 11.2 percent in October 2021
compared to October 2020.\3\ This jump in crime
continues after New York City defunded its police
department by $1 billion.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Fox 5 New York Staff, Violent Crime Continues to Surge in NYC,
FOX 5 New York (Nov. 3, 2021), https://www.fox5ny.com/news/violent-
crime-continues-to-surge-in-nyc.
\4\The Official Website of the City of New York, In the Face of an
Economic Crisis, Mayor de Blasio Announces Budget that Prioritizes
Safety, Police Reform, Youth Services, and Communities of Color (Jun.
30, 2020), https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/487-20/in-
face-an-economic-crisis-mayor-de-blasio-budgetprioritizes-safety-
police.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Los Angeles County, homicides increased
23 percent between 2020 and 2021, from 555 in 2020 to
683 in 2021.\5\ The increased homicide rate occurred
after Los Angeles defunded its police department by
$150 million.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Id.
\6\Anabel Munoz, Los Angeles City Council votes to cut LAPD budget
by $150 million, ABC 7 (Jul. 2, 2020), https://abc7.com/defund-the-
police-lapd-los-angeles-mayor-eric-garcetti/6289037/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Houston, Texas, saw an 18 percent increase
in homicides from 2020 to 2021, going from 405 to
479.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Major Cities Chiefs Association, Violent Crime Survey--Agency
Totals (2020-2021), https://majorcitieschiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/
2022/02/MCCA-Violent-Crime-Report-2021-and-2020-Year-End.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minneapolis, Minnesota, saw an increase in
homicides in 2021 with 96 reported as opposed to only
84 in 2020.\8\ Minneapolis was one of the first cities
to defund its police department in 2020 after the death
of George Floyd. The Minneapolis City Council voted to
refund its police department by $6.4 million after the
increase in crime.\9\ Moreover, in November 2021,
Minneapolis voters rejected a City Council ballot
proposal to replace the city's embattled police
department.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Id.
\9\Bradford Betz, Minneapolis Push to Defund Police Backfires After
Residents Complain of Slow Response Times, Increase in Crime, Fox News
(February 14, 2021) https://www.foxnews.com/us/minneapolis-defund-
police-backfires-residents-complain-slow-response-times-increase-crime.
\10\Joe Walsh, Minneapolis Votes Down Proposal to Replace its
Police Department, Forbes (Nov. 2, 2021), https://www.forbes.com/sites/
joewalsh/2021/11/02/minneapolis-votes-down-proposal-to-replace-its-
police-department/?sh=1a119c4b2fce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, saw a nearly 13
percent increase in homicides from 2020 to 2021. In
2020, Philadelphia suffered 499 homicides, while 563
were reported in 2021. Philadelphia decided to cut its
police budget by $33 million in 2020.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Michael D'Onofrio, Preliminary Philly budget cuts $33M in
police spending, implements reform, Pennsylvania Capital Star (Jun. 18,
2020), https://www.penncapital-star.com/government-politics/
preliminary-philly-budgetcuts-33m-in-police-spending-implements-
reform/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Portland, Oregon, suffered an
increase in homicides from 2020 to 2021. In 2020,
Portland suffered 53 homicides while enduring 87 in
2021.\12\ Portland also reported 3,409 aggravated
assaults in 2021, an increase from 2,726 in 2020.\13\
Portland also decided to defund its police department
to the tune of $16 million in 2020.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Major Cities Chiefs Association, Violent Crime Survey--Agency
Totals (2020-2021), https://majorcitieschiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/
2022/02/MCCA-Violent-Crime-Report-2021-and-2020-Year-End.pdf.
\13\Id.
\14\Portland, Ore., Cuts Police Budget by $16 million, Dissolves
Programs, OANN (Nov. 6, 2020), https://www.oann.com/portland-votes-
against-18m-police-funding-cut/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not just Democrat-run cities that have embraced the
radical ``defund the police'' movement. Democrat Members of
Congress, including some on the Judiciary Committee, have also
parroted this dangerous rhetoric. For example:
Chairman Jerrold Nadler. Chairman Nadler
publicly agreed with reducing the NYPD budget, stating
``[t]here should be substantial cuts to the police
budget and a reallocation of those funds to where we
need them.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Michael McDowell, Jerry Nadler Thinks the NYPD Budget Should be
Cut and He's Getting Ready if Trump Disputes the Election, WEST SIDE
RAG (June 7, 2020), https://www.westsiderag.com/2020/06/07/jerry-
nadler-thinks-the-nypd-budget-should-be-cut-and-hes-getting-ready-if-
trump-disputes-the-election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Cori Bush. Responding to a
tweet from former President Barack Obama, Rep. Bush,
the Vice Chair of the Crime Subcommittee, tweeted:
``It's not a slogan. It's a mandate for keeping our
people alive. Defund the police.''\16\ In February
2022, when challenged about the popularity of the
``defund the police'' platform, Rep. Bush stated,
```[d]efund the police' is not the problem.''\17\
Minutes after President Biden gave the State of the
Union address in March 2022, Rep. Bush tweeted,
``Defund the police. Invest in our communities.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Cori Bush (@CoriBush), Twitter (Dec. 1, 2020, 9:03 PM), https:/
/twitter.com/CoriBush/status/1333955011475365888.''
\17\Cameron Jenkins, Cori Bush Says She Won't Stop Saying `Defund
the Police' Despite Pressure From Other Democrats, The Hill (Feb. 9,
2022), https://thehill.com/homenews/house/593517-cori-bush-says-she-
wont-stop-saying-defund-the-police-despite-pressure-from.
\18\Cori Bush (@CoriBush), Twitter (Mar. 1, 2022, 10:45 PM),
https://twitter.com/CoriBush/status/1498866983835783171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Responding to a media report that Customs and Border
Patrol had used drones over the protests in Minneapolis
following the death of George Floyd, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez
tweeted: ``This is what happens when leaders sign blank
check after blank check to militarize police, CBP, etc
while letting violence go unchecked. We need answers.
And we need to defund.''\19\ After New York decided to
cut $1 billion from its police department, Rep. Ocasio-
Cortez indicated that she thought the cuts did not go
far enough, stating, ``defund the police means
defunding the police.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC), Twitter (May 29, 2020),
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1266422625032642563?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw.
\20\Bob Fredericks, $1.5B in NYPD Cuts Not Enough For AOC: `Defund
Police Means Defunding the Police'' New York Post (June 30, 2020),
https://nypost.com/2020/06/30/aoc-says-1-5b-nypd-budget-slash-didnt-go-
far-enough/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Mondaire Jones. Responding to
a question in 2020 about where he stands on criminal
justice reform, Rep. Jones said he supports ``a suite
of criminal justice reforms to redress racial
inequalities and harms in our justice system, including
. . . defunding police and reinvesting this money in
health, education, and alternatives to incarceration .
. . .''\21\ Rep. Jones also commented about a man
killed by police in Sacramento, California, and
tweeted, ``[t]he leadership of the department, and all
of these officers, must be fired. Then, the department
must be dismantled and policing reimagined.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Lanning Taliaferro, Candidate Profile: Mondaire Jones for
Congress, PATCH (Jun. 16, 2020), https://patch.com/new-york/nyack/
candidate-profile-mondaire-jones-congress.''
\22\Mondaire Jones (@MondaireJones), Twitter ((Aug. 30, 2020)
https://twitter.com/mondairejones/status/1300042191671304192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Pramila Jayapal. Rep. Jayapal
used different language to support defunding of police,
saying, ``[i]t is completely reasonable for us to shift
significant resources from law enforcement and
investing in people.''\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Dyer Oxley and Adwoa Gyimah-Brempong, What does Congressmember
Jayapal Think About Defunding the Police?, KUOW (Jul. 16, 2020),
https://www.kuow.org/stories/jayapal-supports-diverting-police-money-
to-other-public-uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Ilhan Omar. Responding to the
death of George Floyd, Rep. Omar went further than
defunding the police in Minneapolis. Rep. Omar stated
that, ``[w]e need to completely dismantle the
Minneapolis Police Department. Because here's the
thing, there is a cancer . . . . The Minneapolis Police
Department is rotten to the root, and so when we
dismantle, it we get rid of that cancer . . . .''\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Mark Moore, Rep. Ilhan Omar Calls to Dismantle `Rotten'
Minneapolis Police Department, New York Post (June 8, 2020), https://
nypost.com/2020/06/08/rep-omar-dismantle-rotten-minneapolis-police-
department/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Ayanna Pressley. Explaining
her position on the defund the police movement, Rep.
Pressley tweeted, ``[t]he defund movement isn't new.
Folks are just finally listening. We got money for wars
but can't feed the poor.''\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley), Twitter (Jun. 16, 2020),
https://twitter.com/hashtag/
HappyBirthdayTupac?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For two years, many prominent Democrats embraced the
``defund the police'' movement. Now, after seeing the dangerous
results in their communities and how unpopular it is with
Americans, some Democrats are now attempting to distance
themselves from the defund the police movement by committing $1
billion in federal taxpayer dollars to various jurisdictions
via H.R. 5768, including those reckless jurisdictions that
chose to defund the police.
DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT FULLY REJECTED THE RADICAL ``DEFUND THE POLICE''
CAMPAIGN
During Committee consideration of H.R. 5768, Democrats
rejected an amendment offered by Representative Tiffany that
would have prohibited jurisdictions that chose to defund their
police from receiving the grant funds authorized in this
legislation.\26\ Jurisdictions that created more crime by
defunding the police should not be rewarded with federal
taxpayer dollars to solve the problems they caused, yet
Committee Democrats are willing to send Americans' hard-earned
money to jurisdictions that allowed crime to flourish by
defunding their police departments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Business Meeting of the H. Comm. on Judiciary, 117th Cong.
(Jun. 15, 2022) (Roll Call Vote #3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing that they really have not fully divorced themselves
from the radical ``defund the police'' movement, Democrats
could not even find it themselves to accept an amendment to the
findings section of the bill that declared ``defunding the
police can have deadly consequences.'' The amendment, offered
by Representative Roy, was rejected along a party-line
vote.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Id. (Roll Call Vote #4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
This bill authorizes $1 billion over the next ten years to
have unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington,
D.C. pick winners and losers when handing out these grant
funds. Because Democrats rejected Republican amendments,
jurisdictions that irresponsibly defunded their police
departments would be eligible for such funds. At a time of
record inflation and economic stagnation, the American people
simply cannot afford paying for the Democrats' missteps.
Jim Jordan,
Ranking Member.
[all]