A Down Payment on Crime Reduction : O.C. Cities Can’t Afford to Snub U.S. Crime Bill Funds

Last month’s approval of $1.7 million in federal funds for Santa Ana and more than $400,000 for La Habra was welcome news. The money was part of the crime bill that narrowly passed Congress last summer, and will put more police on the streets.

There were strings attached to the money. Cities must put up hefty matching funds, a requirement that caused some Orange County police chiefs to criticize “bureaucrats” in Washington for trying to influence local matters. Others wondered if the funds will be diverted from other crime-fighting programs, or will vanish before the three-year commitment promised in the crime bill.

Those are valid concerns. However, Santa Ana Police Lt. Robert Helton was right when he observed that law enforcement has been faced with shortages of cash like other city departments, and opportunities for outside funding “don’t come along that frequently.”

Santa Ana, the county’s biggest city and one of the poorer ones, bit the bullet and wisely applied for the funds. In return, the city will have to contribute more than $1.7 million of its own funds over three years. But the money will put another 15 police officers on the street, boosting the ranks of sworn police officers to 413.

La Habra, too, must match the funds it receives, and will hire another five officers, putting the total at 73.

There can be little doubt that residents favor more police. Across the county, state and nation, crime has become a major issue in recent years. A Times poll last summer found that compared to two years ago, more Orange County residents ranked crime as the county’s biggest problem. That was despite more than 80% of the county residents reporting that they felt secure in their own communities, and more than 90% feeling secure in their homes.

But the increasing activity of gangs, the increasing violence in crimes, especially murders, and the increasing number of guns on the streets have people worried. It has become common for politicians to talk tough on crime, laud initiatives like “three strikes” and demand tougher prison sentences. With the crime bill, cities had a chance to match tough talk with their own dollars. Where City Councils choose not to apply for federal funds, residents should ask, why not? There may be good reasons, but city officials should spell them out.

Republicans, for various reasons, were nearly unanimous in opposing the crime bill last summer in Congress, where they now will hold power. That could mean some changes after the three years of federal funds for police expires. And that would mean that cities would have to make the tough choice of raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere if they want to continue with beefed-up forces. But even if they choose not to keep the expanded forces, at least they will have gained three years of greater crime-fighting ability, no small accomplishment.

The crime bill required communities wanting federal funds to hire police to tell the U.S. Justice Department how the new officers would be used in community policing projects. A number of Orange County cities have embraced community policing, getting officers out of the cars and into the neighborhoods to hear residents’ concerns and enlist their help.

Initial reports are that community policing does reduce crime. But it is more expensive than having police patrol the streets in black-and-whites, waiting for a crime report and then responding. The federal funds will be an asset to cities willing to meet the challenge of coming up with funds of their own to try to allay residents’ fears.