SB2133 creates the Fund the Police Act and establishes a new special fund in the State treasury called the Fund the Police Grant Fund. The bill directs the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board to use money from the fund to award grants to local governments for a broad set of public-safety purposes, including hiring, rehiring, and retaining police officers; paying hiring and retention incentives and overtime; funding body-worn camera mandates and other police equipment; expanding law-enforcement training; supporting community policing and outreach; assisting with mental health treatment for people in county jails; providing mental health care for officers; and buying equipment aimed at reducing gang violence, car theft, vehicular hijacking, and contraband sales.
The bill also sets up a continuing annual transfer of $125 million from the General Revenue Fund into the new grant fund at the start of each fiscal year. It bars the money in the grant fund from being swept, assigned, or transferred to other state funds, and it amends the State Finance Act to make conforming changes. The Board is given authority to adopt rules for grant distribution and determine eligible agencies, and it must consider compliance with the Uniform Crime Reporting Act when deciding awards.
Impact
If enacted, SB2133 would create a dedicated, recurring state funding stream for local law-enforcement and related public-safety programs, while also adding a new special fund and corresponding provisions to the State Finance Act. It would affect the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board by making it the administrator of the grant program and by tying grant eligibility in part to crime-reporting compliance. The bill would also impose a mandatory annual transfer from the General Revenue Fund, reducing budget flexibility by earmarking $125 million each year for police-related grants.
Sentiment
The bill’s tone is strongly supportive of law enforcement and public safety, reflecting a pro-police policy approach. Its findings emphasize rising violence, theft, carjackings, and organized retail crime, suggesting the sponsor’s view that additional state investment is needed to help local agencies respond. Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, there is no direct evidence of broader legislative support or opposition in the available materials, but the bill’s framing indicates an intent to appeal to concerns about crime and police staffing.
Contention
The main likely points of contention are the size and permanence of the funding commitment, the use of General Revenue Fund dollars, and the decision to create a protected fund that cannot be swept or redirected. Critics could question whether a continuing $125 million transfer is fiscally sustainable or whether the money should be allocated through the regular appropriations process. Another possible issue is the bill’s broad grant purposes, which include both traditional policing costs and related services such as jail mental health treatment and officer mental health care, as well as the Board’s discretion to set eligibility rules and weigh Uniform Crime Reporting compliance.