PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 24, 1994
Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to States for use by local law enforcement agencies for the establishment of law enforcement and child and family services partnership programs to: (1) augment law enforcement services and community policing efforts by providing accessible crisis intervention services for children who are involved in violent incidents and training for law enforcement officers (officers) in child development, family, and cultural issues; (2) facilitate interaction between law enforcement agencies, child, and family service organizations, local educational agencies, and other community members for the purpose of building coalitions for the prevention of community violence; (3) provide mentors for high-risk children and youth; (4) promote conflict resolution training for children and youth; and (5) identify children and families at high risk for developing behavioral or emotional problems resulting from exposure to community violence and provide mental health and other support services to such children and families, including crisis intervention for children witnesses and victims of violence. Directs the Attorney General, in awarding such grants, to give priority to States that have law enforcement agencies that: (1) are engaged in community-based policing; and (2) intend to target programs for disadvantaged communities. Authorizes the use of such grants to: (1) provide 24-hour response to crisis situations affecting children and youth, training for officers jointly taught by officers and child guidance professionals, and formal mentoring programs; (2) develop or expand community activities for children and families that are designed jointly by the law enforcement and child and family services partnership; (3) establish weekly case conferences by a team of child guidance professionals and officers; and (4) assist and support the local educational agency located in or near the community the partnership serves in developing and implementing conflict resolution programs. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) limitations on the use of grant funds; (2) State and local application requirements; (3) the Federal share; and (4) evaluations and reporting requirements. Authorizes the National Institute of Justice to provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement and child and family service partnerships. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Glickman, Dan [D-KS-4] · D–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E258)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3899 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3899 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3899 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3899 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.