Federal probe casts light on CT budget earmarks for youth programs

HARTFORD — A federal grand jury probe is spotlighting vague budget earmarks that have directed nearly $50 million in the last 12 years to support nonprofit youth programs intended to reduce violence and involvement in the juvenile justice system that members of the legislature’s Black and Puerto Rican Caucus select.

Without much public scrutiny, a series of Democrat-controlled legislatures and two Democratic governors have been processing these handpicked selections for Youth Services Prevention grants from Black and Latino legislators.

The $48 million distributed through these budget earmarks since the 2014 fiscal year represents a fraction of the nearly $260 billion in overall state spending in that time. The grant amounts, ranging from four to six figures, go to youth sports leagues, religious institutions, theater groups, community and recreation centers, and civic organizations, among others. 

But this small amount of earmark spending is under examination because of how the funding pool is reserved for members of the caucus, the opaque process for making the appropriations, and the lack of general oversight.

Legislators in the recently established Asian American and Pacific Islander Issues Caucus are also now able to submit earmarks for Youth Services Prevention grants.

Members of the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus are each granted $150,000 for budget earmarks to nonprofit and community groups within their districts. The practice traces back to the deadly mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in December 2012 and the juvenile justice reform movement of the early 2000s.

There are no funding bills with the names of legislators sponsoring the Youth Services Prevention grants, no hearings and no application process. The governor and the Appropriations Committee recommend only the grant program’s bottom line in spending plans. The specific earmarks are spelled out later in the final budget bill, but only the names of the recipients and grant amounts are listed, with no details about a nonprofit program’s purpose or how the funds will be spent.

Once a state budget is enacted, the administration and oversight of this state funding is left to the state’s Judicial Branch through its Court Support Services Division. 

But a federal grand jury investigation examining the role of state Sen. Douglas McCrory, D-Bloomfield, a member of the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, in the distribution of millions of government funds sent to Hartford-based nonprofits and companies has turned a spotlight on these budget earmarks. McCrory has denied any wrongdoing.

House and Senate Republicans have seized on the grand jury probe to demand the Democratic majority make budgeting changes to increase transparency and oversight.

The proposed GOP reforms include identifying legislators making a funding request, giving a clear description of its public purpose, holding a hearing on each grant application, completing audits to verify funds are used as intended and adding more detailed reporting requirements. 

Gov. Ned Lamont has signaled he is open to earmark reform. His administration has also made use of budget earmarks over its two terms.

“I don’t think we track them enough,” Lamont said. “A lot of this comes late in the day from the legislature. We’re not going to let this continue.”

Senate President Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, said Democratic leaders are also willing to discuss a process for providing more review of all budget earmarks, not just the ones for Youth Services Prevention and Youth Violence Initiative grants.

“From my point of view, I think the most important part of that would be making sure grantees are not in a position to donate money or give out money to subgrantees who have not been properly vetted,” he said.

One focus of the grand jury probe is the awarding of subgrants. Records show nonprofits and companies run by Sonserae Cicero-Hamlin, a businesswoman and nonprofit leader who has relationship with McCrory, regularly secured funding for associated nonprofits and companies through subgrants. That includes through the reportedly defunct Blue Hills Civic Association that offered youth employment and other programs.

The Blue Hills Civic Association received $106,880 in Youth Service Prevention grants since 2015. It is unclear whether the grand jury investigation involves any of this funding. Federal investigators have subpoenaed records related to economic development and education grants.

Overall, $48 million in Youth Services Prevention grants have been distributed as designated by members of the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus since the 2014 fiscal year, according to the state comptroller’s office. 

The two-year $55.8 billion state budget that took effect July 1 appropriates another $7.3 million per year for Youth Services Prevention grants. The two-year budget for the 2020 and 2021 fiscal years allocated $3.3 million per year.

In addition, members of the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus have separately directed another $29.6 million in Youth Violence Intervention grants to cities and nonprofit organizations through budget earmarks since the 2013 fiscal year, according to the comptroller’s office.

The current two-year budget sets aside nearly $5.5 million a year for these grants aimed at decreasing urban youth violence. Five years ago, the 2021 and 2022 budget allocated $2 million a year.

The Youth Violence Intervention grants are appropriated and distributed in the same way as Youth Services Prevention grants.

The Youth Violence Intervention grants were limited to Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven in 2013. Five years later, Danbury, Meriden, Waterbury and West Haven were added, and eligibility was subsequently expanded again. The legislature approved grants for more than 80 communities and organizations for the 2026 and 2027 fiscal years. The Court Support Services Division also administers this grant program.

The 2026 and 2027 budget for the first time includes some earmarks for Youth Services Prevention and Youth Violence Initiative grants from members of the Asian American and Pacific Islander Issues Caucus that was established in 2024. 

The funding requests for Youth Services Prevention and Youth Violence Initiative grants receive greater scrutiny compared to other earmarks, said Sen. Catherine Osten, D-Sprague, and Rep. Toni E. Walker, D-New Haven, co-chairwomen of the Appropriations Committee. 

They questioned why the earmarks from the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus and the Asian American and Pacific Islander Issues Caucus should be subject to more stringent review and oversight than other budget earmarks that are regularly inserted into spending, revenue and other bills from both Democrats and Republicans.

“I have no problem with having deliverables on any earmarks that we have. There were a lot of earmarks that we had in the budget that were small, but we also have earmarks that were large,” Osten said.

Walker, a member of the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, questioned why Republicans singled out the Youth Services Prevention and Youth Violence Initiative grants. She said other significantly larger state grant and contract awards do not receive a level of scrutiny approaching what the House and Senate GOP proposed for the two youth-related grant programs.

“That’s what bothers me is that they took this one group. Why? That’s what I want to know,” Walker said. “Why are you scrutinizing this small amount of money compared to what we’re doing every year.”

Sen. Robert C. Sampson, R-Wolcott, said Republicans are focused on these two grant programs because they are appropriated largely behind the scenes. But they are not the only earmarks that Republicans are scrutinizing. 

“It is the process,” said Sampson, the ranking Senate Republican on the Government Administration and Elections and Government Oversight committees. “It is that these grants are awarded without any open process at all and that the ultimate contract is drafted in secret after the money is already awarded.”

Once House or Senate Democratic leadership accepts a Youth Services Prevention or Youth Violence Initiative earmark, the funding is essentially secured, he said.

“That is it. Then, the Judicial Branch is left to figure out who the grant actually goes to and puts something on paper,” Sampson said. “It is just amazing to me.”

Once Youth Services Program and Youth Violence Initiative grants are authorized, judicial officials gather contact information and verify the accuracy of the names, confirm they are registered with the secretary of the state’s office, and corroborate the amount, said Rhonda Hebert, a spokeswoman for the Judicial Department.

Once a grant agreement is executed, the funds are issued on a quarterly basis, depending on how quickly a recipient provides documentation, she said.

Recipients are required to provide a description of services, a budget narrative, fiscal expenditure reports twice a year, and an annual program report, Hebert said.

Budget narratives that align with the description of services are accepted, she said. The fiscal expenditure reports are also reviewed for alignment with the description of services and the budget narrative, she said

Audits are not required, and the judicial branch does not submit any reports to the Appropriations Committee, Hebert said.