"We'll put it in the book."

That was the response when I would call the manager of our Washington, D. C., apartment to complain about a plumbing problem.

Nothing ever happened, but it was put in the book. Racial profiling studies done by the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice are no different. The commission put it in the book, and then nothing happened. It asked for more money from the Legislature to conduct another study — and then what?

What will CCJJ do with the findings? Put it in the book? Racial profiling studies, like most relating to civil rights matters, are more "feel good" projects for politicians and a way of pacifying civil rights advocates. Whether it is studies to overcome the education gap, college enrollment, health disparities, business development or employment discrimination, studying problems of minorities has become a full-blown industry that provides permanent employment only for bureaucrats and consultants.

Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, racial profiling (police stopping people primarily because of their color/race) was not uncommon. At that time, many police departments seemed to have had only two policies to guide them — cut your hair and go to church. The passage of the Civil Rights Act was supposed to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of their race, color, sex or national origin. In 2002, Utah's elected officials passed a law that required officers to note the race of those stopped, which placed an undue burden on the officer. It also gave the option for individuals to indicate their race on their driver's license.

More studies are not needed. President Reagan's "New Federalism" gave block grants to states for federal programs. It required the governor to designate an agency to administer federal grants and assure its grantees — including law enforcement and courts —complied with applicable federal laws and regulations. Utah's then-governor designated CCJJ as the agency to administer, monitor and audit U.S. Department of Justice grants. One of those laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI and VII, prohibited discrimination in employment and in all programs and activities, which covers racial profiling, receiving federal dollars. Other laws included section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title IX of the Education Act and the Age Discrimination Act.

Rather than more studies, CCJJ should carry out its responsibility of assuring its grantees are in compliance with applicable civil rights regulations by monitoring and auditing law enforcement agencies and courts as part of their contract requirements. CCJJ is the main agency citizens depend on to ensure their civil rights are protected in the state's criminal justice system, especially where federal dollars are used. Canceling contracts by CCJJ with grantees should be an option where there is compliance failure. That would do more to eliminate racial profiling and discrimination. It appears CCJJ has limited its compliance responsibilities to merely seeing that all grantees signed the contract indicating they will comply with all applicable federal laws. Trust, but verify.