In a reply to my complaints to Mr Gersh of the DOJ, he informed me of the following:

“I want to address your suggestion that OJP funds the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces to “pay these policemen per arrest” and “prosecutors per conviction.” I can assure you that this is not the case. Grant funding decisions for the ICAC task forces are not, and have never been, based on arrests or convictions. I regret that you have been given that impression.”

I sent a reply to Mr. Gersh explaining exactly why I have this perception, and where I got such a perception. Perhaps I am reading something wrong here. Perhaps this formula is not longer used. Perhaps, as a laymen, I do not understand the words in front of me. All of this may be true.

As a computer programmer I can verify that I use formulas ALL THE TIME. They are pretty much the nuts and bolts of coding – gather the data, then use the data to calculate monetary gains and losses based on different formulas applied to the data you collected. Formulas are the basic ‘plug and chug’

My reply to Mr Gersh is that I am using the formula available online. Specifically under the following:

34 U.S. Code § 21116. ICAC grant program

(2)Formula grants

(A)Development of formula

At least 75 percent of the total funds appropriated to carry out this section shall be available to award or otherwise distribute grants pursuant to a funding formula established by the Attorney General in accordance with the requirements in subparagraph (B).

(B)Formula requirements Any formula established by the Attorney General under subparagraph (A) shall—

(i)ensure that each State or local ICAC task force shall, at a minimum, receive an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the funds available to award or otherwise distribute grants under subparagraph (A); and

(ii)take into consideration the following factors:

• (I)The population of each State, as determined by the most recent decennial census performed by the Bureau of the Census.
• (II)The number of investigative leads within the applicant’s jurisdiction generated by Operation Fairplay, the ICAC Data Network, the CyberTipline, and other sources.
• (III)The number of criminal cases related to Internet crimes against children referred to a task force for Federal, State, or local prosecution.
• (IV)The number of successful prosecutions of child exploitation cases by a task force.
• (V)The amount of training, technical assistance, and public education or outreach by a task force related to the prevention, investigation, or prosecution of child exploitation offenses.
• (VI)Such other criteria as the Attorney General determines demonstrate the level of need for additional resources by a task force.

Now I don’t claim to be a rocket scientist, and I know politics are not something I truly understand – but number 4 of section 2 above (ii,IV) tells me the more convictions a state brings in, the more funding. As I said, formulas I get!

It seems odd to me that out of ALL the information we have sent in to complain about these proactive sex stings – the only piece Mr Gersh corrected me on was the very specific math formula laid out in black and white in the federal statute itself…..