U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

DOJ Seal

COPS Logo

Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment

COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 


Table of Contents 

Section 									Page 

I. Purpose of the Monitoring Standards Guide.......................................1 

II. Purpose of the COPS Grant Programs.............................................5 

III. Types of Grants...............................................................9 

IV. Monitoring and Auditing Requirements..........................................13 

V. COPS Compliance Definitions & Conditions.......................................21 
A. Community Policing.............................................................21
B. Retention......................................................................28
C. Allowable Costs................................................................32
D. Source and Amount of Matching Funds............................................38
E. Supplanting....................................................................41
F.Reporting.......................................................................49
G. Training: Special Conditioned for CIS Grantees.................................52
H. Timesavings for Redeployment...................................................53

VI. COPS Performance Indicators...................................................59 
A. Community Policing.............................................................61
B. Retention......................................................................62
C. Allowable Costs................................................................64
D. Source and Amount of Matching Funds............................................67
E. Supplanting....................................................................70
F.Reporting.......................................................................74
G. Training: Special Conditioned for CIS Grantees.................................75
H. Timesavings for Redeployment...................................................76

Appendices........................................................................81 
A. Glossary of Terms..............................................................81
B. Examples of Compliance/Non-Compliance Cases ...................................93
C. Grant Threshold Review Dates..................................................101
D. Examples of Redeployment......................................................105
E. Reference Material............................................................125


Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment 

I. Purpose of the Monitoring Standards Guides



I. Purpose of the Monitoring Standards Guides 

The purpose of the Monitoring Standards and Guidelines is to 
provide assistance with the administration, monitoring, and auditing of 
the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant 
performance and compliance requirements. These activities help 
determine whether COPS grantees are complying with their Hiring 
which includes; Police Hiring Supplement (PHS), Phase I, Accelerated 
Hiring, Education and Deployment (AHEAD), Funding Accelerated 
for Smaller Towns (FAST), Universal Hiring Programs (UHP) and 
COPS in Schools (CIS) as well as Making Officer Redeployment 
Effective (MORE) grant terms and conditions. The eight compliance 
categories representing the terms and conditions for Hiring and 
MORE grants are: community policing; retention; allowable costs; 
source and amount of matching funds; supplanting; training special 
condition for CIS grantees, reporting and timesavings for 
redeployment. 

This Monitoring Standards Guide provides two major functions for 
the Hiring and MORE grant programs. First, it provides a definition 
of each of the eight primary compliance categories, as well as the 
related specific terms and conditions required to comply with the 
COPS Hiring which also includes; Police Hiring Supplement (PHS), 
Phase I, Accelerated Hiring, Education and Deployment (AHEAD), 
Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns (FAST), Universal Hiring 
Programs (UHP) and COPS in Schools (CIS) and Making Officer 
Redeployment Effective (MORE) grant programs. Second, it provides 
a list of performance standards and indicators for each category, 
which can be used to help determine whether grantees are meeting the 
COPS grant program requirements. Also included in the beginning of 
this guide is a summary of the covered COPS grant programs and an 
explanation of the COPS Office's monitoring and auditing activities 
that grantees may expect upon grant award. 

Grantees seeking additional information regarding any of these 
requirements may contact their Grant Program Specialist through the 
COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or through e-mail at 
askCOPSRC@usdoj.gov. 


Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment 

II. Purpose of the COPS Grant Programs


II. Purpose of the COPS Grant Programs 

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) was 
created as a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994. As a component of the U.S. Department 
of Justice, the COPS Office has the unique mission to directly serve 
the needs of state and local law enforcement in their efforts to 
address local crime and disorder through the use of proven 
community policing strategies. The COPS Office has been the driving 
force in advancing community policing, and is responsible for one of 
the greatest infusions of resources into state and local law 
enforcement in our nation's history. 

Since 1994, COPS has invested over 10 billion of dollars to add 
community policing officers to the nation's streets, enhance crime 
fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and provide 
training and technical assistance to help advance community policing. 
COPS funding has furthered the advancement of community policing 
through community policing innovation conferences, the development 
of best practices, pilot community policing programs, and applied 
research and evaluation initiatives. COPS has also positioned itself to 
respond directly to emerging law enforcement needs. Examples 
include working in partnership with departments to enhance police 
integrity, promoting safe schools, and combating the 
methamphetamine drug problem. 

The COPS Office has made substantial investments in law 
enforcement training. COPS created a national network of Regional 
Community Policing Institutes that are available to state and local law 
enforcement, elected officials and community leaders for training 
opportunities on a wide range of community policing topics. COPS 
also supports the advancement of community policing strategies 
through the Community Policing Consortium. Additionally, COPS 
has made a major investment in applied research which makes possible 
the growing body of substantive knowledge covering all aspects of 
community policing. 

These substantial investments have produced a significant national 
community policing infrastructure, as evidenced by the fact that at the 
present time, approximately 86% of the nation's population is served 
by law enforcement agencies practicing community policing. The 
COPS Office continues to respond proactively by providing critical 
resources, training, and technical assistance to help state and local law 
enforcement implement innovative and effective community policing 
strategies. 


At the end of fiscal year 2003, the COPS Office had funded 118,500 
additional officers to over 13,000 of the nation's 18,000 law 
enforcement agencies across the country in both small and large 
jurisdictions. 


Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment 

III. Types of Grants

 

III. Types of Grants

Two of the main categories of grants offered under the COPS 
Program are Hiring and MORE. Of the Hiring grants, six major 
types were implemented at different stages of the COPS Grants 
Program. (Other Hiring and Innovative Grants are not specifically 
addressed in this manual.) Below is a list identifying those COPS grant 
programs: 

 Police Hiring Supplement (PHS) 
 Phase I 
 Accelerated Hiring, Education, And Deployment (AHEAD) 
 Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns (FAST) 
 Universal Hiring Program (UHP) 
 COPS in Schools (CIS) 
 Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE) 

The first of these Hiring grant programs, was the Police Hiring 
Supplement (PHS) grant. This grant was administered by the Bureau 
of Justice Assistance. PHS was created with the intent to increase 
police presence in America's communities. Limited funding 
prohibited the full implementation of PHS and, consequently, only 
9% of the overwhelming number of applicants were funded. With 
the establishment of the COPS Office in October 1994, the remaining 
qualified PHS applicants (392 agencies) were funded under the Phase I 
program. 

The AHEAD and FAST Programs were the next two programs 
created by COPS in November 1994. The purpose of the AHEAD 
Program was to provide funds to larger law enforcement agencies for 
the purpose of hiring community policing officers. The AHEAD 
Program provided funds to communities whose populations were 
50,000 or more. The FAST Program provided funds to law 
enforcement agencies for hiring Community Policing officers in 
communities whose populations had less than 50,000. 

In 1995, COPS merged the AHEAD and FAST programs into the 
Universal Hiring Program (UHP), which provides funds to 
jurisdictions of any size to hire additional community policing officers. 
UHP provides funding to eligible entities, regardless of size, who have 
primary law enforcement authority in their area of jurisdiction. 


In 1999, the COPS Office added the COPS in Schools (CIS) Grant 
Program as an officer hiring program that provides an incentive for 
law enforcement agencies to build working relationships with schools 
to use community policing efforts to combat school violence. Funds 
awarded under the CIS program are to assist law enforcement agencies 
in hiring additional sworn officers at entry-level officer salaries to 
serve as School Resource Officers (SROs). Alternatively, CIS funds 
may be used to pay for entry-level salary and benefits of newly hired, 
additional sworn officers who will backfill the positions of locally-
funded veteran officers deployed as SROs. 

The MORE Program, originally created in 1994, provides funding to 
acquire civilians and/or new technologies. The purpose of these 
acquisitions is to save sworn officers' time spent on administrative and 
support tasks, thereby allowing them more time for redeployment into 
community policing. Each item or position funded under the MORE 
Program must free up time for a sworn officer (or officers), who is 
(are) then required to perform community policing activities using that 
extra time. It should be noted that overtime for sworn officers 
engaging in community policing activities was also an allowable 
expense for the MORE '95 grants, but is not allowable under 
AHEAD, FAST, UHP, CIS or any other MORE grant programs. 


Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment 

IV. Monitoring and Auditing Requirements 


IV. Monitoring and Auditing Requirements 

Federal regulations require that the Federal government monitor any 
financial assistance to ensure that funds are spent properly. All COPS 
grantees are required to participate in grant monitoring and auditing 
activities by the COPS Office, the DOJ's Office of the Inspector 
General (OIG), the DOJ's Office of Justice Programs' Office of the 
Comptroller (OC), the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), and 
other duly authorized representatives of the Federal government. 

The purpose of monitoring is to ensure that grantees meet their 
programmatic and financial requirements by properly managing funds 
and following grant program requirements. In general, the COPS 
Office monitors program activities and financial activities. Monitoring 
activities include on-site program reviews, the COPS Count survey, 
Office-Based Grant Reviews, and office-based complaint, financial, 
and legal reviews. 

In addition to direct COPS Office oversight, COPS grants may be 
subject to an audit by independent or other DOJ examiners. The two 
primary types of audits are Single Audit Act (SAA) audits and DOJ 
OIG audits. These audits are designed to determine whether systems 
are in place and controls established. These reports also provide 
reasonable assurance that the grantee is managing funds in compliance 
with laws and regulations. 

Failure to comply with monitoring and audit requirements or to 
remedy any identified grant violations may result in adverse current 
and future funding determinations, as well as enforcement activities 
such as suspension or termination of funds, the requirement to repay 
previously expended grant funds, being barred from receiving further 
COPS grants, and criminal liability in the event of fraud. The COPS 
Office and its Federal partners will work closely with COPS grantees 
to address all identified violations and to provide technical assistance 
and guidance to help prevent violations from occurring. 

COPS Monitoring 

The COPS Office is responsible for monitoring the programmatic and 
financial aspects of grant awards. Six activities may be used to 
monitor grant awards by COPS: 1) on-site program reviews, 2) COPS 
Count survey, 3) Office-Based Grant Reviews, 4) complaint reviews, 5) 
program progress report reviews, and 6) legal reviews and guidance. 


COPS On-Site Program Reviews. The objective of the COPS on-
site reviews is to evaluate whether selected grantees are meeting their 
programmatic and financial requirements. Using site visits as one type 
of monitoring method, the COPS Office is committed to ensuring 
that COPS grants are properly and effectively implemented pursuant 
to the authorizing statute, grant assurances and guidelines, and all 
applicable Federal statutes and regulations. 

A site visit provides the COPS Office with the knowledge and 
documentation of how COPS funds are being used; how compliance 
issues are being addressed by the grantee; and provides firsthand 
observation of COPS program implementation and progress. 

COPS Count. COPS Count is a survey conducted for a sample of 
MORE grants, to provide an accurate accounting of law enforcement 
officers redeployed through the purchasing of equipment or hiring of 
civilians funded by the COPS Office. 

During the survey, COPS MORE grant recipients will be contacted by 
the COPS Office to complete the survey. The grantee will provide 
updates on the status of grant funded civilian personnel and 
equipment as well as redeployment dates and related questions for 
MORE grants and grantee plans concerning future hiring of civilians 
and redeployment. 

Office-Based Grant Reviews (OBGR). The Office-Based Grant 
Review (OBGR) serves as a supplemental activity in support of the 
overall grant monitoring strategy. It is intended to provide detailed 
grant monitoring oversight for certain COPS grantees that may not 
meet the on-site monitoring criteria in a particular fiscal year due to 
their location and/or amount of funding. The OBGR specifically 
targets COPS hiring grantees although other types of grants may be 
reviewed for the same grantee. 

Similar to an on-site program review, the OBGR begins with an 
internal review of grant documentation followed by direct contact 
with the grantee and the collection of additional and/or supporting 
documentation to demonstrate whether the grantee is in compliance 
with its grant requirements. It allows the COPS Office to monitor an 
overall larger number of grantees than would otherwise be possible 
only through conducting site visits. 


Complaint Reviews. The complaint review system provides a 
centralized process within the COPS Office to investigate external 
(media, citizens, etc.) and internal complaints of grantee 
noncompliance. A determination is made whether the issues can be 
resolved through phone or letter contact, or if a site visit is warranted 
by COPS or the OIG. The complaint review process includes a 
review of the grantee's response to the complaint allegations, grantee 
program progress reports, COPS Count data, COPS Finance/OIG 
site visit reports, and any other relevant information, including the 
results of a site visit if deemed necessary. 

Program Progress Report Reviews. Grant monitoring is 
supplemented by reviews of the Hiring and MORE grants Program 
Progress Reports throughout the life of the grant. 

Legal Reviews and Guidance. Additional monitoring is conducted 
by the Legal Division, including the following areas: contract and 
cooperative agreement reviews; sole source justification; supplanting 
and other compliance issues; appeals of compliance determinations; 
and OIG investigations of COPS grantees involving fraud, abuse, and 
integrity laws. Additionally, the Legal Division provides verbal and/or 
written guidance to grantees on the legal and programmatic 
requirements of the COPS grant programs to assist in the proper 
implementation of grant funding. 

Financial Monitoring 

The COPS Office also monitors financial issues related to grant 
awards. There are two primary activities that are used to monitor the 
financial aspects of grant awards: 1) on-site financial reviews and 2) 
office-based financial reviews. 

On-Site Financial Reviews. On-site financial reviews are conducted 
at the grantee's location to assess overall financial management of a 
grant with a focus on providing the grantee with immediate technical 
assistance to correct any weaknesses identified. The on-site financial 
review includes a review of: (1) the grantee's accounting system and 
internal controls over the administration of COPS grants; (2) the 
grantee's cash management procedures; (3) the timeliness and accuracy 
of Financial Status Reports submitted; and (4) the expenditures 
charged to the grant to determine if expenditures are allowable and 
supported. 


Office-Based Financial Reviews. Grantees are required to submit 
financial status reports quarterly to COPS Office detailing grant 
obligations and expenditures. Based in part on the quarterly Financial 
Status Reports, the office-based financial review includes an analysis of 
grant activity to date, financial reporting and reconciliation with 
payments under the grant and local match payments. 

Auditing 

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Audits. The OIG was 
established by law to provide oversight for DOJ Programs, financial 
and administrative functions. OIG audits are designed to promote 
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of grants 
by evaluating compliance with laws, regulations, and policies and 
procedures governing the operations encompassed in the scope of the 
audit. 

All COPS grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts are subject to 
possible audit by the OIG. Typically, OIG audits encompass all 
Hiring and MORE grants awarded to the agency, both active and 
expired. The OIG conducts testing to determine compliance with 
program, administrative, and financial requirements for each of the 
grants selected. Compliance areas may include, but are not limited to, 
supplanting, retention, allowable costs, local match, redeployment, 
financial and programmatic reporting, and community policing grant 
provisions. Once the audit is completed, OIG issues a report to the 
COPS Office and to the grantee, which includes an analysis of areas 
deemed to be in noncompliance and recommendations for corrective 
action. 

Upon issuance of an audit report, the COPS Office serves as a liaison 
between the OIG and the audited grantee to review the grantee's 
response to the audit findings provide technical assistance to the 
grantee, and resolve and remedy areas of confirmed noncompliance. 

Independent Audits. The Single Audit Act (SAA) was created in 
1984, and established uniform auditing guidelines for State and local 
governments receiving Federal financial assistance. The 1984 Act was 
amended in July 1996 to reflect revised audit criteria and reporting 
requirements. The Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, 
"Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit 
Organizations", provides additional guidelines regarding the 
implementation of SAA requirements. 


Each non-Federal entity that expends a total amount of Federal 
awards equal to, or in excess of, $500,000 in a fiscal year, is required to 
have an SAA audit for that fiscal year. 

An SAA audit is an examination of a non-Federal entity's financial 
statements and Federal awards by public accountants or Federal, State 
or local government audit organizations. The purpose of the SAA 
audit is to determine: 1) whether financial statements are presented 
fairly, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles; 2) 
whether the schedule of expenditures of Federal awards is presented 
fairly in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole; 3) if 
internal controls are sufficient to minimize risk; and 4) compliance 
with laws, regulations, and grant provisions having a material effect on 
major programs. 

COPS Audit Division. The COPS Audit Division is the division 
within the COPS Office responsible for facilitating closure of audit 
reports issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the 
General Accounting Office (GAO). The Audit Division serves as the 
liaison between the OIG and/or GAD and affected grantees or 
program staff during the conduct of all audits. The Division also 
responds to all draft audit reports and obtains relevant information 
from the grantee. Other responsibilities include: facilitating closure of 
open audit recommendations by corresponding with the grantee; 
gathering relevant documentation to determine whether the grantee 
has complied with the terms and conditions of the grant; and 
ensuring that the grantee remedies any violations in a manner deemed 
appropriate by the COPS Office, the OIG and/or the GAO. 

Suspension or Termination of Grant Funding 

The COPS Office may suspend or terminate funding of a grant in 
whole or in part if the COPS Office determines that a grant recipient 
is not: 

 substantially complying with the requirements of the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
or with other applicable provisions of Federal law; 
 making satisfactory progress toward the goals or strategies 
in the application and information as reflected by 
performance and status reports; 
 adhering to grant agreement requirements or conditions, 
whether stated in a Federal statute, regulation, assurance, 
application, or notice of award; 


 submitting reports in a timely manner; 
 filing accurate information in an application, periodic report, 
or other document; or 
 submitting for prior approval to the COPS Office any 
significant changes that the grantee anticipates being made 
to the application before implementing those changes. 


Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment 

V. COPS Compliance Definitions & Conditions

 

V. COPS Compliance Definitions & Conditions 

The eight primary compliance categories of the COPS Hiring and 
MORE grant programs are: 

A) Community Policing 

B) Retention 

C) Allowable Costs 

D) Source and Amount of Matching Funds 

E) Supplanting 

F) Reporting 

G) Training: Special Condition CIS Grant 

H) Timesavings for Redeployment* 

This section defines the eight categories and provides the 
accompanying conditions that are required to be in compliance with 
the COPS Hiring and MORE grants. Each category also includes 
examples to further clarify special conditions or calculations. 

*It is important to note that the Timesavings for Redeployment 
category pertains to the MORE Grant Program only. 

A. Community Policing 

DEFINITION 

Community policing is a philosophy that promotes and supports 
organizational strategies to address the causes, and reduce the fear of, 
crime and social disorder. This is achieved through problem-solving 
tactics and community-police partnerships. It enhances police 
professionalism by providing officers with the skills, technology, and 
motivation to act innovatively to solve community crime-related 
problems. 

The community policing approach requires the police and citizenry to 
join as partners in the course of both identifying and effectively 
addressing the causes of crime and disorder. The focus of the police 
is not only on enforcement, but also on emphasizing the need for 
crime prevention and for proactively addressing the root causes of 
crime and disorder. The community is actively engaged in 
collaborating on prevention and problem-solving activities with a goal 
of reducing victimization and fear of crime. 


CONDITIONS 

The COPS Office maintains that local agencies are best suited to 
determine their community crime-related problems and the policing 
activities that will solve them. Police, community members, and other 
public and private entities work together to address the underlying 
problems that contribute to crime and disorder by identifying and 
analyzing problems, developing suitable responses, and assessing the 
effectiveness of these responses. Acceptable community policing 
activities are unique to each local community and must be addressed 
on an individual basis through the community policing plan submitted 
to and approved by the COPS Office. 

Required Number of Community Policing Officers. Under 
COPS Hiring grants, every grant-funded officer position (or an equal 
number of veteran officer positions) is required to initiate or enhance 
community policing. For example, a COPS Universal Hiring Program 
grantee with 10 COPS grant-funded officers must deploy 10 officers 
(COPS-funded or veteran officers) to initiate or enhance community 
policing through the approved community policing plan. This does 
not mean that every hour of the officers' time must be spent in a 
specific community policing "activity," but it does mean that the 
grantee must show the required number of officers initiating or 
enhancing community policing above the pre-award number. In 
addition to increasing the number of officers involved in community 
policing by the number of officers awarded, there must also be an 
increase in community policing activity by the grantee from pre-award 
community policing activities. 

Community Policing Activity Approval. The COPS Office is 
responsible for reviewing and approving the community policing plans 
that are identified in grant applications. Grantees are not required to 
implement every community policing activity identified on the 
approved plan to demonstrate compliance. Instead, the plan may 
often identify a broad range of possible community policing activities, 
with the grantee implementing particular community policing 
strategies from the approved plan on an as-needed basis throughout 
the life of the grant. 

Changes to Community Policing Plans. Any significant changes to 
the community policing plan identified in the grant application must 
be submitted in writing to the COPS Office for approval. Changes are 
"significant" if they deviate from the range of possible community 
policing activities identified and approved in the grantee's original 
community policing plan. 


Career Law Enforcement Officer. Hiring grants allow for payment 
of approved entry-level salaries and benefits for the hiring or rehiring 
of additional sworn career law enforcement officer positions. A 
"sworn career law enforcement officer" is a person hired on a 
permanent basis who is authorized by law or by a State or local public 
agency to engage in, or oversee, the prevention, detection, or 
investigation of violations of criminal laws. Grant funds allow for the 
hiring of new, additional officers over and above the number of 
sworn officers that an agency would fund with State, local or BIA 
funds in the absence of the grant. Law enforcement agencies may 
enhance their community policing by deploying the new, additional 
COPS-funded officers into community policing or by deploying an 
equal number of veteran officers into community policing (and then 
back-filling the veteran officers' positions with the newly hired, 
additional COPS-funded officers). 

COPS in Schools (CIS) School Resource Officer (SRO). The 
COPS in Schools Grant Program provides an incentive for law 
enforcement agencies to build working relationships with schools to 
use community policing efforts to combat school violence. The CIS 
grant program allows for the hiring of new, additional sworn officers 
at entry-level salaries to serve as School Resource Officers, over and 
above the number of sworn officers that an agency would fund with 
State, local or BIA funds in the absence of the grant (including other 
School Resource Officers). Please note that your agency may choose 
to deploy an equal number of veteran locally-funded officers into the 
schools to fulfill this requirement, while using the COPS grant funds 
to hire new, additional officers to "backfill" the resulting vacancy. 

The COPS statute defines a "School Resource Officer" as a career law 
enforcement officer, with sworn authority, deployed in community 
oriented policing and assigned by the employing police department or 
agency to work in collaboration with schools and community-based 
organizations to: 

a. address crime and disorder problems, gangs, and drug activities 
affecting or occurring in or around an elementary or secondary 
school; 

b. develop or expand crime prevention efforts for students; 

c. educate likely school-age victims in crime prevention and safety; 

d. develop or expand community justice initiatives for students; 

e. train students in conflict resolution, restorative justice, and 
crime awareness; 

f. assist in the identification of physical changes in the 
environment that may reduce crime in or around the school; 

g. assist in developing school policy that addresses crime; and 

h. recommend procedural changes. 


The agency implements the community policing activities as approved 
in the CIS application, focusing on SRO duties and related community 
policing strategies. The SRO must spend a minimum of 75% of time 
in and around the schools working on youth-related activities. There 
must be an increase in community policing activities that are being 
performed by CIS-funded SROs from the pre-grant activities, as well 
as a corresponding increase in the number of officers deployed into 
the partner school(s) as SROs. 

MORE Grants Support Community Policing. Community 
policing activities that are supported by MORE grants adhere to the 
same criteria as the Hiring grants. Sworn officers are redeployed to 
enhance community policing activities as a result of timesavings 
achieved through the use of technology, equipment, overtime, or 
civilian support services that are funded by MORE grants. Again, as 
with the community policing requirement of the UHP grant, not 
every hour of redeployment is required to be spent in a specific 
community policing activity, nor must every community policing 
activity identified in the community policing plan be conducted. 

Examples of Hiring and MORE Community Policing Activities. 

Agencies have a variety of community policing activities and 
programs. The COPS Office reviews activities approved in the grant 
application's community policing plan. The following are just a few 
examples of community policing programs: 

 Crime Prevention Efforts 
Examples: Youth programs; anti-drug programs; regular 
meetings with community groups to discuss crime; and 
anti-violence programs. 

 Problem-Solving Activities 
Examples: Identifying crime problems with members of 
the community and other government agencies (e.g., 
probation office, prosecutor and courts); identifying crime 
problems by looking at crime trends; identifying top 
problems by analyzing repeat calls for service; preventing 
crime by focusing on conditions that lead to crime (e.g., 
abandoned buildings and cars); building on information 
systems to enhance crime analysis capabilities; regularly 
surveying community members to assist in identifying and 
prioritizing crime problems; locating offices or stations 
within neighborhoods; and providing community policing 
training to citizens. 


Examples: Working with citizens to identify and address 
community crime problems; using computer systems to 
collect and analyze information, particularly repeat calls 
for service; coordinating specific problem-solving 
projects to address problems on their beats; working with 
other public agencies to solve disorder problems (e.g., 
trash collection, public works agencies to solve lighting 
problems); and mapping crime problems. 

 Community Partnerships 
Examples: Meeting with community members to learn 
more about the nature of specific problems; and 
involving community members in selecting responses to 
problems and determining measures of success. 

Examples: Participating in neighborhood watch 
programs, citizen volunteer programs, citizen advisory 
groups to the law enforcement agency; citizen patrols 
within the community; and anti-drug or anti-violence 
programs. 

Examples: Participating with community organization 
working groups and/or special programs for schools and 
other interest groups which enhance crime prevention. 
Program examples are: Private Security, Drug and 
Alcohol Resistance Education (DARE), Gang Resistance 
Education and Training (GREAT), Triad, School 
Resource Officer (SRO). 

 Other Agency Partnerships 
Examples: Juvenile justice services; probation; social 
services; parole; city and county departments; sanitation 
services; school system; elected officials; private security 
and other public service providers. 

 Patrol Examples: Targeted geographic patrol, foot patrol, bike 
patrol or mounted patrol; making door-to-door contact 
with citizens and businesses; meeting with community 
leaders and groups to learn more about crime problems 
and jointly develop crime prevention plans; using 
business cards, cellular phones or beepers to maintain 
contact with citizens regarding public safety concerns; 
and working in schools or other public agencies to teach 
crime prevention. 


 Evidence of Community Policing Philosophy 
Integrating community policing into a traditional policing 
environment is an evolutionary process. The COPS grant 
award is an aid to this evolutionary process and, 
therefore, the evaluation of community policing activities 
is unique to each local agency. 

Evidence that law enforcement agencies are incorporating 
a community policing philosophy is witnessed through 
three core elements: 1) police organizational elements; 2) 
tactical elements; and 3) external elements. Agencies may 
be anywhere on the continuum of incorporating 
community policing into their operation; therefore, a 
variety of activities are acceptable. 

1. Police organizational elements 

a. Philosophy adopted organization-wide. Department-wide 
adoption of community policing is evidenced by the 
integration of the philosophy into mission statements, 
policies and procedures, performance evaluations and hiring, 
promotional practices, training programs, and other systems 
and activities that define organizational culture and activities. 

b. Decentralized decision making and accountability.In 
community policing, individual line officers are given the 
authority to solve problems and make operational decisions 
concerning their roles, both individually and collectively. 
Leadership is required and rewarded at every level, with 
managers, supervisors and officers held accountable for 
decisions and the effects of their efforts at solving problems 
and reducing crime and disorder within the community. 

c. Fixed geographic accountability and generalist 
responsibilities. In community policing, the majority of 
staffing, command, deployment and tactical decision-making 
is geographically based. Appropriate personnel are assigned 
to fixed geographic areas for extended periods of time in 
order to foster communication and partnerships between 
individual officers and their community. These personnel 
are accountable for reducing crime and disorder within their 
assigned area. 


d. Utilization of Volunteer Resources. Community policing 
encourages the use of non-law enforcement resources 
within a law enforcement agency. The law enforcement 
organization educates the public about ways that they can 
work in partnership with the organization and its members 
to further community policing, and provides an effective 
means for citizen input. Volunteer efforts can help to free 
up officer time, and allow sworn personnel to be more 
proactive and prevention oriented. 

2. Tactical elements 

a. Enforcement of laws. Community policing complements 
the use of proven and established law enforcement 
strategies, becoming one of many tools available to officers 
that can be collectively employed to prevent and combat 
crime. 

b. Proactive, crime-prevention oriented. Under community 
policing, the focus of the police is not only on enforcement, 
but also emphasizes the need for crime prevention and for 
proactively addressing the root causes of crime and disorder. 
The community is actively engaged in collaborating on 
prevention and problem- solving activities with a goal of 
reducing victimization and fear of crime. 

c. Problem solving. Police, community members, and other 
public and private entities work together to address the 
underlying problems that contribute to crime and disorder 
by identifying and analyzing problems, developing suitable 
responses, and assessing the effectiveness of these 
responses. While enforcement is an integral part of 
policing, problem solving relies more on preventing crime 
through deterring offenders, protecting likely victims, and 
making crime locations less conducive to problems. 

3. External elements 

a. Public involvement and community partnerships. In 
community policing, citizens as well as private security are 
viewed by the police as partners who share responsibility for 
identifying priorities, and developing and implementing 
responses. Accurate surveying of customer needs and 
priorities is one way to determine the problems that drive 
police services, and give the public ownership of the 
problem-solving process. 


b. Government and other agency partnerships. Under 
community policing, other government agencies are called 
upon and recognized for their ability to respond to and 
address crime and social disorder issues. The support and 
leadership of elected officials, as well as the coordination of 
the police department at all levels, are vital to the success of 
these efforts. 

B. Retention 

DEFINITION 

COPS Hiring and MORE grantees are required to retain the additional 
grant-funded officer positions (for Hiring grants) and/or the 
additional equipment, technology, or civilians and resulting officer 
timesavings (for MORE grants) for one full local budget cycle 
following the expiration of the respective COPS grant implementation 
period (e.g., the 36-month funding period per additional officer 
position under the Hiring grants and the 12-month redeployment 
period under the MORE grants). During the active grant periods, 
prior to the actual retention period, grantees may be required to 
demonstrate how they are planning to meet this retention requirement. 

Retention planning documentation must be submitted with the Hiring 
grant application, beginning with applications submitted after June 16, 
1998, and with the MORE '98 grant program. For prior grantees that 
were not required to submit retention planning documentation with 
the grant application, the COPS Office may require evidence of 
retention planning efforts during the active grant periods. 

Under the Hiring programs, retention is defined as using local funds 
to continue employing the additional officer position(s) awarded under 
the COPS grant for one full local budget cycle at the conclusion of 
the 36-month funding period for each position. The additional 
positions must be retained over and above all locally-funded sworn 
officer positions that would exist in the absence of the grant. 
Retention therefore may not be achieved by absorbing COPS officers 
into locally-funded vacancies through attrition. 

Similarly, under the MORE program, retention is defined as retaining 
the required level of officer timesavings for one full local budget cycle 
by using local funds to continue implementing the funded equipment 
or technology, or continue employing the additional civilian position(s) 
awarded, over and above all locally-funded civilian positions that 
would exist in the absence of the grant. 


CONDITIONS 

Hiring grantees must retain the additional federally funded positions at 
the conclusion of the 36-month Hiring grant funding period with 
State or local funding for at least one full local budget cycle. 1,2 
MORE grantees must retain the federally funded 
technology/equipment and/or civilians and the resulting 
redeployment once the required level of redeployment has been met 
with State or local funding for one full local budget cycle.3 

During the active grant period, Hiring and MORE grantees may be 
required to demonstrate that they are planning to meet this retention 
requirement. Evidence of retention planning documentation may 
come in three forms: 1) a written retention plan, 2) supporting 
evidence of retention planning; or 3) retention certification. 

Planning evidence may consist of memoranda, minutes of meetings, 
budget documents, and other planning documents produced during 
the grant period that demonstrate that the grantee is seeking sources 
of State or local funds to retain the additional officer positions, 
civilian positions, or equipment and technology (i.e., through upgrades 
or maintenance funding), as applicable. Grantees may be required to 
produce evidence of their progress in implementing their retention 
plans during any monitoring or audit activities. Additionally, grantees 
are required to answer questions in the Department Annual Reports 
and MORE Progress Reports regarding retention plans. 

1 The Phase I grant conditions did not 
include a retention requirement. 

2 See Appendix A for a definition of 
the Hiring grant funding period. 

3 Similarly, MORE 95 overtime 
grantees were required to plan to 
continue the sworn officer overtime 
activities funded under the grant 
award. 

The Retention Plan. Retention plans submitted to the COPS Office 
must include these two elements: 

1. Document co-signed by Law Enforcement Executive 
(Chief/Sheriff/Director of Public Safety, etc.) and Government 
Executive (Mayor/City Manager/Chairman of County 
Commission, etc.) that identifies: 

 The proposed source of funding for the position(s) and 
technology or equipment; 

 Identification of the grant(s) covered by the retention plan; 
and/or 

 The number of positions and/or level of redeployment 
planned to be retained. 


2. Documentation, including but not limited to: local council 
minutes; inter-office memoranda; local government officials' 
memoranda and/or future budget projections that demonstrate 
intent to retain the COPS-funded positions and for level of 
redeployment with State or local funds at the conclusion of the 
grant period. For example: 

 Documents that demonstrate an intent to add the COPS 
positions to a request for local funding during local budget 
negotiations; 

 Documents that demonstrate the jurisdiction's attempts to 
seek additional law enforcement funding from private sources, 
including corporate, non-profit, and foundation donations or 
grants; and/or 

 Documents that demonstrate that the jurisdiction will try to 
obtain other non-federal funding sources (such as State 
grants, for example) to support the additional positions. 

The COPS Office monitors retention to ensure that the grantee 
complied with the retention requirement for one full local budget 
cycle after the conclusion of the Hiring grant funding period for 
Hiring grants, or after the achievement of the required level of 
redeployment for MORE grants. This means that grantees must 
complete the budget cycle in which the grant funding period or 
redeployment period ends plus one full local budget cycle thereafter. 

Grantees that cannot comply with the retention requirement, and wish 
to request an exemption from the retention requirement, must submit 
documentation to support mitigating circumstances that prevent 
retention. The COPS Office will review each situation on a case-bycase 
basis to determine if there is evidence of sufficient mitigating 
factors to justify an exemption from the retention requirement. 
Examples of possible acceptable mitigating circumstances are 
provided at the end of this section. Those agencies exempted from 
the retention requirement will be required to wait at least one year 
before applying for additional COPS funding that contains a retention 
requirement. The one-year waiting period begins at the end of the 
applicable grant funding or redeployment period, when the retention 
requirement would have begun. 

Grantees that cannot comply with their retention plan and cannot 
demonstrate sufficient mitigating circumstances will not be eligible for 
an exemption from the retention requirement. If a grantee is denied a 
retention exemption and still is unable to retain, the grantee is in 
violation of the retention requirement and is subject to sanctions, 
including a bar period for all new COPS funding with a retention 
requirement. 


Examples  Retention Planning, Retention Plan, and Mitigating 
Circumstances 

 Evidence that retention planning efforts occurred throughout the 
life of the grant may include, but are not limited to: 

-Memoranda, minutes of official meetings or other 
documentation which demonstrate that the jurisdiction 
attempted to add the COPS positions to a request for local 
funding during local budget negotiations 

-Memoranda, minutes of elected official meetings or other 
documentation which demonstrate that the jurisdiction 
attempted to obtain other non-federal funding sources (such 
as State grants, for example) to support the additional 
positions at the termination of the COPS grant 

- Memoranda, minutes of elected official meetings or other 
documentation which demonstrate that the jurisdiction 
attempted to seek additional law enforcement funding from 
private sources, including corporate, non-profit, and 
foundation donations or grants 

 Example of a Retention Plan. This must be written on agency 
letterhead and signed by the Government Executive and/or Law 
Enforcement Executive. 

This letter is to indicate that the ABC Police Department has 
employed three (3) officer positions under the provisions of UHP 
grant #2001UMWX0000, as well as employed one (1) civilian 
position under COPS MORE grant #2000CLWX0000. The City 
of ABC, along with the ABC Police Department, plans to retain 
these positions and fund them through the City of ABC's general 
fund. We will retain these four positions for at least one full local 
budget cycle, ending 9/30/04. Please find attached the City 
Council minutes supporting the retention plan. 

 Mitigating circumstances are those which demonstrate severe 
financial distress, a natural disaster, or similar factors that 
significantly impacted a grantee's financial circumstance and 
prevented retention. Mitigating circumstances may include, but 
are not limited to, the following situations when documented by 
the grantee: 

- Jurisdiction has been declared bankrupt by a court of law; 
- Jurisdiction has been placed in receivership, or its functional 
equivalent, by the State or Federal government; 


- Jurisdiction has been declared a financially distressed area by 
its State or a Federal government agency; 

- Budgetary imbalance or expenditure cutbacks resulting in 
significant reductions in other services provided by the law 
enforcement agency or significant reduction-in-force of the 
agency's personnel; 

- Extraordinary and unanticipated nonrecurring expenses 
and/or loss of revenue (including closure or relocation of 
major employers) resulting in material effect on a jurisdiction's 
fiscal condition; 

- Significant downgrading of a jurisdiction's bond rating for 
fiscal-related reasons 

- Filing for bankruptcy, receivership or similar measure, with 
the request for relief pending; and 

- Location within an area in which a declaration of major 
disaster has been made pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. 

Impact of Failure to Retain on Other Active COPS Grants. An 
agency which fails to retain officer positions funded by one COPS 
grant may also be in violation of the nonsupplanting requirement for 
an unjustified reduction in baseline officers if the grantee also has 
other active COPS Hiring grants. For example, a failure to retain one 
COPS FAST officer position, which otherwise would have been 
retained with local funding, may result in an unapproved baseline 
reduction for the active UHP grant, since the retained COPS FAST 
officer position should have increased the UHP grant baseline by one 
position. To comply with the nonsupplanting requirement, the 
grantee must demonstrate that the failure to retain the FAST officer 
position with State or local funding following grant expiration 
occurred for reasons unrelated to the UHP grant. 

C. Allowable Costs 

DEFINITION 

Allowable costs are those costs that a particular COPS program will 
fund, as specified by the requirements of the grant. The requirements 
include: the approved budget; the financial clearance memorandum; 
and the applicable Uniform Administrative Requirements. The 
financial clearance memorandum limits the amount that may be 
charged for each category. However, the COPS Office reserves the 
ability to reprogram the grantee budget upon request. The costs 
should be reasonable in nature and permissible under the specific 
grant conditions. 

Allowable costs are different for Hiring grants and MORE grants. 


Hiring Grants 

For Hiring grants, allowable costs encompass the entry-level salaries 
(including specifically approved benefits and cost-of-living increases as 
specified and approved in the grant award) for three years (36 months) 
for newly hired, additional sworn entry-level, lateral-transfer, or 
rehired officers. Allowable salaries and benefits must be based on the 
grantee's standard entry-level salary/benefit package, regardless of the 
experience of the individual officers hired (although grantees may pay 
any extra costs with local funds), in addition to any required local 
match. 

 Under Phase I, AHEAD, FAST, and UHP, up to 75% of an entry-
level salary, with a $75,000 limit over the three-year grant period, 
will be paid by federal funds. Local funding must pay the 
remaining portion of the salary through the required local match. 
 The CIS Program does not require a local match, providing 
federal funds for entry-level salary and benefits up to $125,000 per 
position over the three-year grant period. Any costs above this 
amount will be paid with local funding. 

MORE Grants 

For MORE civilian grants, allowable costs encompass the salaries, 
including approved benefits, for civilian hires during the life of the 
grant, including renewal periods if applicable. [Unlike the COPS 
Hiring grants, the MORE civilian program is not based on entry-level 
salary and benefits, but may reflect the actual (approved) salary and 
benefit costs for the funded civilian positions.] For MORE equipment 
and technology grants, the allowable costs of approved items are also 
identified in the award. In addition, the MORE '95 Grant Program 
allowed for certain overtime costs of officers. 

MORE funds will pay up to 75% of the approved allowable costs, 
with the remaining portion of the costs paid with local funding. 

CONDITIONS 

Allowable costs are different for Hiring and MORE grant awards. 

Hiring Grants 

If the award is for a full-time Hiring grant, funding allows for hiring 
new, additional full-time sworn officers at the grantee's standard entry-
level salary and approved benefit rate. However, grantees may pay any 
higher than entry-level salary and benefit amounts to individual 
officers using local funds in addition to the required local match. 
Alternatively, with prior written approval from the COPS Office, a 
grantee may promote a part-time officer to the full-time COPS grant


funded position, as long as the grantee replaces the part-time vacant 
position with a newly hired officer using local funding before 
expending COPS grant funds on the new full-time position. The 
newly hired, additional COPS-funded sworn officers may be deployed 
to fulfill the community policing functions of the grant, or the 
department alternatively may redeploy one veteran officer for each 
new hire to community policing activities. 

If the award is for a part-time Hiring grant, the salary costs, including 
approved benefits, are only allowable if grant funds are used to pay 
for a newly hired part-time officer, not to increase the hours of the 
currently employed part-time officer(s). Part-time hours are defined 
by the grantee in the application and approved by the COPS budget 
memorandum. 

For both full-time and part-time grant awards, it is acceptable for 
grantees to recruit and hire non-sworn officers with COPS grant 
monies as long as the individual will promptly become a sworn officer 
through the standard training and swearing-in procedures required by 
the grantee's State or local law. Grant funds may be used to pay the 
non-sworn recruit's salary and benefits during that training period if 
this is the grantee's standard practice for all locally-funded officers as 
well. 

The determination of allowable costs for Hiring grants is based on the 
grantee's standard salary and benefits for entry-level sworn officer 
positions (though some particular benefits offered by the grantee may 
not be included as allowable costs by the COPS program). If the 
officer hired to fill the position is not entry level, the grant funding 
still cannot pay for more than 75% of the portion of the salary and 
benefits of a position that is entry level. The grantee may pay the 
additional costs with local funds in addition to the required local 
match. The approved COPS budget and financial clearance 
memorandum will specify the approved allowable federal costs and the 
recipient's required local match. 

MORE Grants 

If the award is for a MORE grant, funding allows for the payment of 
support resources, including the salaries and approved benefits of 
civilian personnel, technology and equipment, and overtime (MORE 
'95 only) for sworn officers engaging in community policing activities. 
The allowable costs must directly contribute to timesavings and 
thereby enhance the community policing presence through officer 
redeployment. MORE grants are awarded for one year only. Renewals 
are available for up to two years after the initial grant period for 
civilian hires, at the discretion of the COPS Office and subject to 
funding availability. 


For technology and equipment purchases, the term of the grant 
funding is one year, with no option for renewal. Monitoring efforts 
evaluate whether the costs are timely and allowable. For COPS 
compliance purposes, "timely" is defined as consistent with the local 
government's procurement practices, and "allowable" is defined as the 
costs specified on the grantee's approved award budget. 

 It should be noted that it may be permissible to obtain additional 
items in support of the MORE grant as a result of cost savings. 
For example, a department requests and receives funding to 
obtain eight (8) computers and is able to obtain 10 computers at 
the same price due to discounts. All use of saved funds must be 
consistent with the program outlined in the approved application. 
As of March 8, 1999, the COPS Office required prior written 
approval only if the utilized saved funds are in excess of $1,000. 
However, the agency is not required to demonstrate additional 
redeployment based on the use of this money since the required 
redeployment is linked to the dollars spent rather than the number 
of items purchased. 

EXAMPLES 
Allowable/Unallowable Costs by Program 

Hiring Grant Allowable Costs 

Allowable costs include the salaries and approved fringe benefits for 
three years (36 months) for sworn entry-level, lateral-transfer, or 
rehired officers. Up to 75% of the entry-level salary and benefits 
actually incurred, with a $75,000 limit over the three-year grant period, 
will be paid by award money with the remaining portion of the salary 
paid by local funding. 

 Approved fringe benefits include, but are not limited to, 
department costs for FICA/Social Security, health insurance, life 
insurance, vacation and sick leave not included in base salary, 
retirement benefit contribution, worker's compensation, and 
unemployment insurance. Fringe benefits must be part of the 
grantee's standard benefit package for locally-funded entry-level 
officers to qualify as allowable under the COPS grant. Fringe 
benefits that are absolutely NOT approved are costs of 
equipment, training, uniforms, vehicles, and overtime. For 
assistance in determining other allowable costs approved under 
specific Hiring grants, please refer to the COPS budget 
memorandum, which all grantees receive as part of their award 
package. 


 Salary and benefits may be paid during training if this is the 
grantee's standard practice for all officers. Examples of training 
include, but are not limited to, academy training, field training, and 
probationary training. 

 If the grantee chooses to transfer veteran officers into community 
policing activities, the veteran officers do not have to begin those 
activities until the new hires finish the required training program 
for that particular grantee. (Training programs include academy, 
field, and probationary training.) The reason for this policy is 
twofold. First, if veterans were deployed to community policing 
while the new hires are in training or are not fully prepared to fill 
the vacant position, there would be a deficiency in another area of 
the police department. Second, the policy encourages consistency 
for COPS grantees by allowing departments to transfer veterans 
to community policing at the time that the newly hired officers 
graduate from training, which is the same time that the newly 
hired officers otherwise would have been deployed directly into 
community policing. Note that in this circumstance, the allowable 
costs are still the costs associated with the newly hired officers, 
rather than the veteran locally-funded officers who are redeployed 
into community policing to fulfill the grant requirements. 

MORE Grant Allowable Costs 

 MORE '95, '96, '98 (*this list includes the majority of funded items, but 
items not on this list may have been approved on a case-by-case basis for 
particular MORE '95, '96, or '98 grants) 

a. mobile data computers/laptops 
b. crime analysis hardware/software 
c. mapping software 
d. personal computers 
e. automated aided dispatch systems 
f. automated booking systems 
g. dictation systems 
h. salary and benefits to civilians that result in the redeployment of sworn officers 
i. administrative assistants 
j. record clerks 
k. booking clerks 
l. dispatchers 
m. certain training costs 
n. certain overtime costs for officers (allowable for MORE '95 only) 


 MORE 2000 
a. salary and benefits to civilians that result in the redeployment of sworn officers 
b. administrative assistants 
c. record clerks 
d. booking clerks 
e. dispatchers 

 
MORE 2001 
a. mobile data computers/laptops 
b. crime analysis hardware/software 
c. mapping software 
d. personal computers 
e. automated aided dispatch systems 
f. automated booking systems 
g. dictation systems 

 
MORE 2002 
a. mobile data computers 
b. computer aided dispatch systems 
c. records management systems 
d. crime analysis hardware/software 
e. automated booking systems 
f. automated fingerprint identification system 
g. video arraignment equipment 
h. personal computers 

The COPS budget memorandum specifies the approved allowable 
costs for each grant award. Under the Hiring and MORE grants 
those items not approved are unallowable costs. Examples of those 
costs include, but are not limited to, the following. 

Hiring Grant Unallowable Costs 

a. overtime 
b. training (other than salary or benefits paid during training) 
c. weapons 
d. communication equipment 
e. uniforms 
f. vehicles 
g. indirect costs 

MORE Grant Unallowable Costs 

a. direct salaries and benefits of sworn officers 
b. police vehicles 
c. vehicle siren equipment 
d. office equipment/furniture 
e. weapons and ammunition 


f. cellular telephones 
g. radios 
h. pagers 
i. uniforms 
j. narcotics dogs/horses 
k. bullet proof vests 
l. breathalyzers 
m. radar guns 
n. video cameras 
o. phone lines and voice mail systems 
p. educational material 
q. televisions/VCRs 
r. indirect costs 
s. all equipment and technology (unallowable for MORE 2000 only) 
t. overtime (unallowable for all MORE programs except MORE '95) 

D. Source and Amount of Matching Funds 

DEFINITION 

In the absence of a local match waiver (discussed below), the grantee 
is obligated to match a portion of the costs of the program, project, 
or activity as funded by the COPS program. With the exception of the 
CIS Program (see below), grant awards may cover only up to 75% of 
the project costs over the grant period as outlined in the application 
submission; therefore, the grantee must contribute at least 25% of 
total project costs unless a waiver is obtained from the COPS Office. 
Waivers are approved on a case-by-case basis based on severe fiscal 
distress. Qualifying agencies may receive a partial waiver of which 
90% of the project costs are paid by federal funds, with a 
corresponding 10% local match, or a full waiver in which 100% of the 
project costs are paid with federal funds. 

Any required local match must be fully paid before the end of the 
grant funding period. The grantee should be able to identify the 
source of matching funds, the amount paid, and the timing of the 
payments. The local match requirement follows the logic that the 
COPS Program supplies "seed" money to law enforcement agencies to 
initiate or enhance community policing. 

For the CIS Program, however, a local match is not required. The 
CIS Program, funds school resource officer salary and benefits over 
the three-year grant period with an increased funding cap of $125,000 
per officer. Additional salary or benefits must be paid with State or 
local funds. No other local match is required. 


CONDITIONS 

The Hiring and MORE grant awards have different compliance 
conditions for the local match requirement: 

For Hiring grant awards (AHEAD, FAST, UHP), the COPS grant will 
provide up to 75% of an entry-level salary and benefits package over 
three years with a maximum of $75,000 per position. Grantees are 
responsible for at least 25% of the salary and fringe benefit package 
through the local match. If a particular COPS officer's salary is not 
entry level due to experience (i.e., a lateral hire from another 
jurisdiction), academic attributes, or other reasons, any portion of the 
salaries or fringe benefits that is above entry-level must be provided by 
the grantee in addition to the required local match. CIS grantees, while 
not otherwise required to pay a local match, are responsible for any 
additional costs for entry-level salaries and benefits over the maximum 
of $125,000 (over three years) per officer. 

For all MORE grant awards, the COPS grant will provide up to 75% 
of the allowable costs for equipment and technology and civilian 
support services under the grant guidelines. Grantees are responsible 
for contributing at least 25% of the remaining costs. For civilian 
hires, the COPS grant will provide up to 75% of the salaries and 
approved benefits packages. Unlike the Hiring grant programs, the 
75% reimbursement is not based upon entry-level salary and benefits, 
but is based, instead, on the actual salary and benefits packages of the 
approved civilian positions. 

For Hiring and MORE grantees, if the total project costs actually 
incurred by the grantee are higher than the costs anticipated in the 
approved grant application, the grantee must pay for the additional 
costs with State and/or local funds. If the actual project costs are 
lower than originally anticipated, grantees (except CIS grantees) still 
must ensure that they contributed the legally required minimum 25% 
of actual project costs with State and/or local funds (in the absence of 
a local match waiver). 

Local Match Guidelines 

There are several guidelines that must be observed by grantees when 
meeting the local match requirement, regardless of the type of grant 
awarded. One of these guidelines concerns the minimum required 
level of local matching throughout the life of the grant. For MORE 
grants, the grantee is responsible for at least 25% of the total cost of 


allowable items. For hiring grants (with the exception of CIS), the 
local share also must be at least 25% of the total cost of salaries and 
fringe benefits over the three-year funding period. 

Moreover, for Hiring grants (excluding CIS) the percentage of total 
officers' salaries and benefits paid with Federal funds must decrease 
each year while the local match increases accordingly (the "decreasing 
Federal share" concept). For example, if the award amount were 
$75,000, with a required local match of $25,000 (based on a total 
entry-level salary and benefit package of $100,000 over three years), 
the grantee might spend $30,000 in Federal money the first year, with 
a $3,000 local match. The following year the grantee might spend 
$25,000 in Federal funds, with an $8,000 match; the third year the 
remaining $20,000 of the Federal funds would be spent, with a 
$14,000 local match. As illustrated by this example, the Federal share 
decreased each year while the local match correspondingly increased. 

An additional guideline to follow concerns the type and source of the 
match. The type of match must be a cash match and the source of 
funding may not be Federal unless specifically authorized by Federal 
statute. The funding for local match must be in addition to funds 
previously budgeted for law enforcement purposes and may not have 
come from other COPS grants or supplements. The grantee must be 
able to identify the source of their matching funds. Ideally, it is 
beneficial if a grantee proactively documents the specific source for 
and timing of the local match, such as a separate line item in the local 
budget. 

Further, all COPS grant local matches must be paid in cash; for 
example, grantees may not count equipment costs outside of the 
programmatically approved project towards the local match. For 
example, if a MORE project costs a total of $100,000 for computers, 
software, and installation, the applicant must pay $25,000 of these 
costs (25% of total project costs) as the local match. The local 
jurisdiction may not substitute non-project expenditures, such as 
training officers on the use of equipment, as the match. 

Grantees must also be able to demonstrate that they budgeted the 
additional funds to pay for the local match after the grant award start 
date or, if prior to that date, (a) in specific anticipation of receiving 
the COPS grant award or (b) as reserve or discretionary monies that 
were not otherwise budgeted for a specific law enforcement purpose, 
in addition to funds previously budgeted for law enforcement 
purposes. If the supporting documentation clearly indicates that 


either of these conditions exists, the grantee may use those funds as 
an acceptable source for the local cash match. If the documentation 
cannot support a causal link between the budgeted funds and the 
anticipation of the grant award, or if the funds are not in addition to 
funds previously budgeted for specific law enforcement purposes, 
there is a violation of the matching funds requirement. 

It should also be noted that grantees are excused from either the 
whole or a portion of the local cash match if the law enforcement 
agency has obtained a local match waiver from the COPS Office. 
Only a small portion of waiver requests are granted and they are 
considered at the time of application or post award if the community 
can prove severe financial distress or other severe mitigating factors. 
Grantees who receive a waiver should have a copy of the COPS 
Office's notification of the approved waiver on site with their grant 
records. 

Examples  Acceptable Sources of Matching Funds: 

 New Local Appropriations; 

 State Funds: it is permissible to use State funds only if allowable 
by State law; 

 Other Federal Funds: it is permissible to use Federal funds only if 
specifically; authorized by Federal statute (e.g., funds appropriated 
for Indian tribal governments or the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) performing law enforcement functions on Indian lands; 
funds received through the Assets Forfeiture equitable sharing 
program; or funds awarded by another Federal agency whose 
statute specifies that those funds may be used as local match to 
other Federal grants) 

 Other State or local Grant Funds: it is permissible to use other 
State or local grant funds as local match only if allowable by that 
particular State or local grant program 

 Reserved, Discretionary, and Other Undesignated State or local 
funds 

E. Supplanting 

DEFINITION 

For the purpose of COPS grants, supplanting means using COPS 
grant funds to replace State, local or BIA funds which otherwise 
would have been spent on the specific law enforcement purpose of 
the COPS grant award. To comply with the nonsupplanting 
requirement, COPS grant funds must supplement the budget of the 


law enforcement agency, not replace any currently, historically, or 
future appropriated funds for the grant purposes. For example, COPS 
Hiring grant funds may not replace State or local funding for hiring 
sworn officers and COPS MORE funds may not replace State or local 
funding for purchasing equipment or technology or for hiring civilians 
that would have been budgeted in the absence of receiving COPS 
grant funding. 

The nonsupplanting requirement of the COPS statute reads as 
follows: 

Funds made available under [the COPS statute] to States or units 
of local government shall not be used to supplant State or local 
funds, or, in the case of Indian tribal governments, funds supplied 
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), but shall be used to 
increase the amount of funds that would, in the absence of 
Federal funds received under [the COPS statute], be made 
available from State or local sources, or in the case of Indian tribal 
governments, from funds supplied by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs. 42 U.S.C.  3796dd-3(a) 

CONDITIONS 

Regardless of the type of grant, complying with the nonsupplanting 
requirement entails using COPS grant funds to increase the level of 
State, local, or Bureau of Indian Affairs funds that would be made 
available for the grant purposes in the absence of the grant (the 
"baseline" level of funding). For Hiring grants, the increased level of 
funding pertains to hiring new officers. For MORE grants, the level 
of increased funding applies to purchasing equipment and technology, 
hiring civilians, or, under the MORE '95 program, funding overtime. 

Generally speaking, this means that grantees must (a) use their grant 
funds to hire officers or civilians or purchase equipment or technology 
after the grant award start date (unless COPS specifically authorizes 
the use of funds for pre-award hires or purchases) and (b) use their 
grant funds to increase the amount of local funds otherwise budgeted 
and expended for the specific grant purpose by hiring additional 
officers or civilians, or purchasing additional equipment and 
technology, and taking active and timely steps during the grant periods 
to fill vacancies that arise among their locally-funded sworn forces or 
civilian personnel. 

While these general requirements apply to COPS grantees, they may 
still demonstrate compliance with the nonsupplanting requirement 
even if they (a) use funds to pay for officers or civilians hired pre-
award, or equipment or technology purchased pre-award, as long as 


the grantee can demonstrate that the individuals were hired, or the 
items purchased, in specific anticipation of receiving the grant funds 
(and, therefore, that no State, local, or BIA funds were already 
budgeted for those hires or purchases); or (b) reduce their local 
budgets for sworn personnel, civilians, or equipment/technology (as 
applicable per specific grant program), as long as the grantee can 
demonstrate that the reductions in State, local, or BIA funding 
occurred for reasons unrelated to the receipt of COPS grant funds 
(and therefore that no State, local, or BIA funds would have remained 
in the budget for those purposes even in the absence of the COPS 
grant). 

The supplanting analysis is therefore generally a two-step process: 

(1) do facts exist that "look like" possible supplanting? (e.g., 
COPS funds paid to an officer or civilian hired pre-award; 
reductions in local funding for sworn officers during the life 
of an active COPS Hiring grant); if so, 
(2) can the grantee demonstrate either that (a) it would not have 
hired the officers or civilians, or purchased the equipment or 
technology, pre-award unless it had anticipated the receipt of 
the COPS grant because it had no State, local, or BIA funds 
budgeted for that purpose? (In the case of pre-award hires or 
purchases); or (b) it would have reduced its budget for sworn 
officers, civilians, or equipment/technology purchases, as 
applicable, for reasons unrelated to the COPS grant, even if 
the grant had not been awarded? (In the case of budget 
reductions). 

If the grantee can demonstrate these circumstances, it has not violated 
the nonsupplanting requirement  despite the facts that may at first 
"look like" supplanting  because it has shown that the COPS funds 
did not actually supplant (replace) State, local, or BIA funds that 
otherwise would have been spent on those purposes. 

Fact patterns which might "look like" possible supplanting violations 
and trigger a further review occur in four primary areas: 

 Hiring sworn officers or civilians or purchasing 
equipment/technology, depending on the type of grant, 
before the award date of the grant. 

 Delays in filling vacant locally-funded sworn officer positions 
or civilian positions, depending on the type of grant. 

 Decreases in the baseline level of funding for sworn officers, 
civilians or equipment/technology during the grant period. 


 Decreases in the baseline level of sworn officer or civilian 
positions during the grant period. 

Hiring Sworn Officers or Civilians or Purchasing Approved 
Technology and Equipment before the Award Date of the Grant 

Except for AHEAD and FAST recipients, grantees are prohibited 
from using COPS grant funds to pay for officers or civilians who are 
hired prior to the award start date of the grant without written 
approval from the COPS Office. AHEAD and FAST grant recipients 
were prohibited from using grant funds to pay for officers hired 
before the approved hiring start date (AHEAD: 10/1/94; FAST: 
2/8/95), which differed from the start date of these awards. To 
obtain such approval, the grantee must provide documentation, from 
the time of the pre-award hiring, that proves that the additional 
officers or civilians were hired in specific anticipation of receiving 
COPS grant funds and were not otherwise funded with State, local, or 
BIA funds. 

Acceptable forms of documentation may include (and must be dated 
on or about the time of the pre-award hiring): 

 Internal departmental memoranda linking the hiring to the 
anticipated COPS grant funding; 

 Governmental memoranda linking the hiring to the
anticipated COPS grant funding;

 Documentation provided to the officers or civilians in 
question explaining that continued employment is contingent 
upon receiving grant funds; and/or 

 Budget documentation demonstrating that the positions in 
question were not funded with State, local, or BIA funds (or 
were funded with anticipated incoming COPS grant funds) 

The same provisions for hiring also apply to the purchase of approved 
technology and equipment before the award date of a MORE grant. 
If grantees acquired (or signed a binding contract to acquire) the 
technology and equipment that was requested on the grant application 
before the award date, documentation from the time of the pre-award 
purchase is required to prove that the purchase was in anticipation of 
the grant funding. The examples of acceptable documentation for 
Hiring grants can also be used to support the relationship between the 
purchased items and the anticipated grant award for MORE grants. 
In addition, MORE grantees may have contracts with vendors (or may 
be able to obtain copies of such documents from the vendors) 
showing that completion of the purchase was contingent upon the 
grantee's receipt of COPS grant funds. 


Exception to Pre-Award Hiring Prohibition: Part-time to Full-
time Promotions 

A unique exception to the pre-award or pre-approval hiring date 
requirement is the promotion of a previously locally-funded (and, 
therefore, usually hired pre-award) part-time officer or civilian to full-
time status under the COPS grant. In this circumstance, the grantee 
should obtain written authorization from the COPS Office for this use 
of funds and must hire a new officer or new civilian with local funds 
to backfill the vacant part-time position before expending COPS 
funds on the full-time position. COPS Hiring or MORE grant funds 
may not be expended on the new full-time position until the grantee 
has backfilled the part-time vacancy with a new hire using local 
funding. 

If the supporting documentation, or lack thereof, reveals that the pre-
award hiring or the purchase of technology and equipment was not a 
direct result of anticipated grant funds, but would have occurred 
regardless of the grant availability, or if a grantee promoted a locally-
funded officer or civilian from part-time to a full-time COPS grant 
position, but did not "backfill" the resulting part-time vacancy with 
local funds, a supplanting violation has occurred. 

Requirements for Written Approval 

Under any "early hire" or "early purchase" situation, or promotions 
from a locally-funded part-time to full-time COPS-funded position, 
COPS grantees are required by their Grant Conditions to seek written 
prior approval from the COPS Office for the requested use of funds. 
Grantees who failed to obtain prior written approval from the COPS 
Office before using COPS grant funding for pre-award hires or 
purchases must seek a retroactive review of their use of funding to 
determine compliance. 

Delays in Filling Vacant Locally-funded Sworn Officer Positions 
or Civilian Positions 

COPS grantees also must take active and timely steps through their 
standard recruiting and hiring procedures to fill vacancies arising in 
their locally-funded sworn officer or civilian (depending on the type of 
grant) positions. Any delay in filling locally-funded vacancies must not 
be a direct result of receiving grant funds. 


A situation independent of the grant may prevent the grantee from 
adhering to historical practices, such as a local hiring freeze, pending 
litigation, or an officer's deployment to military leave, and result in a 
delay in filling locally-funded vacancies. If grantees deviate from their 
standard hiring procedures in these or other cases, documentation 
should demonstrate the reasons for the deviation. If, after reviewing 
all pertinent documentation, the grantee has demonstrated that the 
delays occurred for a reason unrelated to the COPS grant, then a 
supplanting violation has not occurred. 

If grantees do not have formal documented procedures for hiring and 
recruiting, historical practices may be used as evidence of standard 
procedures. In the situation where grantees have continued to follow 
those historical practices for filling vacancies in locally-funded 
positions during the period of the grant, the nonsupplanting 
requirement is met. 

For grantees without formal written guidelines, the following items are 
examples of information that could be considered in evaluating 
"active recruiting and timely filling of vacant locally-funded positions": 

 If the grantee typically hires replacement law enforcement 
officers from a civil service list of certified candidates, 
confirmation from the grantee or a civil service official 
showing that the grantee followed historical practices in 
requesting, reviewing, and/or interviewing from the list 
during the grant period; 

 If the grantee hires replacements to coincide with State, local, 
or law enforcement agency training academies, verification 
from the grantee or an academy official showing that the 
grantee followed similar practices after the grant award date; 

 If the grantee claims that high turnover rates make it difficult 
to fill all vacancies quickly, evidence from prior to the grant 
period showing that the high turnover rates reflect the 
grantee's historical hiring and attrition patterns; 

 If the grantee is filling both COPS positions and locally-
funded positions, both should be filled at approximately the 
same rate. If a grantee fills COPS vacancies at an 
unreasonably faster rate, it must justify that its reasons for 
doing so are unrelated to the receipt of COPS grant funding. 

 To meet the timing of school years, grantees may hire new, 
additional officers to fill CIS-funded vacancies prior to filling 
locally-funded, non-school resource sworn officer vacancies, 
as long as the grantee is continuing to take active and timely 
steps to fill local sworn officer vacancies. 


The existence of locally-funded vacancies (of any number) during the 
grant period is not, by itself, a violation of grant requirements, as long 
as the grantee can demonstrate that it is taking active and timely steps 
to fill those vacancies or that delays in filling the positions are 
unrelated to the receipt of COPS grant funds. 

Grantees experiencing a delay in filling locally-funded vacancies may 
contact the COPS Office to request written guidance on whether the 
delay complies with the nonsupplanting requirement. 

Decrease in the Baseline Level of Funding 

The goal of both the Hiring and MORE grants is to increase the 
"baseline" level of State, local, or Bureau of Indian Affair funds which 
would otherwise be budgeted for sworn officers (Hiring grants) and 
civilians or equipment (MORE grants), with COPS grants funds. For 
the purposes of the COPS Program, the determinant for a possible 
supplanting violation includes both the level of funding and the level 
of sworn officer positions (Hiring grants) and civilian positions 
(MORE grants). 

To determine the baseline level, the State, local, or BIA funding for 
sworn officer or civilian positions (depending on the type of grant) 
and number of sworn officer or civilian positions must be measured 
as of each grant's threshold review date. (See Appendix C for the 
applicable review date for each type of COPS grant.) This level 
should be reviewed for each fiscal year during the grant period to 
determine whether any additional State, local, or BIA funding was 
budgeted for additional positions after the original threshold date. If 
the baseline funding increased during the grant period, the highest 
documented level of State, local, or BIA funding or positions for 
sworn officers or civilians should be used as the new baseline level 
from that date forward during the remainder of the grant and 
retention periods. 

If, during the grant period, the State, local, or BIA baseline level of 
funding or number of sworn officer or civilian positions has 
decreased, the grantee must be able to demonstrate (with supporting 
documentation) that the reduction in funding or force occurred for a 
reason unrelated to the receipt of COPS funding (such as fiscal 
distress, civilianization of sworn positions, or a management 
reorganization unrelated to COPS) to comply with the nonsupplanting 
requirement. Acceptable forms of supporting documentation may 
include, but are not limited to: 


 State, city or county council meeting minutes; 

 Internal departmental budget directives; 

 Internal law enforcement agency documents; 

 Independent management studies recommending reductions; 

 Documentation for other local agencies outlining budget reductions; and 

 Evidence that, although the number of baseline officer 
positions may have decreased during the grant period, the 
level of State, local, or BIA funds for those positions did not 
decrease (as a result of increasing officer salary costs, for 
example, or because fewer part-time officers were assigned to 
cover hours previously worked by a higher number of part-
time officers) 

Impact of Failure to Retain on Supplanting Analysis 

An agency, with multiple COPS Hiring grants, which fails to retain 
officer positions following the expiration of one Hiring grant, may be 
in violation of the nonsupplanting requirement on its later Hiring 
grants for an unjustified reduction in baseline officers. For example, a 
failure to retain, one (1) COPS FAST officer position, which otherwise 
would have been retained with local funding, may result in an 
unapproved baseline reduction for the active UHP grant, since the 
retained COPS FAST officer position should have increased the 
UHP grant baseline by one position. To comply with the 
nonsupplanting requirement, the grantee must demonstrate that the 
failure to retain the FAST officer position with State, local, or BIA 
funds, upon grant expiration, occurred for reasons unrelated to the 
UHP grant. 

If the grant award is for part-time officers or civilian support services, 
the baseline funding level analysis is still applicable. However, due to 
the generally more frequently fluctuating number of part-time officer 
or civilian positions, a supplanting analysis should always include an 
evaluation of the overall amount of State and/or local funds budgeted 
and expended on part-time sworn officer or civilian law enforcement 
coverage (rather than simply the number of part-time positions). 

It is important to note that a nonsupplanting violation only occurs if a 
grantee reduces its locally-funded law enforcement budget (and 
corresponding number of positions) as a direct result of receiving 
COPS funding. To verify compliance, grantees are required to 
demonstrate that any reduction in local funding for sworn officers and 
civilians, or a reduction in the number of sworn officer and civilian 
positions, is unrelated to the receipt of COPS funds. 


Examples  Supplanting Situations: 

 Grantee delays filling locally-funded vacancies as a result of 
receiving COPS funds for additional sworn officers (or civilians, 
depending on the grant). 

 Grantee reduces its budget of State, local, or BIA funds for sworn 
personnel (or civilians, depending on the grant) as a direct result 
of receiving COPS funds. 

 Grantee fails to retain an officer on an early Hiring grant while 
implementing other active Hiring grant(s), resulting in a failure to 
increase its locally-funded baseline (by the retained position) for 
the active grant(s). 

F. Reporting 

DEFINITION 

Two types of reports are required from grantees: 1) Program Progress 
Reports; and 2) Financial Status Reports. Reports are survey 
instruments that the COPS Office uses to monitor grants. For Hiring 
grants, these Progress Reports request information about the status of 
the grant in terms of selection, hiring and training; characteristics of 
the officers hired; descriptions of officer activities; and general 
information about the department. The MORE Program requires 
submission of one MORE Progress Report detailing background 
information on the department, equipment and technology purchasing 
and information on civilian hiring. The Financial Status Reports 
(required of both Hiring and MORE grantees) request information on 
monies spent, including amounts for Federal expenditures, local 
matching contributions, and the unobligated balance of the award. 

The type of Program Progress Reports required depends on the type 
of grant award. During the period of December 1999 to November 
2003, the Hiring grants (except CIS) required two reports: 1) 
Department Initial Report; and 2) Department Annual Report. 
Effective November 1, 2003, the Department Initial Reports were 
discontinued. Currently, the Hiring grantees are required to submit 
Department Annual Reports. The CIS program does not require a 
Department Initial Report and may require less frequent submission 
of the Department Annual Reports. The MORE grants require only 
one Progress Report. 


CONDITIONS 

The type of progress reports required depend on whether the grant is 
COPS Hiring or MORE. Financial Status Reports require the same 
format for all grants. Grantees are required to complete the Financial 
Status Reports for every quarter of the active grant period even if the 
grant has been in effect for only a portion of the reporting period and 
no money has been drawn down. 

Department Initial Report: Hiring. Grants awarded between 
December 1999 to November 2003 were required to submit a 
Department Initial Report if the department has never previously 
received a COPS Hiring grant. Only one report is required per agency 
for the life of the grant. The exception to this is for agencies that 
have received both a Phase I and other Hiring grant(s). If this is the 
case, the department was required to submit one Department Initial 
Report for the Phase I grant and is also required to submit a separate 
one for the other Hiring grant(s) (except for the CIS program, which 
does not require an Initial Report as well as Hiring grants awarded 
after November 2003). This report solicits information regarding pre-
grant data, which serves as a baseline for measuring the grantee's 
future progress in community policing. Information gathered 
addresses the grantee's training curriculum, demographics of police 
force, and community policing activities. The Department Initial 
Report also collects information about a department's actual and 
budgeted number of locally-funded officers. 

A hard copy of the Department Initial Report is sent to all UHP 
grantees within 30 days of receiving an award packet if a grant is 
awarded for the first time. The report is due back to the COPS Office 
within 45 days of receipt of the award packet by the grantee. 

As noted above, the CIS grant program and the Hiring grant program 
after November 2003 does not have an Initial Report requirement. 

Department Annual Report: Hiring. The Department Annual 
Report (DAR) solicits information concerning the status of the 
implementation of the grant. Questions on this report include 
demographics of police force, retention plans, and community 
policing programs and activities. 

A hard copy of the Department Annual Report is mailed to all 
grantees with an active UHP grant. (As noted previously, the CIS 
program may require less frequent submission of the Department 
Annual Report.) Department Annual Reports are mailed in December 


of each year, for the reporting period covering January 1 - December 
31, throughout the life of the grant. These reports are due in 
February of each year. 

COPS Count. During the survey, a sample of COPS MORE grant 
recipients are contacted by the COPS Office and asked for 
information regarding the status of their grants as of a selected date. 
This survey information is then summarized and compared with the 
total number of civilians and equipment funded as of the same 
selected date. Specific survey information includes; updates on the 
status of grant funded civilian personnel and equipment as well as 
redeployment dates and related questions for MORE grants; and 
grantee plans concerning future hiring of civilians and redeployment. 

Progress Report: MORE. The MORE Progress Report requires the 
grantee to provide information about the enhanced levels of 
community policing that have resulted from the purchase of 
equipment and/or the hiring of civilian personnel funded under the 
COPS MORE Grant Program. The information from this report will 
be used to monitor each grantee's progress and to provide summary 
data on the project supported with COPS MORE funding. 

The report must be completed by the grantee even if it has not hired 
the civilian personnel or purchased the equipment awarded under the 
COPS MORE Program. The reports are mailed approximately 12-18 
months after the original award start date. These reports are to be 
returned within 45 days of their receipt. 

Financial Status Reports. All COPS grantees are required to 
submit quarterly Financial Status Reports (FSRs) using a Standard 
Form 269A (SF-269A). This report reflects the actual federal monies 
and unliquidated obligations incurred, local matching contributions, 
and the unobligated balance of federal funds. 

COPS grantees are encouraged to submit their FSRs online. Effective 
June 1, 2004, the COPS Office discontinued sending preprinted blast 
faxes of SF-269As to grantees, due to the ability to submit online. 
While grantees are encouraged to submit their SF-269As through the 
web-based system, we will continue to accept SF-269 through the 
Control Desk by mail and fax. The fax number for the Financial 
Status Reports Control desk is (202) 616-9004. Mailed reports should 
be addressed to the U.S. Department of Justice, Financial Status 
Reports Control Desk, 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 6th Floor, 
Washington, D.C. 20530. 


FSRs must be submitted no later than 45 days after the last day of 
each quarter as follows: 

Reporting Quarter 	Date Due 
Jan 1- Mar 1 		May 15 
April 1 - June 30 	Aug 14 
July 1 - Sept 30 	Nov 14 
Oct 1 - Dec 31 		Feb 14 

This report requests information on total monies spent, the 
breakdown by Federal expenditure and local match, and unobligated 
amounts. All Financial Status Reports must be completed and sent to 
the COPS Office no later than 45 days following each calendar 
quarter. Grantees who do not submit a SF-269A by the due date will 
be unable to drawdown funds. The payment systems contain an edit 
that checks for SF-269A delinquency and will reject a drawdown 
attempt if the report is not up to date. 

For general information concerning on-line filing of a SF-269A 
reports, go to www.ojp.usdoj.gov/oc or contact the COPS Office 
Response Center by phone at 800.421.6770 for additional technical 
assistance or by e-mail at askCOPSRC@usdoj.gov. 

Final Reports. Final programmatic reports are intended to capture 
the history of the grant and ensure completion of the required 
project. Hiring and MORE grantees are required to submit final 
programmatic reports and final Financial Status reports to the COPS 
Office so that COPS may officially close out the grant award. Final 
Financial Status Reports should reflect the total amount of Federal 
expenditures, total amount of matching contributions, and the amount 
of unobligated funds, if any. Any unobligated or unspent funds must 
be returned to the COPS Office and will be deobligated from the 
award amount. 

G. Training: A Special Condition for CIS Grantees 

DEFINITION 

COPS in Schools (CIS) Grantees 

All COPS in Schools awards contain an additional grant condition that 
requires the officers deployed into the schools as a result of the CIS 
grant and one designated school administrator per grant to attend 
COPS-sponsored School Resource Officer (SRO) Training. 
Notification of this added grant condition is sent to the grantee with 
the grant award. Departments are encouraged to attend the training in 


the early stages of the grant, but, in all cases, departments must 
complete their training by the end of the grant award period. 

Under the actual grant condition, the SRO(s) deployed to work in the 
schools as a result of the grant and one school administrator, 
representing the lead partnering agency, are required to attend this 
team-based training. Since this is a team-based training, it is 
encouraged that both the school administrator and the SRO(s) attend 
the training together; however, the COPS Office recognizes the 
difficulty in scheduling such an event. Therefore, as long as both the 
SRO(s) deployed into the school and the representing school 
administrator each attend a training session sponsored by the COPS 
Office prior to the end of the grant period, the grant recipient is in 
compliance with this training condition. 

Only the training sponsored by the COPS Office will satisfy this 
additional grant condition. The COPS Office Grants Administration 
Division reserves the right to approve all participants to ensure proper 
representatives attend the training, thereby satisfying the grant 
condition. Costs, including training, per diem, travel and lodging, up 
to a maximum of $1,200 per trainee, will be reimbursed to the grantee 
by the COPS Office. 

H. Timesavings for Redeployment 

DEFINITION 

Timesavings for redeployment applies to the MORE Grant Programs. 
Redeployment occurs when sworn officers, currently employed by the 
grantee law enforcement agency, become available to participate in 
community policing as a direct result of the timesavings achieved by 
the purchase of technology or equipment or the hiring of civilian 
support staff. 

Prior to the MORE 2002 program, all MORE grantees were required 
to demonstrate their compliance with this requirement by formally 
tracking the officer full-time-equivalent hours ("officer FTEs") 
redeployed into community policing as a result of the MORE project. 
Redeployment of officer FTEs applies to sworn officers, currently 
employed by the grantee, who will be able to enhance community 
policing activities as a direct result of the timesavings resulting from 
the purchase of the technology, equipment, overtime, or support 
services. Some MORE grantees with overtime and civilian hire grants 
received funding renewals for an additional 12 or 24 months and were 
required to demonstrate continued timesavings and redeployment of 


officers during the renewal funding periods. As of the MORE 2002 
program, formal tracking of redeployment is no longer required, 
though MORE 2002 grantees are still expected to redeploy sworn 
officers into community policing as a result of the timesavings 
generated by the MORE-funded project. 

CONDITIONS 

To meet the redeployment grant condition, applicants must ensure 
that the timesaving for redeployment that results from COPS MORE 
funding, enhances community policing activities. 

 Agencies funded prior to fiscal year 2002 (MORE 2001 and 
previous programs) must track timesavings and the redeployment 
of FTEs into the community policing program after full 
implementation to demonstrate that, as a result of the grant 
award, community policing is being enhanced; however, there is 
no requirement to track every hour of time saved to every hour of 
community policing. 
 Agencies funded in fiscal year 2002 and later (MORE 2002 and 
any later programs) are not required to track timesavings and 
redeployment formally, but still must ensure that the officer 
timesavings resulting from the grant project is enhancing 
community policing. 

The timesavings for redeployment results from the purchase of: 1) 
technology or equipment; 2) civilians; and 3) overtime (for the MORE 
'95 program only). Technology or equipment timesavings are the 
amount of officer's time that the technology or equipment frees up by 
its use. Civilian timesavings are the amount of time saved by an officer 
whose position is filled by a newly hired civilian. Overtime timesavings 
(for the MORE '95 program only) resulted from paying currently 
employed sworn officers overtime compensation for working 
additional hours beyond the normal workweek to engage in 
community policing activities. 

Each MORE grantee's specific FTE redeployment requirement is 
located on the award document. The COPS Office standard for a 
full-time-equivalent sworn officer equals 1,824 hours. The COPS 
Office recognizes that, due to differences in shift hours, there may be 
slight variances in the number of officers redeployed between a 
grantee and the COPS Office standard formula for calculating 
redeployment. 

Tracking Timesavings: MORE 2001 and Previous MORE 
Programs. Agencies granted an award under the MORE 2001 
Program and all previous MORE programs are required to plan and 


track timesavings for redeployment realized from the equipment, 
technology, civilians, or overtime (only for MORE '95 recipients) 
awarded. (This tracking requirement does not apply to the MORE 
2002 and any subsequent MORE programs, although those grantees 
must still ensure that the officer timesavings resulting from the grant 
project, is enhancing community policing through redeployment.) 

Once the grant is implemented and fully operational (i.e., technology 
and equipment is purchased, installed and operational, or civilians have 
been hired) as determined by the law enforcement agency, these 
grantees must complete a timesavings tracking plan. This tracking 
plan describes the grantee's methodology for measuring the 
timesavings for each item, system or group of like items requested and 
received by the grantee. 

For equipment/technology awards, actual tracking, pursuant to the 
plan, will begin after such single stand-alone, independent element, 
function, or operation in a geographic area is fully implemented as 
contained in the plan. For civilian awards, tracking should begin once 
the employee or employees have been trained and the sworn officers 
redeployed. Tracking must continue for at least one full year from the 
date that the grant project is implemented and declared fully 
operational. This 12-month period is necessary for the agency to 
achieve the total timesavings required by the one-year MORE grant 
program. 

Information on developing and implementing redeployment tracking 
plans may be obtained from a COPS grant program specialist or can 
be found on the COPS MORE Home Page at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

No one method to track timesavings can adequately cover all 
situations and all jurisdictions because each jurisdiction varies in size 
and each situation varies in complexity. Tracking methods can vary 
from estimating hours saved to directly tracking hours. The tracking 
method for timesavings should, at least, demonstrate the time that was 
spent on duties prior to the grant award (without the additional grant-
funded equipment or technology or civilian personnel) and how much 
time is spent on those same duties after the grant award when the 
grant-funded equipment or technology or civilian personnel are 
operational. To assist with tracking redeployment, grantees can use 
baseline time data prior to grant implementation. 

All MORE 2001 and previous MORE grantees must maintain the 
details of worksheets, studies, or any other written evidence that was 
used to track timesavings. These grantees may be required to produce 
redeployment tracking plans and supporting timesavings tracking 
documentation during any monitoring or audit site visits. 


Sworn officers who are redeployed into community policing under a 
MORE grant should be aware of the community policing activities 
that are part of the local department's strategy. These are the 
activities that officers should carry out as a result of time saved. 
Timesavings should initiate or enhance community policing activities 
that have been approved through the grant program; however, not 
every hour of timesavings needs to be committed to a specific 
"community policing activity." 

Elements of a Tracking Plan. Tracking plans must include a 
statement explaining how time is being saved, as well as an explanation 
of the tracking method used. Also, plans should include the method 
used to track timesavings (estimation, direct tracking sample, study, 
etc.), the hours to complete the activity before and after the 
equipment or technology or civilian personnel are implemented, and a 
short description of enhanced community policing activities resulting 
from the timesavings. Finally, the plan should include an explanation 
of how the time saved through this grant will allow the agency to 
enhance its community policing efforts. 

Once fully operational, and timesavings has been tracked, a 
determination can be made about the actual total hours saved. (For 
examples of tracking timesaving, see Appendix D.) It should also be 
noted that a grantee is required to meet the Full-time Equivalencies 
(FTEs) as demonstrated on their award document. 

To demonstrate compliance in reaching required levels of 
redeployment, grantees must demonstrate satisfactory progress in 
implementing their COPS MORE grants. (The following is true of 
any grant, not just MORE.) Unjustifiable delays in grant 
implementation may result in a finding of noncompliance (and 
possibly termination of the grant award) if grantees are unable to 
document satisfactory progress in implementing the grant program 
(e.g., by documenting the time line of a lengthy procurement process). 


Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment 

VI. COPS Performance Indicators



VI. COPS Performance Indicators 

This section presents a checklist of performance indicators that can 
be used as a guide in determining whether COPS grantees are in 
compliance with the terms and conditions of the Hiring and MORE 
grant awards within each of the eight primary compliance categories. 
Performance indicators present characteristics that are used to 
measure the results of the COPS Program activity compared to its 
intended purpose and compliance requirements. 

In general, written evidence that grantees are complying with grant 
requirements is always required. Consequently, copies of all grant-
related documentation should be kept at local law enforcement agency 
or executive government offices. 

Significant changes to approved grant projects must be submitted in 
writing to the COPS Office for prior approval. Significant changes 
may include, but are not limited to: 

 Changes in number of officers that will be hired; 

 Extensions; 

 Salary and benefit changes; 

 Changes in redeployment levels; 

 Changes in the type of equipment purchased; 

 Purchase of additional items for a MORE redeployment grant 
that was the result of cost savings in excess of $1,000; 

 Significant changes in community policing plans not within 
the scope of the original approved plan; 

 Use of grant funding for officers or civilians hired pre-award; 

 Use of grant funding for equipment or technology purchased 
pre-award; and 

 The transfer of a locally-funded part-time position to a full-
time COPS-funded position. 

While interpreting the eight compliance categories as to whether the 
terms and conditions of the COPS grant awards have been met, the 
intent of the program should be kept in mind. The overall intent of 
the COPS grant program is to help develop an infrastructure that will 
institutionalize and sustain community policing after Federal funding 
has ended and that would not have existed in the absence of the 
COPS grants. The ultimate goal of incorporating community policing 
is to improve public safety through better police work, while 
increasing the public's interaction and satisfaction with police services. 


The checklist is grouped by the eight compliance categories, which are 
further subdivided by several performance standards. Performance 
standards represent distinct statements for each compliance category 
that together comprise a complete definition of each goal. Each 
standard is accompanied by a list of indicators that can be used to 
help evaluate compliance within each category. Comments are 
available for each standard to provide additional information about the 
performance indicators; for more detailed explanations, refer to 
Section V of this Guide. 


COPS Performance Indicators 

A. Community Policing 

GOAL: Law enforcement activities executed under the grant program qualify as community 
policing. 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to section V, pages 21-28 for a complete explanation of Community Policing. 

-Hiring and MORE Grants: Local law enforcement agencies use grant funds to begin or 
enhance their community policing efforts/ Grant funds under the COPS in Schools (CIS) 
Grant program are used to fund School Resource Officer positions, building working 
relationships with schools to use community policing efforts to combat school violence.

-Community policing activities actually executed by the local law enforcement agency 
are generally the same as the activities identified in the approved grant application, 
or any significant changes have been approved by the COPS Office in writing./ Under 
the CIS Grant Program, grant-funded officers (or an equal number of veteran officers)
must be deployed to work in and around primary and secondary schools on youth-related 
activities for a minimum of 75% of their time. Overall,there must be an increase in the 
level of community policing activities that are being performed in the schools as a 
result of receiving COPS in Schools award from pre-grant activities.

-Any significant changesto the community policing activities identified in the grant 
application must be submitted in writing to the COPS Office for approval. 
 

-Hiring Grants: Local law enforcement agencies use grant funds to deploy newly hired
officers, or an equal number of veteran officers, to initiate or enhance community 
policing activities./ MORE Grants: Time savings from MORE grants result in enhanced 
community policing activities.

-Evidence of an agency's compliance with community policing activities may include, 
but isnot limited to, the following: 
 Conducting some or all Community Policing activities identified in application. 
Working with citizen advocacy groups, and/or meeting with community groups and 
businesses to address local crime problems. 

 Participating in crime analysis.  

 Establishing crime prevention or drug prevention programs or participating in
prevention efforts. 

 Performing bike or foot patrols. 

 Working with other government agencies to address crime and disorder problems. 

 Having a written strategic plan for community policing. 

 Offering or attending training in community policing. 

 Incorporating community policing into performance evaluations. 

 Decentralizing decision-making authority. 

 Assigning officers to a geographic beat to encourage community-police relations. 

 Establishing community partnerships. 

 Performing problem-solving activities. 

 Responding to specific community needs. 

 Establishing youth programs and activities. 

 Incorporating the use of volunteers into police work. 

-One or more of these indicators may be evidence that the local law enforcement 
agencies are using awards consistent with community policing./ For more information,
please see Chapter V, Section A.


B. Retention 

GOAL: Additional positions and/or the level of redeployment funded under the grant 
program are retained with State or local funding at the conclusion of the grant program 
for at least one full local budget cycle.4 

4 There are two exceptions to 
this general rule. The Phase I 
grant conditions did not include a 
retention requirement and MORE 
'95 overtime grantees are 
required to plan to continue the 
proposed overtime activities 
funded under COPS MORE. 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to section V, pages 28-32 for a complete explanation of Retention. 

-Hiring Grants: All Hiring grantees(except Phase I grantees)are required to retain 
the additional officer positions with State or local funding for a minimum of one full 
local budget cycle following the end of the 36-month funding period for each position. 
MORE Grants: Grantees must plan to retain the federally funded technology/equipment 
and/or civilians5 and the resulting redeployment after the required level of redeployment6 
has been met for a minimum of one full local budget cycle following the 12-month 
grant implementation period. 

-Hiring Grants: 
As of June 16, 1998, retention plan documentation must be submitted with the grant 
application. One or more of the following may verify compliance: 
 Written assurance is submitted with the grant award application that State and 
local agencies will plan to seek local or State funding to retain the COPS-funded 
officer position(s). 

 Certification in the application that states grantees understand 
and will abide by their submitted plans. 

 Written assurance is submitted with the Department Annual Reports 
hat states how local agencies are planning to seek local or State 
funding to add officer positions to their local budgets or maintain
the level of redeployment after the COPS grant ends. 

 Grantees that received awards prior to June 16,1998 can provide 
other evidence of retention planning efforts upon request. 

MORE Grants: One or more of the following may verify compliance: 
 Retention statement is submitted with the MORE '98 and 2000 grant 
award application that State and local agencies will plan to seek 
local or State funding to retain the level of redeployment after 
the required level of redeployment has been met. 

 Written assurance is submitted with the MORE Progress Report 
that states how local agencies are planning to seek local or State 
funding to maintain the level of redeployment after the required 
level of redeployment has been met. 

 Grantees that received MORE grant awards prior to MORE '98 can 
provide other evidence of retention planning efforts upon request. 

- Retention planning means that grantees must enter the three-year 
Hiring grant program or, for MORE, the one-year grant period, with 
the understanding that they are required to seek State or local 
funding to add these positions to their local budgets and/or maintain 
the level of redeployment after the COPS grant ends. 

Requirement to submit retention plan documentation with the Hiring grant application 
was effective June 16, 1998. The plan also includes supporting materials. Grantees 
applying for funds prior to June 16, 1998, are required to maintain evidence of their 
retention planning efforts for submission to the COPS Office upon request. 
Supporting retention planning evidence may include memoranda, minutes of meetings,
and/or other planning documents during the grant period. 

6 In this document the required 
level of redeployment is used 
generically, referring to the level 
of redeployment grantees must 
reach to be in compliance with 
their grant terms and conditions. 
See Appendix A for more information 
about the required level of 
redeployment for specific MORE 
grant programs. 



Retention, continued 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments
 
Refer to section V, pages 28-32 for a complete explanation of Retention. 

-Hiring Grants: Retention of officer positions is maintained for one full local 
budget cycle after the Hiring grant funding period7 ends. 

MORE Grants: Retention of the federally funded technology/equipment and/or civilians 
and the resulting redeployment is maintained for one full local budget cycle after 
the required level of redeployment8 has been met. 
-Hiring Grants: Additional officer positions are retained with State or local funds, 
over and above the level of locally-funded officer positions that would otherwise exist, 
for at least one full local budget cycle after the 36-month Hiring grant funding period 
for each position ends. 

MORE Grants: Grantees retain the level of redeployment (as a result of retaining the 
additional civilians and/or equipment and technology) for one full local budget cycle 
after achieving the required level of redeployment. 
-Regardless of when during the local budget cycle the grant funding period ends, the 
grantee must immediately retain officer or civilian positions and/or level of redeployment 
through the end of the next full local budget cycle. 

Mitigating circumstances may justify an exemption from the retention requirement. 

7 The Phase I grant 
conditions did not 
include a retention 
requirement. See 
Appendix A for a 
definition of 
the Hiring grant 
funding period. 

8 In this document 
the required level 
of redeployment is 
used generically, 
referring to the 
level of redeployment 
grantees must reach 
to be in compliance 
with their grant 
terms and conditions. 
See Appendix A for 
more information 
about the required 
level of redeployment 
for specific MORE 
grant programs. 


C. Allowable Costs 

GOAL: Allowable costs under each COPS Program must be specifically authorized under 
the specific grant conditions and in the grantee's approved award. 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to section V, pages 32-38 for a complete explanation of Allowable Costs. 

-Hiring Grants: Recruited and hired required number of COPS-funded officers. 

-Supporting documentation verifies that positions filled since grant was awarded agree 
with the approved costs for hiring officers, as identified in the COPS grant award. 

-The grantee may recruit or hire, using COPS funding and following historic local practices, 
only the number of officer positions agreed upon in the approved grant award. 

-Hiring Grants (except CIS grants): Requested reimbursement for 75% of entry-level salary 
for an officer, including benefits, for duration of grant. The maximum amount per officer 
is $75,000 unless the COPS Office has granted a waiver. 

-One or more of the following may verify compliance 
 Hiring confirmation paperwork with the offered and accepted salary, including benefits,
available for review. 

 Documented entry-level salary, including benefits, available for review. 

 Drawdown request agrees with 75% of department documented entry-level salary and 
benefits package for officers over three years. 

-Only 75% of an officer's entry-level salary,including benefits, may be funded under the 
Hiring grant programs with a cap of $75,000 over three years (unless a waiver has been 
granted). The remaining 25%, any costs over the cap, and any costs for salaries and 
benefits above entry-level must be paid by local funding. Furthermore, the percentage of 
total officers' salaries and benefits paid with federal funds must decrease each year of 
the grant, with the local match correspondingly increasing. 

-Hiring Grants: Officer positions funded as full-time positions are filled with officers 
working full-time and positions funded as part-time are filled with officers working part-
time. 

-Supporting documentation is available detailing that COPS-funded officers are, in fact, 
working either full time or part time, in accordance with the grant award. 

-Hiring grants can be awarded for either full-time or part-time positions. Depending on 
the type of grant award,the officer must work either full or part time to justify salary 
and benefit costs. 



Allowable Costs, continued 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to section V, pages 32-38 for a complete explanation of Allowable Costs. 

-Hiring Grants: If a previous part-time officer was promoted to full-time under a COPS 
grant, then COPS monies were only expended on the full-time COPS position after the vacant 
part-time position was filled using local funding.

-One or more of the following may verify compliance: 
 Paperwork associated with hiring new officers confirms that a replacement part-time 
officer was hired with local funding.

 Department budget and payroll accounts verify that promoted (previously part-time) officer 
was not paid salary and approved benefits from COPS monies until the part-time replacement 
was hired with local funds. 

-The law enforcement agency is required to hire new, additional part-time officers with local 
funds to replace any previously employed part-time officers who were promoted to full-time 
status under a COPS grant. The grantee may not use COPS monies to pay for the salary and approved 
benefits costs of the promoted part-time officer until a 
replacement part-time officer has been hired with local funds.
 
-CIS Grants: Provides a designated portion of the entry-level salary and benefits over the 
three-year grant period, not to exceed $125,000. (Any additional salary or benefits must be 
paid by State or local funds.) 

-One or more of the following may verify compliance: 
 Hiring confirmation paperwork with the offered and accepted salary, including benefits, 
available for review. 

 Documented entry-level salary, including benefits, available for review. 

-No waivers of the $125,000 cap on Federal funding are offered under the CIS Program. 

-MORE Grants (Civilians): Requested payments for civilian support services extend over the allowable period.

-Copy of grant award and any approved renewals or extensions, if applicable, which specify 
allowable costs.

-MORE grants are awarded for one year only, with renewal available for up to two years after the 
initial grant period ends for civilian hires and overtime (MORE '95), at the discretion of the COPS 
Office, and subject to funding availability. 

-MORE Grants (Equipment/Technology): Requested reimbursement for authorized 
technology/equipment 
-Copy of approved grant award, which specifies technology and/or equipment allowable costs. 
-The grantee may only request reimbursement for those items approved by the COPS Office on 
the approved grant award. 


Allowable Costs, continued 

-Performance Standards
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to section V, pages 32-38 for a complete explanation of Allowable Costs. 

-MORE Grants: Cost of purchased technology/ equipment is within parameters as stated on the approved 
award, or as subsequently modified by the COPS Office.

-One or more of the following may verify compliance: 
 Purchase requests and payment receipts for each item purchased available for review.
 Copy of approved grant award confirms allowable items. 

-The approved grant award specifies the amount awarded for the cost of each approved item. 
It should be noted that it may be permissible to obtain additional items in support of the MORE 
grant as a result of cost savings. Please see Chapter V, Section D, for more details. 

-MORE Grants: Requested reimbursement for 75% of salary, including benefits, for a civilian hire for 
the duration of grant.

-One or more of the following may verify compliance:
 Hiring confirmation paperwork with the offered and accepted salary, including benefits,
available for review.
 Documented salary level, including benefits, available for review.
 Reimbursement request agrees with 75% of department documented salary and benefits package for the 
awarded type of civilian support services. 

-Only 75% of a civilian hire's salary, including benefits, may be funded under the MORE grants throughout 
the duration of the  Local funding must pay the remaining 25% (unless the COPS Office grants a waiver). 

-MORE Grants: Time spent working on support service activities is equivalent to full-time or 
part-time service, in accordance with the grant award.

-Supporting documents detailing either time spent working on support activities or attendance 
records is equivalent to full-time or part-time service, in accordance with the grant award.

-MORE civilian grants can be awarded for either full-time or for part-time positions. Depending on
the type of grant award, civilian hire must work either full-time or part- 
time to justify the salary and benefit costs.

 
-MORE Grants: If a previous part-time civilian was promoted to full-time under a COPS grant, then 
COPS monies were only expended on the full-time COPS position after the vacant part-time position 
was filled using local funding.

-One or more of the following may verify compliance:
 Paperwork associated with hiring a new civilian confirms that a replacement part-time civilian 
was hired with local funding.

 Department budget and payroll accounts verify that the promoted (previously part-time) 
civilian was not paid salary and approved benefits from COPS monies until the part-time 
replacement was hired with local funds. 

-The law enforcement agency is required to hire new, additional part-time civilians with local 
funds to replace any previously employed part-time civilians who were promoted to full-time 
status under a COPS grant. The grantee cannot use COPS monies to reimburse the salary and approved 
benefits costs of the promoted part-time civilian until a replacement civilian has been hired with 
local funds. 



D. Source and Amount of Matching Funds 

GOAL: Grantee contributes at least 25% (unless granted a waiver) of the costs of the program, project, 
or activity that is funded by the COPS Program. 

-Performance Standards
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to section V, pages 38-41 for a complete explanation of Source of Matching Funds. 

-Hiring Grants: The grantee matched, or intends to match, the required percentage for  the approved 
hiring costs. 

-One or more of the following may verify compliance: 
 Copy of approved grant award specifies agreed upon costs and percentage of match. 
 Copy of departmental budget confirms the intention of the grantee to pay the match, or budget 
confirms that match has already been paid. 
 Copy of departmental budget or other documents reflect the source, timing, and amount of match. 

-The COPS grant will provide for UP TO 75% over three years with a maximum of $75,000 for 
an entry-level officer's salary and fringe benefits package. The grantee must cover AT LEAST 25% of 
the costs, unless the COPS Office has granted a waiver. 
The CIS Grant Program will cover up to a maximum amount of $125,000 for salary and benefits. Any 
costs over the maximum award must be paid by local or State funding. 

-MORE Grants: The grantee matched, or intends to match, the required percentage for the approved costs 
for the hiring of civilian support services and technology and equipment purchases. 

-One or more of the following may verify compliance: 
 Copy of grant award specifies approved costs and percentage of match. 
 Copy of departmental budget confirms the intention of the grantee to pay the match, or budget 
confirms that match has already been paid. 

-The COPS grant will provide for UP TO 75% of a civilian hire's salary and fringe benefits package 
throughout the duration of the grant, including renewal periods if applicable. The grantee must 
cover AT LEAST 25% of the costs, unless a waiver has been granted by the COPS Office 

The grantee must pay AT LEAST 25% of all technology and equipment purchases(unless a waiver has 
been granted) while the COPS grant will contribute UPTO 75%. 


Source and Amount of Matching Funds, continued 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to section V, pages 38-41 for a complete explanation of Source of Matching Funds. 

-Hiring and MORE Grants: The type of the match is cash
-Payment receipts, budgets, payroll or other documents are utilized to support the type and source of the cash match.
-The source of the match must be cash and cannot be satisfied through "in kind" purchases or contributions. 

Hiring and MORE Grants: The source of the cash match is State, local, or Federal funds if 
specifically authorized by Federal statute. Grantee must verify and document approved source.
-Department budget and payment receipts, or other documentation, verify source of the cash 
match is State or local funds, or Federal funds if such use is specifically  authorized by Federal statute.

-Source of cash match must be State or local funds. Other Federal funds may only be used as the cash 
match if such use is specifically authorized by Federal statute. The funds may not have come from 
other COPS grants or grant supplements. 

-Hiring and MORE Grants: Source of match was not previously budgeted for other law enforcement purposes. 

-Department budget, general ledger, payment receipts, or other documents verify that the source of the match 
was not specifically budgeted for other law enforcement needs.

-The source of the cash match must be in addition to funds previously budgeted for law enforcement purposes. 

-Hiring Grants: The local contribution share increases each grant year while the Federal share decreases.

-Department budget, general ledger, or other documentation verifies that the Federal contribution is decreasing, 
while the local contribution is increasing each grant year.

-As a percentage of the  total annual project costs,the local share must increase each year during the grant 
period, and, conversely, the Federal share must decrease. 

-Hiring and MORE Grants: Cash match was paid in full before the grant period ended.

-One or more of the following may verify compliance:
 Copy of approved award, including any approved no-cost extensions, specifies the end of the grant period.
 Copy of department's budget, general ledger, payroll or other documentation verifies 
payment of match before the end of the grant award period. Or, if applicable, a copy of a 
waiver verifies that the grantee is excused from the entire match or a portion of the match.

-The cash match must be fully paid before the end of the grant award period.
The grantee is excused from either the whole, or a portion of, the local cash match if the 
department has obtained a waiver. 


Documentation of the Local Match 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to section V, pages 38-41 for a complete explanation of Source Matching Funds 

-Hiring and MORE Grants: Grants should have documentation showing the source of their cash 
matching funds. 

-Department budget, general ledger, or other documents verifying that the Federal contribution has 
been budgeted for and expended. 

-Verification of local match funding must be available for review during the life of the 
grant. 


E. Supplanting 

GOAL: COPS grant funds are used to supplement the budget of the law enforcement agency, not replace 
any funds which would have been budgeted for the grant-funded purpose in the absence of the grant. 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to section V, pages 41-49 for a complete explanation of Supplanting. 

-Hiring Grants: The COPS funding increased the baseline level of funding for sworn officers and, concurrently, 
the baseline level of sworn officer positions. 
Hiring Grants: Grantee followed standard procedures used to recruit and hire part-time and full-time locally-funded 
officer vacancies in a timely and active manner during the life of the grant.

-Copy of department and local government budget reflects no decrease in State, local, or Bureau of Indian 
Affairs funds for sworn personnel during each fiscal year of grant implementation.

Or, if the baseline level of funding for sworn officers, or the number of sworn officer positions, decreased, 
copies of department and local government budgets and other supporting documentation verify that the decrease 
occurred for reasons unrelated to receiving the grant award.

One or more of the following will verify  compliance:
 Copy of standard recruiting and hiring procedures compared to grantee's actions in filling vacancies during 
the grant period confirms grantee has not delayed in filling locally-funded positions.

 If there are no formal written procedures, review of historic hiring practices support 
grantee's compliance with actively trying to fill locally-funded positions in accordance with its standard 
practice. 

 Copy of civil service list and the grantee's or civil service officer's confirmation that historical 
hiring practices are being followed. 

 Copy of State, local or law enforcement training academy schedule verifies grantee's intent to fill, 
or actual filling of, locally-funded positions in conjunction with training schedules. 

 Documented high turnover rate for department supports grantee's explanation for delay in 
filling vacant positions. 

 Rate that both COPS-funded vacancies and locally-funded vacancies are filled is 
approximately the same or the grantee evidences that this did not occur for reasons unrelated to 
receipt of grant funding. 

 If grantee fills CIS-funded vacancies prior to filling locally-funded, non-school resource officer 
vacancies so that it may timely deploy new School Resource Officers during the school year, it also 
continues to take active and timely steps to fill locally-funded vacancies. 

-The goal of the grants is to increase the "baseline" level of State, local, or Bureau of Indian 
Affairs funds that would have been budgeted for sworn officers in the absence of COPS funding. 
If there is a decrease in the baseline funds for officers, or level of officer positions, during 
the life of the grant, grantees must show that the decrease occurred for reasons unrelated to the 
award of grant funding. If the decrease occurred because the grantee received COPS grant funding, 
a supplanting violation exists. 

Hiring grantees must take active and timely steps through their standard recruiting and hiring 
procedures to fill all locally-funded officer vacancies that arise during the grant period. To 
determine if the grantee has continued its standard recruiting and hiring practice, various factors 
must be reviewed. Because of the unique recruiting and hiring practices of each agency, discretion 
and flexibility is allowed.



Supplanting, Continued 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to secttion V, pages 41-49 for a complete explanation of Supplanting. 

-Hiring Grants: Grantee delayed in following standard procedures used to recruit and hire locally-funded 
part-time and full-time officer vacancies after the award of grant money for the reasons unrelated to 
the receipt of grant funding.

-Supporting documentation verifies the delay in filling locally-funded part-time and full-time officer 
vacancies occurred for reasons unrelated to grant funding. Following are examples of reasons that are 
most likely unrelated to the receipt of grant funding:
 Fiscal Distress;  
 Training Classes delayed; 
 State civil service list is suspended; and  
 City council minutes discussing hiring difficulties. 

-If a Hiring grantee delays in filling locally-funded officer positions, the cause of the delay must be 
for reasons unrelated to the COPS grant award. Because of the unique recruiting and hiring procedures of 
each agency, discretion and flexibility is allowed. 

-Hiring Grants: Grantee promoted a locally-funded part-time officer to fill a grant funded full-time 
position and used local funds to backfill the part-time vacancy. Grant funds were not expended until 
the vacant position was backfilled.

-All of the following are necessary to verify compliance:
 Copy of local budget documents indicating that the level of funding budgeted and expended for part-time 
positions has at least remained the same as before the grant award.

 Copy of documentation demonstrating that the part-time officer was hired with local funds before grant 
funds were expended on the promoted full-time officer.

-If a grantee chooses to promote a previously employed part-time officer to fill a full-time COPS grant 
position, then grantee must hire a new, additional part-time officer with local funds to backfill the 
resulting vacancy. The grantee may not expend COPS Hiring grant funds on the new full-time position 
until it has filled the part-time vacancy. 

-Hiring Grants: Officers funded under the COPS grants were hired after the award of the grant.

-Documentation verifies the grant officers' hire date to be after the grant award date (or allowable 
hiring date for FAST and AHEAD).
Or, if officers were hired before the award date, supporting documentation confirms officers were 
hired with the direct anticipation of receiving a COPS grant and would not have been hired in the 
absence of COPS funding. (e.g., memorandum provided to officer confirming that position is contingent 
upon receipt of grant funds; evidence in local budget or meeting minutes that position is otherwise 
unfunded if COPS grant is not awarded).

-COPS-funded officers are to be hired after the award date of the grant. The only exception, which 
must be approved in writing by the COPS Office, is for officers hired in direct anticipation of the 
grant whose positions were not otherwise funded with State, local, or Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 
funds. 
If officers were hired before the award date of the grant, and grant money is used to pay for the costs 
of salaries and benefits after the award, the grantee must demonstrate that the officers were hired in 
anticipation of the grant award. 


Supplanting, continued 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments

Refer to secttion V, pages 41-49 for a complete explanation of Supplanting.

-MORE Grants: State or local baseline level of funding for civilians and level of civilian positions 
does not decrease during the life of the grant

-Copy of department or local government budget reflects no decrease in State or local funding for 
civilian personnel during each fiscal year of grant implementation.

-The goal of the grants is to increase the "baseline" level of State, local, or BIA funds that would 
have been budgeted for civilian personnel in the absence of COPS funding. 

-Or, if the baseline level of funding for civilians or the level of civilian positions decreased, 
copies of department, local government budgets, or other supporting documentation verify that the 
decrease occurred for reasons unrelated to the grant award.

-If there is a decrease in the State or local baseline funds for civilians or level of civilian 
personnel during the life of the grant, grantees must show that the decrease occurred for reasons 
unrelated to the award of grant funding. If the decrease occurred because the grantee received grant 
funding, a supplanting violation exists. 

-MORE Grants: Grantee followed standard procedures used to recruit and hire part-time and full-time 
locally-funded civilian support vacancies in a timely and active manner during the life of the grant.

-One or more of the following will verify compliance:
 Copy of standard recruiting and hiring procedures compared to grantee's actions in filling vacancies 
during the grant period confirms grantee has not delayed in filling locally-funded positions.

 If there are no formal written procedures, review of historic hiring practices support grantee's 
compliance with filling, or actively trying to fill locally-funded positions in 
accordance with its standard practice.

 Copy of civil service list and the grantee's, or civil service officer's, confirmation that 
historical hiring practices are being followed.

 Documented high turnover rate for department supports grantee's delay in filling vacant 
positions.

 Rate that COPS-funded vacancies and locally-funded vacancies are filled is approximately the same 
or the grantee provides evidence that a delay in filing local vacancies occurred for reasons unrelated 
to receipt of grant funding. 

-MORE civilian grantees must take active and timely steps through their standard recruiting and 
hiring procedures to fill all locally-funded civilian vacancies that arise during the grant period. 
To determine if the grantee has continued its standard recruiting and hiring practices, various 
factors must be reviewed. Because of the unique recruiting and hiring practices of each agency, 
discretion and flexibility is allowed. 



Supplanting, continued 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to secttion V, pages 41-49 for a complete explanation of Supplanting. 

-MORE Grants: Grantee delayed in following standard procedures used to recruit and hire locally-funded 
part-time and full-time civilian vacancies after the award of grant money because of reasons unrelated 
to the receipt of grant funding.

-Supporting documentation verifies that the delay occurred for reasons unrelated to the receipt of 
COPS grant funding.

-If there has been a delay in filling locally-funded civilian positions, the delay must have occurred 
for reasons unrelated to the grant award. Because of the unique recruiting and hiring procedures of 
each agency, discretion and flexibility is allowed. 
 
-MORE Grants: Grantee promoted a locally-funded part-time civilian to fill a grant funded full-time 
position and used local funds to backfill the part-time vacancy. Grant funds were not expended until 
the vacant position was backfilled.

-All of the following are necessary to verify compliance: 
 Copy of budget documents indicating that the level of funding for part-time positions has at least 
remained the same as before the grant award. 

 Copy of documentation demonstrating that the part-time replacement civilian was hired with local 
funds before grant funds were expended on the promoted full-time civilian. 

-If a grantee chooses to promote a part-time civilian to fill a full-time COPS grant position, then 
grantee must hire a new, additional part-time civilian with local funds to backfill the resulting 
vacancy.  The grantee may not expend COPS MORE grant funds on the new full-time position until it 
has filled the part-time vacancy.

-MORE Grants: Purchase of approved technology and equipment occurred after the award start date.

-Purchase requests, payment receipts, or other documentation for each item purchased verifies 
purchase occurred after date of grant award.

Or, if purchase of approved technology and equipment occurred before the award date, then 
purchase requests, payment receipts, department budget, or other supporting documentation 
confirms that purchases were made with the direct anticipation of receiving a COPS grant.

-COPS-funded technology and equipment items are to be purchased after the award date of the grant. 
The only exception, which must be approved in writing by the COPS Office, is for civilian hired in 
direct anticipation of the grant and whose positions were not otherwise funded with State, local, 
or BIA funds. 

-MORE Grants: Civilians performing support services under the COPS grants were hired after 
the award start date.

-Paperwork associated with the hiring of new civilians for support services verifies the hire 
date to be after the award start date.

Or, if new civilians were hired before the award date, then department budget and other 
supporting documentation confirms that civilians were hired with the direct anticipation of 
receiving a COPS grant. 

-COPS-funded civilian hires are to be hired after the award date of the grant. The only exception, 
which must be approved in writing by the COPS Office, is for equipment/ technology purchased in 
direct anticipation of the grant that was not otherwise funded with State, local, or BIA funds. 


F. Reporting 

GOAL: Program Progress Reports and Financial Status Reports that provide information 
about the status of grants are promptly submitted to the proper Federal agency. 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to section V, pages 49-52 for a complete explanation of Reporting. 

-Hiring Grants: FAST, AHEAD, and UHP Department Initial Reports are submitted to the COPS 
Office within 45 days of receipt. 

Hiring grants awarded after November 2003 - See Comments 

-All of the following are necessary to verify compliance: 
 Department Initial Report completed accurately. 
 Department Initial Report submitted on time. 
 Department Initial Report received by the COPS Office. 

-The Department Initial Report is required only if a Hiring grant is awarded for the first time. 
This report applies to Hiring grants only (with the exception of the CIS program). 
Grantees receiving grants after November 2003 will no longer be required to submit an Initial Report. 

-Hiring Grants: Department Annual Reports are submitted to the COPS Office in 
February of each yea that the grant is active (with the exception of CIS, which may require 
less frequent submission). 

-All of the following are necessary to verify compliance: 
 Department Annual Report completed accurately. 
 Department Annual Report submitted on time. 
 Department Annual Report received by the COPS Office, even if the grant has been in effect 
for only a portion of the reporting period. 

-Department Annual Reports are required until grant end date. 

-MORE Grants: MORE Progress Reports are submitted to the 
COPS Office within 45 days of receipt. 

-All of the following are necessary to verify compliance: 
 MORE Progress Report completed accurately. 
 MORE Progress Report submitted on time. 
 MORE Progress Report received by the COPS Office, even if civilian personnel are not 
hired or equipment is not purchased. 

-Only one progress report is required for MORE grants. 

-Hiring Grants: Officer Progress Reports- See Comments 

-Beginning in December 1999, the Officer Progress Report is no longer required, due 
to incorporation of the questions into the COPS Count Surveys. 

-Hiring and MORE Grants: Financial Status Reports are submitted to the COPS Office online 
within 45 days after the end of the calendar quarter. 

-All of the following are necessary to verify compliance: 
 Financial Status Reports, SF-269A completed accurately. 
 Financial Status Reports, SF-269A, submitted on time. 
 Financial Status Reports, SF-269A, received by the COPS Office. 

-As of October 1, 2004, all COPS grantees are encouraged to submit SF269As online. 

 

G. Training: CIS Grantees 

GOAL: For the CIS program, sworn officers and school administrators receive the required SRO training. 

-Performance Standards
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments

-COPS in Schools (CIS) Grants: Each COPS-funded SRO and the school administrator representing the 
lead-partnering agency must attend one COPS-sponsored SRO training session. 

-The following will verify compliance: 
 Evidence showing that the training was completed before the grant period ended. 

-CIS grantees are encouraged to meet the training requirement in the early stages of the grant period. 
Both the COPS-funded SRO(s) and school administrator are encouraged (but not required) to attend the training together.

Refer to section V, page 52-53 for a complete explanation of Training. 


H. Timesavings for Redeployment 

GOAL: MORE Grant Program awards result in timesavings that are directly related to the 
redeployment of sworn officers who participate in community policing. 

-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments 

Refer to section V, pages 52-56 for a complete explanation of Timesavings for Redeployment. 

-MORE Grants: For the MORE 2001 and previous MORE programs, timesavings resulting from MORE grant award 
implementation is being tracked through a redeployment tracking plan.
As of the MORE 2002 program, formal redeployment tracking is no longer required, but grantees must ensure 
that the timesavings resulting from the grant project is resulting in the initiation or enhancement of 
community policing (see Community Policing performance standards and indicators).

-Documented tracking plans developed by MORE 2001 and earlier grantees show how timesavings will be 
tracked for each item, system or group of like items awarded. One or more of the following may be 
used to verify compliance:
 Work-study plans.
 Studies using sampling techniques.
 Directly tracking hours.
 Acceptable cost accounting methods. 
 Any reasonable time estimation technique.

-No single tracking method can cover all situations and all jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction varies 
in size and each situation varies in complexity. 

Actual tracking, pursuant to the plan, will begin after equipment is fully implemented as contained 
in the plan. Tracking must continue for at least one full year from the date that the technology or 
equipment is implemented and declared fully operational. This time is necessary for the agency to 
achieve the total timesavings benefit identified. For MORE civilian awards, tracking should begin when 
civilian personnel realize maximum timesavings and should continue for at least one full year from that date. 
These plans should include a statement explaining how time is being saved, the method used to track 
timesavings (estimation, direct tracking sample, study,etc.), the hours to complete the activity before 
and after equipment or technology or civilian personnel are implemented, and a short description of enhanced 
community policing activities resulting from the timesavings. 



-Performance Standards 
-Performance Indicators 
-Comments
 
Refer to section V, pages 53-56 for a complete explanation of Timesavings for Redeployment. 

-MORE Grants: Time is saved as a result of equipment,technology, overtime(funded only to MORE'95 grant 
recipients), or civilians awarded under the MORE Program. 

-One or more of the following may verify compliance: 
 For MORE 2001 and previous grantees,redeployment tracking plans maintained by grantees that support 
time saved as a result of MORE grant awards. 

 Redeployment tracking documentation that supports time saved as a result of MORE grant awards. In 
absence of a formal tracking mechanism, MORE 2002 grantees should be able to show enhanced community 
policing activities or a direct result of the timesavings achieved with the completion of the MORE 
2002 grant award. 

-For MORE 2001 and previous grantees,tracking a project's timesavings is required once the 
equipment is fully implemented. 

Once timesavings has been tracked and a determination can be made about the actual total hours saved, 
a redeployment tracking worksheet summarizing results of FTEs saved should be submitted with progress 
reports, effective January 1999. MORE renewals require evidence of continued, but not additional redeployment. 

-MORE Grants: As a result of time saved, grantees demonstrated enhanced community policing activities. 

-Documentation kept by local law enforcement agency showing that time saved as a result of equipment, 
technology, overtime (funded only to MORE '95 grant recipients), or civilians (MORE2000 funded civilian 
support resources only)awarded results in additional community policing activity. 

-Grantees are required to identify the community policing activities that have been initiated or 
enhanced as a result of time saved under the MORE grant. Grantees do not need to show every hour of 
timesavings committed to a specific community policing activity. 


Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment 

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms



Appendix A: Glossary of Terms 

Actual/Projected Level of Redeployment 

Refers to the number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) officers that a 
grantee projects it will deploy as a result of timesavings achieved 
through the purchase of equipment and technology or hiring of 
civilians. (See definition of "Required Level of Redeployment" for 
comparison.) 

Allowable Costs 

The Hiring programs provide for salaries and approved fringe benefits 
for three years for sworn entry-level, lateral-transfer, or rehired 
officers. Only entry-level salary and approved fringe benefit costs are 
allowable under the grant. Overtime, training (other than salary and 
benefits paid during training), weapons, communication equipment, 
uniforms, vehicles and indirect costs are not allowable costs. The 
COPS budget memorandum itemizes what costs are allowable for a 
specific grantee's award. 

The MORE program (civilians) provides for the salaries and approved 
fringe benefits for the duration of the grant period, including through 
the renewal period if applicable, for civilian hires who perform 
support and administrative services, resulting in timesavings for 
officers who are then redeployed to community policing activities. 
The MORE program (equipment and technology) funds approved 
purchases that contribute to timesavings for the officers who are then 
redeployed to community policing activities. Overtime costs for 
sworn officers engaging in community policing activities were also 
allowable under the MORE '95 Program. The Memorandum of 
Recommended and Estimated Funding and the COPS budget 
memorandum specify what costs are allowable under the MORE 
grants. 

Authorized Officials 

The authorized officials are the law enforcement and government 
executives who have ultimate and final responsibility for all 
programmatic and financial decisions regarding the grant as 
representatives of the legal grantee. 

Baseline Level 

The "baseline" is the level of State, local, or Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) funding for sworn personnel (if a Hiring grant) or for civilians 
or equipment and technology (if a MORE grant), as well as number 
of sworn officers, which would exist in the absence of the COPS 
grant funds. To comply with the nonsupplanting requirement, the 
grantee must use COPS grant funding to increase (supplement) the 


baseline at all times during the grant period. Reductions in the State, 
local, or BIA-funded baseline must be justified by the grantee as 
unrelated to the receipt of COPS grant funding. 

Community Policing 

Community policing is a policing philosophy that promotes and 
supports organizational strategies to address the causes, and reduce 
the fear, of crime and social disorder through problem-solving tactics 
and community-police partnership. 

COPS in Schools (CIS) School Resource Officer (SRO). 

The COPS in Schools Grant Program provides an incentive for law 
enforcement agencies to build working relationships with schools to 
use community policing efforts to combat school violence. The CIS 
grant program allows for the hiring of new, additional sworn officers 
at entry-level salaries to serve as School Resource Officers, over and 
above the number of sworn officers that an agency would fund with 
State, local or BIA funds in the absence of the grant (including other 
School Resource Officers). Please note that your agency may choose 
to deploy an equal number of veteran locally-funded officers into the 
schools to fulfill this requirement, while using the COPS grant funds 
to hire new, additional officers to "backfill" the resulting vacancy. 

COPS Office 

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) is the 
"grantor agency" for the grantee's COPS grants. The COPS Office is 
directly responsible for programmatically administering and 
monitoring the grant for the entire grant period. 

FTE 

Full-Time Equivalent Officers. The COPS standard of one FTE is 
228 shifts x eight hours (per shift), or 1,824 hours per year. 

Grant Award Period 

The grant award period runs from the official Award Start Date, 
which may be found on the Award Document, for 36 months if a 
Hiring grant, or for 12 months if a MORE grant. If a grantee obtains 
a no-cost extension to the grant award period so that it may complete 
the required programmatic requirements, the official grant award 
period is extended until the end date of the no-cost extension. 

 

Grant Number 

This number, which is located on the official Award Document, 
uniquely identifies each grant, and is presented in different formats 
depending on the grant program type and population the agency 
serves. The grant number contains 12 alpha-numeric characters 
arranged as shown below. Prior to FY1999, the grant number only 
contained eight characters. 

The first four characters represent the fiscal year the grant was 
awarded (e.g., FY2001). The fifth and sixth characters represent the 
funding code and population (served by the agency) of the program 
represented (e.g., "UM" which signifies a UHP grant for an agency 
serving a population of less than 150,000). The next two characters 
will always be "WX", which represent a COPS Office identifier. The 
last four characters represent the order in which the grant was 
awarded by the COPS Office (e.g., the last four digits of the first grant 
awarded in FY2001 would be "0001," the second grant awarded would 
be "0002," etc.) 

Using the definition above, a UHP grant which was awarded to an 
agency serving a population of less than 150,000 and which was the 
56th grant awarded by the COPS Office in FY2001, would be 
assigned the number "2001UMWX0056." If the grant were a 
cooperative agreement, it would be assigned the number 
"2001UMWXK056." 

Hiring Grant Funding Period 

The Hiring grant funding period begins the day a COPS-funded 
officer position is filled and ends when the specific position has been 
filled and funded for 36 months through COPS funds and the 
grantee's local match. The COPS Office recognizes that grantees 
awarded multiple officer positions may fill these positions at different 
times and that there may be interruptions because of these positions 
becoming vacant. Therefore, it is possible that a grantee will 
experience a separate Hiring grant funding period for each officer 
position (if hired on different dates or vacated for different periods of 
time during the 36-month funding period) and that the 36 months of 
funding may require more than three years to complete. To 
compensate for such delays, the COPS Office offers no-cost grant 
extensions, which are approved on a case-by-case basis. (The COPS 
Office will measure successful retention as retention for one full local 
budget cycle following the conclusion of the Hiring grant funding 
period for each position, which similarly may result in different 
retention periods for different officer positions under the same grant.) 


Lateral Transferred Officer 

A "lateral transfer" is an additional experienced law enforcement 
officer that a COPS grantee newly hires from another law 
enforcement agency to fill a COPS grant position. As with all grant 
officers, lateral transfers must be hired by the COPS grantee after the 
official COPS grant award date or hiring authorization date if earlier 
(see Appendix C). COPS Hiring grant funding is limited to entry-level 
salary and benefits, even if the lateral transfer is paid at a higher level 
based on experience; grantees instead may supplement the officer's 
salary with local funds in addition to the required local match. 

Matching Funds 

Under AHEAD, FAST, UHP and MORE, the grantee is required to 
match, in cash, a portion of the allowable costs of the program, 
project, or activity as funded by the COPS program. Grant awards 
may cover up to 75% of the costs as outlined in the budget 
submission, and the grantee must contribute at least 25% unless a 
waiver is obtained. The CIS Grant Program has no local match 
requirement up to a maximum award amount of $125,000 for entry-
level salary and benefits. Any costs over the maximum award must be 
paid by local or State funding. 

Obligation of Funds 

Obligation means a legal liability to pay determinable sums for 
services or goods incurred during the grant period. Federal funds are 
considered "obligated" when the Director of the COPS Office, or his 
designated official, signs the grant award document. Funds are 
reserved against the grant until the grantee receives payment for all 
allowable expenses incurred and reported, or until the grant expires. 

The Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 
1994 

The COPS Office is charged with fulfilling the mandates of this law. 
The purposes of the law are to: substantially increase the number of 
law enforcement officers interacting with members of the community; 
provide additional and more effective training to law enforcement 
officers to enhance their problem-solving, service and other skills 
needed when interacting with members of the community; encourage 
the development and implementation of innovative programs to 
permit members of the community to assist law enforcement agencies 
in the prevention of crime; and encourage the development of new 
technologies to assist law enforcement agencies in reorienting the 
emphasis of their activities from reacting to crime to preventing 
crime. 



Realized Redeployment 

Refers to the number of redeployed full-time equivalents (FTEs) that 
a department achieves over the course of one year after the awarded 
equipment/technology has been fully implemented or the civilians 
have been hired. 

Redeployment 

Redeployment is defined as when sworn officers, currently employed 
by the grantee's law enforcement agency, become available to 
participate in enhanced community policing as a direct result of the 
timesavings resulting from the purchase and use of technology or 
equipment or the hiring of civilian support personnel. 

Redeployment Tracking 

The process by which COPS MORE 2001 and previous MORE 
grantees measure the time saved as a direct result of the funded 
technology, equipment, and/or civilian support personnel. The 
tracking process must also ensure that sworn officers are redeployed 
into community policing as a result of the realized timesavings. 
(Redeployment tracking does not apply to MORE 2002 and later 
MORE grantees, although they must still agree that the timesavings 
resulting from the grant project will result in the initiation or 
enhancement of community policing through officer redeployment.) 

Redeployment Tracking Plan 

A written document that describes how a COPS MORE 2001, and 
previous MORE grantee, administers redeployment tracking. The 
plan must describe how time is being saved as a result of the COPS-
funded technology, equipment, and/or civilian support personnel, 
disclose the methodology for measuring the timesavings, and describe 
how the timesavings for sworn officers enhances community policing 
activities. (Redeployment tracking plans are not required for MORE 
2002 and later MORE grantees, although they must still ensure that 
officers are redeployed to initiate or enhance community policing as a 
result of the timesavings resulting from the MORE project.) 

Reduction in Baseline Funding in Sworn Personnel 

If the baseline funding as well as baseline numbers decreases during 
the grant period, as a result of a reduction in State, local, or BIA 
funding, the grantee must prove that the reduction is (or was) 
unrelated to the receipt of COPS funding to demonstrate compliance 
with the nonsupplanting requirement. Grantees are prohibited from 
reducing their baseline funding as a direct result of receiving COPS 
grant funds. 


Rehired Officer 

A "rehired officer" is an officer who was (or is about to be) laid off 
for financial reasons unrelated to the COPS grant and is rehired with 
COPS grant funds after the official COPS grant award date. If the 
officer was (or will be) laid off after the grant award start date, the 
COPS grantee should obtain written authorization from the COPS 
Office to use COPS grant funds to rehire a laid off officer. 

Required Level of Redeployment 

In this document the required level of redeployment is used 
generically, referring to the level of redeployment grantees must reach 
to comply with their grant terms and conditions. MORE '96, '98, 
2000, and 2001 grantees are required to meet the "Required Level of 
Redeployment" stated on their grant award document. MORE '95 
grantees are required to meet what was termed the "projected/actual 
level of redeployment" that they projected on their application and 
appears on their grant award document. [MORE 2002 and any later 
grantees are not required to track redeployment.] Please see below for 
more information. It is important to note that grantees generally will 
not be able to reach their required level of redeployment until the 
project has been fully operational for 12 months. For example, after 
six months of full operation, a grantee would likely have achieved only 
half the required number of redeployed FTEs (full time equivalents). 
The COPS Office will measure successful retention as retention for 
one full local budget cycle after the required level of redeployment has 
been met. 

a) MORE '96, '98,'00 and '01: These MORE grant programs used 
the term "Required Level of Redeployment" to refer to the number 
of FTEs that a grantee must redeploy as a result of timesavings 
achieved through the purchase of equipment and technology or the 
hiring of civilians (MORE 2000 funded civilian support resources 
only) in order to meet the conditions of the grant under the MORE 
'96, '98 and 2000 programs. This number is based on the 
calculation of up to 75% of the total project cost of items awarded 
divided by 75% of the cost of an officer up to $25,000. 

Example: The Marysville Police Department would like to be 
awarded funding for 20 laptop computers. The total cost of these 
laptops is $100,000. The department can request up to 75% of 
the cost of the item ($75,000). To calculate the "Required Level 
of Redeployment," the COPS Office divides 75% of the total 
cost of the item by 75% of the cost of an officer's salary for one 
year up to $25,000. Officers at this department make $40,000 per 
year. 75% of 40,000 goes over the $25,000 cap, so COPS uses the 
$25,000 figure. The formula used to calculate the department's 
"Required Level of Redeployment" is as follows: 



75,000/25,000 = 3.0 FTEs. ("Required Level of Redeployment") 
Therefore, the grantee would reach the required level of 
redeployment when the equivalent of 3.0 FTEs has been 
redeployed. 

b) MORE '95: The MORE '95 Grant Program used the term 
"projected/actual level of redeployment" to refer to the number of 
FTEs a grantee projected that they will redeploy as a result of 
timesavings achieved through the purchase of equipment and 
technology or the hiring of civilians. Under the MORE '95 
program, grantees are required to achieve the "Actual Level of 
Redeployment" to meet the conditions of the grant. 

This number is calculated by multiplying the number of hours that 
are projected to be saved by the number of officers who will realize 
timesavings and the number of shifts each of these officers will 
work in a year. This is divided by the COPS standard of 1,824 
hours per year for one FTE. It should be noted that grantees may 
use different variations of this formula to calculate their estimated 
timesavings as long as they use the COPS 1,824 hours standard for 
one FTE. 

Example: The Marysville Police Department estimates that by 
using laptop computers to write their reports in the field, each of 
the officers in the department will be able to save 1 hour per shift. 
There are 30 officers in the department who will realize this 
timesavings. The formula used to calculate the department's 
"Actual Level of Redeployment" is as follows: 

1 hour x 30 officers x 228 shifts (COPS standard) = 6,840 hours 
6,840 / 1,824 (COPS standard) = 3.8 FTEs. ("Actual Level of 
Redeployment") 
Therefore, the grantee would reach the required level of 
redeployment when the equivalent of 3.8 FTEs has been 
redeployed. 

c) MORE 2002 and later MORE programs: MORE 2002 (and any 
later) grantees are not required to track redeployment, although they 
must still ensure that officers are redeployed to initiate or enhance 
community policing as a result of the timesavings resulting from 
the MORE project. 

Supplanting 

For the purpose of a COPS grant, supplanting means replacing State, 
local, or Bureau of Indian Affairs funds, which otherwise would have 
been spent on the specific law enforcement purposes of the COPS 
grant (i.e., hiring sworn officers; hiring civilians; purchasing equipment 


or technology), with Federal COPS funds. A grantee is prohibited 
from supplanting throughout the grant period, which means that a 
grantee may not use COPS funds to pay for any personnel, civilians or 
officers, or any technology and equipment that otherwise would have 
been employed, purchased, or made available with State or local funds 
in the absence of the COPS Program. COPS funds must be used, 
instead, to supplement a grantee's law enforcement budget for these 
purposes. 

Supplemental Grant Award (UHP) 

Prior to January 1, 2001, agencies that received multiple UHP grant 
awards kept the same grant number for each new award. The awards 
were distinguished using a Supplemental numbering system (i.e., UHP 
Supplement 1, Supplement 2). Each Supplement was a new grant for 
additional officer positions with its own start and end date. Grantees 
were required to complete only one set of Program Progress Reports 
and Financial Status Reports for both the original grant award and any 
supplemental awards. As of January 1, 2001, the COPS Office 
discontinued the use of Supplemental Grant Awards and all UHP 
grants awarded on or after that date now receive a unique grant 
number. 

Support Services 

Support services are those services provided by non-sworn personnel, 
including civilians, funded under the COPS MORE Programs. The 
hiring of these personnel must result in the redeployment of sworn 
officers into community policing. 

Sworn Career Law Enforcement Officer 

A sworn career law enforcement officer is an officer, hired on a 
permanent basis, who is authorized by law or by a State or local 
public agency, to engage in, or supervise, the prevention, detection or 
investigation of violations of criminal law. 

Threshold Review Date 

The COPS Office first measures a Hiring grantee's baseline as of a 
threshold review date (standard for each program), plus any State, 
local, or Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funding added for additional 
sworn officer positions after the threshold review date (see page 70) 
during the grant period. A MORE grantee's baseline is measured as 
of a threshold review date, plus any State, local, or BIA funding added 
for additional civilian positions or equipment and technology. The 
baseline therefore may increase during the grant period if additional 
State, local, or BIA funding is budgeted for the object of the grant 
award (see Appendix C for grant threshold review dates). Reductions 
in the baseline after the threshold review date may be indications of 
supplanting (see Chapter V, Section F.) 



Tracking Timesavings/Redeployment 

MORE '95, '96, '98, '00 and '01 

Redeployment tracking plans must include a statement explaining how 
time is being saved, as well as an explanation of the tracking method 
used. Also, plans should include the method used to track timesavings 
(estimation, direct tracking sample, study, etc.), the hours to complete 
the activity before and after the equipment or technology is 
implemented or civilian hired, and a short description of enhanced 
community policing activities resulting from the timesavings. Finally, 
the plan should have an explanation of how the time saved through 
this grant will allow the agency to enhance its community policing 
efforts. 

Once fully operational, and timesavings has been tracked, a 
determination can be made about the actual total hours saved. 
Examples of timesaving calculations are provided at Appendix D. 

To demonstrate compliance in reaching required levels of 
redeployment, grantees must demonstrate satisfactory progress in 
implementing their COPS MORE grants. Delays in grant 
implementation may result in a finding of noncompliance (and 
possibly termination of the grant award) if grantees are unable to 
document satisfactory progress in implementing the grant program 
(e.g., by documenting the time line of a lengthy procurement process). 

MORE 2002 and later MORE programs 

There is no tracking requirement for the MORE 2002 grant and later 
MORE grants, although they must still ensure that officers are 
redeployed to initiate or enhance community policing as a result of 
the timesavings resulting from the MORE project. 


Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment 

Appendix B: Examples of Compliance/Non-Compliance Cases



Appendix B: Examples of 
Compliance/Non-Compliance Cases 

Source of Matching Funds 

EXAMPLE 1. 

When audited, a police department shows that it paid its 25% local 
match to a COPS MORE grant with funds from the department's 
"equipment and technology" line item. 

Possible Source of Matching Funds Violation. If grantees 
include the source of the local match in the current year's 
operating budget, it must be intentionally budgeted in anticipation 
of the grant award or previously budgeted as reserve or 
discretionary monies; it may not have been previously budgeted 
for specific law enforcement purposes and reallocated to pay the 
COPS grant local match. 

Investigation and Analysis. The department provided a 
memorandum and related budget documents from its city budget 
office that showed the city had provided new, additional local 
funds to the department specifically to pay for the local match to 
the COPS grant. Because the MORE grant application requested 
funding for equipment, the city chose to place the required match 
into the "equipment and technology" budget line item. Further, 
other documentation revealed that the city provided the additional 
local funding for the department in anticipation of the grant 
award. 

Final Resolution. The grantee is in compliance with the source 
of matching funds requirement. 

Supplanting 

EXAMPLE 1. 

The department has one open locally-funded full-time position. This 
position remains vacant while the city continues to hire COPS-funded 
officers. 

Possible Supplanting Violation. In assessing the presence of 
supplanting, it is expected that the grantee will continue to hire 
new officers at a level consistent with the recent historical practice 
and take positive steps to fill all vacancies resulting from attrition. 
These steps must be taken in addition to hiring the officers 
funded with the COPS grant. A grant recipient may show, 
however, based on particular local fiscal or other conditions, that 


it is not possible to take all of these steps, or that it would have 
taken the same action that raises a question of supplanting even if 
the COPS grant had not been awarded. 

Investigation and Analysis. The city has been deemed to be in 
a state of financial emergency. Enough debt has been 
accumulated on behalf of the city such that it needs to procure a 
$300,000 loan simply to continue to exist. Further, it is 
understood that the entire city personnel staff has been laid off 
except for the City Manager and the remaining police personnel. 
The city provides documentation demonstrating that all 
departments, including the police department, are under a citywide 
hiring freeze. 

Final Resolution. The grantee has complied with the 
nonsupplanting requirements. The vacancy is a result of a 
citywide hiring freeze that is unrelated to the COPS grant. 

EXAMPLE 2. 

Before receiving a COPS Hiring grant, a city passes a tax increase for 
the specific purpose of adding 10 sworn officer positions to the police 
department. At the time of the grant award, the department has not 
hired any new officers for the additional 10 positions. Upon receiving 
grant funding, the department hires 10 new sworn officers and pays 
for the additional positions with COPS grant funds. The city then 
reduces the taxes the following year to "return" the previously enacted 
tax increase to the citizens. 

Possible Supplanting Violation. The department is required to 
hire all new, additional officer positions for which the city funds 
would be budgeted in the absence of the grant in addition to 
hiring the additional COPS grant positions. The city may not 
reduce the department's budget for sworn personnel as a direct 
result of the receipt of Hiring grant funds. 

Investigation and Analysis. The city committed additional local 
funds to hire 10 new sworn officers for the department before the 
COPS grant award was funded. This commitment of local 
funding increased the city's baseline level of locally-funded sworn 
personnel by the additional 10 positions. The fact that the 
department has not filled these positions at the award date of the 
grant is irrelevant to the nonsupplanting analysis. 


Appendix B 

Final Resolution. The city violated the nonsupplanting 
requirement by using grant funds to replace local funds when 
hiring the 10 officers. The city had specifically instituted a tax 
increase for the purpose of hiring 10 new, additional sworn 
officers, and once the officers were hired, after the award of grant 
funding, the city "returned" the tax increase to the citizens. 

The city ultimately agreed that it supplanted the local funds 
initially raised through increased taxes with COPS grant funds. 
The city agreed to repay the grant funds to the COPS Office to 
remedy the nonsupplanting violation. 

EXAMPLE 3. 

A department receives a MORE grant to purchase 10 mobile data 
terminals (MDTs). The grant award start date is October 1, 2002. 
When audited, the department provides copies of the purchase orders 
for the MDTs, which were signed on June 1, 2002. The department 
did not pay for the terminals until November 1, 2002, and the MDTs 
were not delivered to the department until December 1, 2002. 

Possible Supplanting Violation. All COPS MORE grant funds 
must be expended on civilians hired or equipment purchased 
following the award date of the COPS grant. If personnel are 
recruited or hired before the award date of the grant, or if 
equipment was purchased before the award date, there must be a 
clear and direct causal link between the hiring or purchase and the 
anticipation of grant funding. Further, MORE grantees must 
purchase new, additional equipment and technology that would 
otherwise not be purchase with State or local funds. 

Investigation and Analysis. If the signed purchase order from 
June 1, 2002 represented a commitment to purchase the MDTs 
without regard to the availability to COPS grant funding, the date 
of payment and delivery is irrelevant to supplanting analysis. 

The department was unable to provide any supporting 
documentation to link the signed purchase order of June 1, 2002 
to the anticipation of the MORE grant funding. The purchase 
order itself did not reference the source of funding for the 
MDT's, and it did not contain any clause that purchase was 
contingent upon outside factors regarding the source of funding. 
The department was unable to supply any correspondence 
between department officials and the vendor to indicate that the 
MORE funds had been discussed in any way in relation to the 
signed purchase order. In addition, a May 2002 memorandum 
from the city manager's office to the department authorized the 


department to sign the purchase order with the understanding that 
the city would pay for the terminals "if the federal grant did not 
come through." 

Final Resolution. The grantee did not comply with the 
nonsupplanting requirement because it used grant funds to 
purchase the MDTs pre-award and not in direct anticipation of 
the award. The violation was confirmed with the memorandum 
from the city manager stating that the city would pay for the 
terminals if the COPS Office did not award the department a 
grant. 

The department repaid the COPS MORE grant funds that had 
been expended on the MDTs. 

Financial Reports 

EXAMPLE 1.
Records indicate that the grantee is delinquent in submitting financial
status reports.

Possible Financial Reporting Violation. A Financial Status 
Report (SF-269A) must be completed by grantee and returned on 
a quarterly basis to the COPS Office. The Financial Status 
Reports request information on monies spent, or accrued, 
including amounts for Federal expenditures, local matching 
contributions and the unobligated balance of the award. 

Investigation and Analysis. Although there had not been any 
financial activity on the grantee's behalf for the past two quarters, 
the financial reports still must be completed and submitted to the 
COPS Office. The grantee completed one report covering all 
periods for which it was delinquent (two quarters in this case) and 
faxed it to the appropriate COPS point of contact. 

Final Resolution. The grantee was not in compliance with the 
financial reporting requirement, but remedied the violation by 
submitting the updated report. NOTE, however, that if this 
grantee is audited by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), 
the OIG will require the grantee to complete one Financial Status 
Report for each quarter of the award, rather than the 
comprehensive (two quarters) report that it filed with the COPS 
Office. 



EXAMPLE 2. 

Grantee claims it did not draw down funds in the amount of $13,897 
on 11/13/02 as the Office of the Comptroller's records indicate. 

Possible Financial Reporting Violation. Financial Status 
Report (SF-269A) must be completed by grantee and returned on 
a quarterly basis to the COPS Office. The Financial Status 
Reports request information on monies spent including amounts 
for both the Federal and local match portion of the award. 

Investigation and Analysis. Although the grantee does not 
have any record of the transaction, a previous draw down for the 
same amount was processed six months earlier, and there were 
two draw downs from that account, one of which was posted on 
11/13/02 according the Office of the Comptroller financial 
transactions records and the grantee's banking institution. It 
appears as if the grantee's accounting records are in error and 
should be adjusted. 

Final Resolution. Once the grantee adjusts its accounting 
records and verifies that its quarterly financial report accurately 
reflects grant expenditures, then it will be compliant with the 
financial reporting requirement. 


Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment 

Appendix C: Grant Threshold Review Dates


Appendix C: Grant Threshold Review Dates 

COPS Hiring Grants Program Name-Threshold Supplanting Review Date-Early Hire Review Date
 
Phase I 			October 1, 1994 	October 1, 1994 
AHEAD 				October 1, 1994 	October 1, 1994 
FAST 				October 1, 1994 	February 8, 1995 

Universal Hiring Program (UHP) 
COPS in Schools (CIS) 

5/1/03 - 4/30/04 application 	May 1, 2003 		Award Start Date 
5/1/02 - 4/30/03 application 	May 1, 2002 		Award Start Date 
5/1/01 - 4/30/02 application 	May 1, 2001 		Award Start Date 
5/1/00 - 4/30/01 application 	May 1, 2000 		Award Start Date 
5/1/99 - 4/30/00 application 	May 1, 1999 		Award Start Date 
5/1/98 - 4/30/99 application 	May 1, 1998 		Award Start Date 
5/1/97 - 4/30/98 application 	May 1, 1997 		Award Start Date 
5/1/96 - 4/30/97 application 	May 1, 1996 		Award Start Date 
5/1/95 - 4/30/96 application 	May 1, 1995 		Award Start Date 

COPS Redeployment Grants Program Name- Threshold Supplanting Review Date- Early Hire or Purchase Review Date
 
COPS MORE '95 	Application Submission Date 	Award Start Date 
COPS MORE '96 	Application Submission Date 	Award Start Date 
COPS MORE '98 	Application Submission Date 	Award Start Date 
COPS MORE '00 	Application Submission Date 	Award Start Date 
COPS MORE '01 	Application Submission Date 	Award Start Date 
COPS MORE '02 	Application Submission Date 	Award Start Date 


Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment 

Appendix D: Examples of Redeployment 


Appendix D: Examples of Redeployment Tracking
 
EXAMPLE 1: REDEPLOYMENT BY SHIFT 

The Neely County Sheriff's Department applies for a MORE grant to 
purchase 10 Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs). The department has 20 
full-time officers assigned to patrol; each MDT will be used by more 
than one officer. Currently, each patrol officer runs an average of 20 
tag or license checks per shift. Each check takes about five minutes. If 
the department receives the MORE grant, it estimates that each 
officer will only need three minutes per check, a savings of two 
minutes per check. The cost of the 10 MDTs is $100,000. To 
determine its required level of redeployment, the department would 
use the following formula, which is laid out in the Cost Effectiveness 
Worksheet portion of the grant application: 

Required Redeployment 

Line 1 Entry level salary of SWORN police officer (as of Jan. 1, 1998) 
Line 2 Fringe benefits of SWORN police officer (as of Jan. 1, 1998) 
Line 3 Add lines 1 and 2 
Line 4 Multiply line 3 by .75 
Line 5 Enter figure on line 4 or $25,000, whichever is less 
Line 6 Total cost of item, system, or group of like items (100%) 
Line 7 Federal amount requested. Can be no more than 75% of total item cost (line 6) 
Line 8 Divide line 7 by line 5 
1. $ 28,000 
2. $ 5,000 
3. $ 33,000 
4. $ 24,750 
5. $ 24,750 
6. $100,000 
7. $ 75,000 
8. 3.03 FTEs 

Projected/Actual Redeployment 
The formula used to calculate the projected actual redeployment for 
this grant would be: 
2 min. saved X 20 checks = 40 min. per shift 
40 min./shift X 20 officers x 228 shifts = 182,400 min./yr. 
182,400 min./60min. = 3,040 hrs. per yr. 
3,040 hrs. /1,824 hrs. (COPS standard) = 1.66 FTEs 
1.66 FTE saved per year 

This is less than the required amount in the above calculation, but as 
demonstrated below, the department plans to use the MDTs for other 
uses also. 


The department also states that it will use the laptops for report 
writing while its patrol officers are in their vehicles. Again, the laptops 
will be used by more than one (1) officer. Currently, each of the 20 
officers spends two hours per shift writing reports. With the laptops, 
they believe they can save 1 hour per shift. The reports will have 
automated formats and can be sent for approval, via modem, versus 
driving back to the station. 

The formula used to calculate the projected actual redeployment is: 

1 hr. per shift X 20 officers X 228 shifts = 4,560 hrs. per yr. 
4,560 hrs./1,824 hrs. (COPS standard) = 2.5 FTEs 

So by saving 1.66 FTEs with the tag checks and 2.5 FTEs with the 
reports, the department projects a total redeployment of 4.1 FTEs, 
which is above the minimum required and the department receives the 
grant. 

Redeployment Tracking Plan 

The next task for the Neely County Sheriff's Department is to develop 
a redeployment tracking plan for its MORE grant. The agency begins 
its redeployment tracking plan with a short summary of the project 
and how it will save time for officers within the agency: 

"The Neely County Sheriff's Department has been 
awarded a COPS MORE grant for 10 mobile data 
computers. These mobile data computers will be used as 
part of a pilot project to assess the effectiveness of 
automated field reporting in this agency. We believe that 
this new technology will allow patrol officers to perform 
quicker records checks and that it will make our reporting 
process more efficient. Through the assistance of the 
grant-funded technology, officers will be able to conduct 
their own records checks without going through dispatch. 
The field reporting system will reduce the need to enter 
duplicate information for accident and incident reports and 
will save officer travel time by allowing patrol officers to 
electronically transmit their reports to their supervisor." 



The next part of the plan explains the method that the Neely County 
Sheriff's Department will use to track the timesavings from its grant-
funded technology: 

"The Neely County Sheriff's Department will track the 
timesavings from the grant-funded mobile data computers 
by comparing the survey results of the officers using the 
new equipment to the survey results (baseline) of the 
patrol officers writing reports prior to the implementation 
of the grant technology. For one week during each quarter, 
the 20 officers using the mobile data computers will track 
the number of records checks and reports that they write 
per day and how long these activities take them. Prior to 
the grant award, the Sheriff's Department completed log 
sheets, which demonstrated the time necessary to complete 
various checks and reports. The responses will be 
compared to determine the amount of timesavings 
produced by the new technology." 

The final part of the redeployment tracking plan includes an 
explanation of how the time saved through this grant allowed this 
agency to enhance its community policing efforts: 

"The officers using the computers will devote 
approximately one hour of their timesavings per day to 
problem-solving projects. During this time, the officers will 
contact community residents to identify community 
concerns and will work with community and city agencies 
to proactively address the causes of these concerns. The 
officers will respond to a minimal number of calls for 
service during this time." 


Implementing the Redeployment Tracking Plan 

The Neely County Sheriff's Department begins to implement its 
redeployment tracking plan once the grant-funded technology has 
been purchased and becomes fully operational. For one week during 
each quarter of the one-year redeployment tracking period, the agency 
requires officers to complete daily logs tracking how many reports and 
records checks are performed by officers and how long these activities 
take. These logs are completed by the 20 officers using the mobile 
data computers and compared to the time survey completed prior to 
the implementation of the technology. The results from the logs are 
used to form projections for timesavings over a one-year period. 

Group One: 20 officers prior to technology implementation 

			Week 1 	Week 2 	Week 3 	Week 4 	Overall Averages 

# Shifts 		100 	110 	120 	105 
Total hours report 
writing time 		400 	312 	450 	400 
Average hours writing 
reports per shift 	4.00 	3.12 	3.75 	3.80 	3.67 hrs 
Total hours for records 
checks 			180 	190 	220 	210 
Average hours 
performing records 
checks per shift 	1.8 	1.7 	1.8 	2.0 	1.8 hrs 

Group Two: 20 officers with mobile data computers 

			Week 1 	Week 2 	Week 3 	Week 4 	Overall Averages 

# Shifts 		100 	110 	120 	105 
Total hours report 
writing time 		306 	312 	400 	320 
Average hours writing 
reports per shift 	3.00 	3.12 	3.33 	3.05 	3.13 hrs 
Total hours for records 
checks 			150 	200 	180 	130 
Average hours 
performing records 
checks per shift 	1.5 	1.8 	1.5 	1.2 	1.5 hrs 



Group One: 
3.67 hrs. report writing per shift + 1.8 hrs. 
performing records checks per shifts = 5.47 hrs. 

Group Two: 
3.13 hrs. report writing per shift + 1.5 hrs. 
performing records checks per shifts = 4.63 hrs. 

Time savings 
= 5.47 hrs. for officers without technology 

-4.63 hrs. for officers with technology 
= 0.84 hrs saved per shift 

0.84 hrs. per shift x 20 officers x 228 shifts 
(COPS Office standard) = 3,830 hrs.

3,830 hrs./1,824 hrs. (COPS Office standard) = 2.1 FTEs saved 

In this case, the grantee demonstrated timesavings of 2.1 full-time 
equivalents. While its projected/actual redeployment fell short of the 

3.03 FTE required redeployment for the grant, the grantee could 
document other unanticipated timesavings or other types of benefits 
which may have occurred as a result of the project to evaluate the 
project's effectiveness. 

EXAMPLE 2: REDEPLOYMENT BY WEEK 

The Snoutsville Police Department applies for a MORE grant to 
purchase a CAD/RMS system and 30 laptops. Currently, the 
department uses radio dispatch and all reports are done by hand. The 
department estimates that each of the 40 patrol officers currently 
spends about 15 hours per week writing reports and driving them 
back to the station for approval. If the department receives the 
MORE grant, it estimate that each officer will save approximately 7.5 
hours per week. The cost of the system is $230,000. To determine it 
required level of redeployment, the department would use the 
following formula that was laid out in the Cost Effectiveness 
Worksheet portion of the grant application. 


Required Redeployment 

Line 1 Entry level salary of SWORN police officer (as of Jan. 1, 1998) 1. $ 36,000 

Line 2 Fringe benefits of SWORN police officer (as of Jan. 1, 1998) 2. $ 6,000 

Line 3 Add lines 1 and 2 3. $ 42,000 

Line 4 Multiply line 3 by .75 4. $ 31,500 

Line 5 Enter figure on line 4 or $25,000, whichever is less 5. $ 25,000 

Line 6 Total cost of item, system, or group of like items (100%) 6. $ 230,000 

Line 7 Federal amount requested. 7. $ 172,500 
Can be no more than 75% of total item cost (line 6) 

Line 8 Divide line 7 by line 5 8. 6.9 FTEs 

Projected/Actual Redeployment 

The formula used to calculate the projected actual redeployment for 
this grant would be: 

7.5 hrs. x 40 officers x 52 weeks = 15,600 hrs. per yr. 
15,600 hrs. / 1,824 hrs. (COPS standard) = 8.6 FTEs 

The department exceeds the required redeployment level and is 
awarded the MORE grant. 

Redeployment Tracking Plan 

The Snoutsville Police Department must now come up with a plan to 
track redeployment once its system becomes operational. The agency 
begins its redeployment tracking plan with a short summary of the 
project and how it will save time for officers within the agency. 

"The Snoutsville Police Department was awarded a grant 
to purchase and implement a new CAD/RMS system and 
MDTs to make our communications and report writing 
systems more efficient and effective. Prior to the 
implementation of the grant, the department estimates 
that each officer spends an average of 15 hours per week 
writing reports and driving them back to the station for 
processing. Through the use of our new CAD/RMS 
system and MDTs, we estimated that we could cut this time 
in half." 

The next part of the plan is an explanation of the method that the 
Snoutsville Police Department will use to track the timesavings 
realized through the use of the funded equipment. 

"In order to track the timesavings that officers will realize 
under this grant, we have issued log sheets to each officer 
and asked them to log in the time that is spent entering 



reports into the laptop and sending them to headquarters 
through wireless transfer. On a weekly basis, we will use a 
sample based on the reports of 8 of the officers to 
determine the average amount of time that each officer 
saves as a result of the implementation of the CAD/RMS 
and MDTs." 

Finally, the department describes how the timesavings it realizes will 
enhance its community policing efforts. 

"With the time saved through the use of the grant-funded 
equipment, officers will attend community meetings with 
community and business leaders. The department will also 
begin a program to target high crime areas through 
increased foot/bike patrols." 

Implementing the Tracking Plan 

The department implements the grant, and each officer submits a time 
log at the end of the week showing timesavings that are achieved as a 
result of the grant. The log sheets are then totaled for each officer and 
entered into a spreadsheet tracking the timesavings that each officer 
realizes. Because tracking the timesavings for 40 officers is very time 
consuming, the department uses a sample of 8 officers who work 
varying shifts to determine timesavings across the department. A 
sample of the spreadsheet that they use to track the hours saved 
follows: 

Officer 	Sun 	Mon 	Tues 	Wed 	Thurs 	Fri 	Sat 	Total 
Dame 		1.25 	1.75 			1.5 	1 	2 	7.5 
Chapman 		1.5 	1.5 	2 	1 	1.25 		7.25 
Neely 		1.5 	1.5 	1.25 	1.75 	2 			8.0 
Carey 			1.75 	1.75 	2 	1.5 	1 		8.0 
Lynch 		1 	1.75 			1.5 	2 	1.5 	7.75 
Carr 		2 	1.5 	1.25 	1.25 			1.5 	7.5 
Ng 		.5 			1 	2 	1.25 	1.25 	7.0 
Williams 		2 	1.75 	1.5 	1.5 	1.25 		8.0 
Total 		7.25 	10.0 	7.5 	9.25 	11.5 	8.25 	7.25 	61.0 


The department is able to tabulate on a weekly basis the timesavings 
that accrues over the course of the grant. When the COPS Count 
Operators call at the end of the first three months of fully operational 
status, the department reports that, on average (based on the sample), 
officers are spending 7.6 hours per week writing reports. These are 
timesavings of 7.4 hours per week. The following formula is used to 
determine the department's progress after 12 weeks: 

7.4 hrs. per officer x 12 weeks x 40 officers = 3,552 hrs. saved 
3,552 hrs. /1,824 hrs. = 1.9 FTEs saved over 12 weeks. 

If the department remains on track with these levels of timesavings, 
they will achieve a total timesavings over a period of one year of 7.6 
FTEs. Although this is slightly less timesavings than the originally 
projected, it still exceeds the required level of redeployment for the 
grant. 

After the award, CAD/RMS system has been implemented, the 
department notices that its four (4) criminal investigators are also 
experiencing some unanticipated timesavings as a result of the grant. 
Since the Department now uses a records management system, the 
four detectives each save two hours per week because they no longer 
need to review lengthy handwritten reports that were poorly filed in 
the past. Now, the detectives have all of the available information on 
their computers, which is much faster than the old process. The 
department decides to track these timesavings as well since it will help 
them in exceeding their required redeployment level. Since each 
detective is saving an average of two hours per week, the following 
timesavings can be anticipated over the course of the year (this should 
be tracked incrementally as it accrues): 

2 hrs. per week x 4 officers x 52 weeks = 416 hrs. 
416 hrs. / 1,824 hrs. (COPS Standard) = .2 FTEs 

If the timesavings the department is currently achieving stays on track, 
they can expect to realize redeployment of 7.8 FTEs over the course 
of one year. 

EXAMPLE 3: REDEPLOYMENT BY REPORT 

The Sunshine Police Department applies for a MORE grant to 
purchase 12 laptop computers with supporting hardware and report 
writing software. Currently, all officers hand-write their reports. The 
department has a sworn force strength of 25 officers with four patrol 
officers assigned to each shift. Last year, the department generated a 
total of 28,763 reports. Each officer currently spends about 40 



minutes writing each report and averages five reports per shift. If the 
department receives the MORE grant, it estimates that each officer 
will save approximately 20 minutes per report, cutting the time it takes 
to complete the reports in half. The cost of the laptops with 
supporting hardware/software is $60,000. To determine required level 
of redeployment, the department uses the following formula which is 
laid out in the Cost Effectiveness Worksheet portion of the grant 
application. 

Required Redeployment 
Line 1 Entry level salary of SWORN police officer (as of Jan. 1, 1998) 
Line 2 Fringe benefits of SWORN police officer (as of Jan. 1, 1998) 
Line 3 Add lines 1 and 2 
Line 4 Multiply line 3 by .75 
Line 5 Enter figure on line 4 or $25,000, whichever is less 
Line 6 Total cost of item, system, or group of like items (100%) 
Line 7 Federal amount requested. Can be no more than 75% of total item cost (line 6) 
Line 8 Divide line 7 by line 5 
1. $ 23,000 
2. $ 3,000 
3. $ 26,000 
4. $ 19,500 
5. $ 19,500 
6. $ 60,000 
7. $ 45,000 
8. 2.3 FTEs 

Projected/Actual Redeployment 

Using the number of reports the department generated in the 
previous year, the department uses the following formula to calculate 
the projected actual redeployment for this grant; 
28,763 reports per yr. x 20 min. per report 
575,260 min./ 60 min. 
9,587 hrs. saved / 1,824 hrs. (Cops standard) 
= 575,260 min. 
= 9,587 hrs. saved 
= 5.3 FTEs 

The department exceeds the required redeployment level and is 
awarded the MORE grant. 

Redeployment Tracking 

The Sunshine Police Department must now develop a plan to track 
redeployment once its system becomes operational. The agency begins 
its redeployment tracking plan with a short summary of the project 
and how it will save time for officers within the agency. 
"The Sunshine Police Department was awarded a grant to 
purchase 12 laptops with supporting hardware and report 
writing software to make writing reports more efficient. 
Prior to the implementation of the grant, the department 
estimated that each officer spent about 40 minutes writing 
each report. Through the use of the new laptops and 
report writing software, we estimate that we will cut this 
time in half." 


The department then goes on to explain what method it will use to 
track the timesavings realized through the use of the laptops and 
report writing software. 

"In order to track the timesavings that officers will realize 
under this grant, we have issued log sheets to each officer 
and asked them to log in the time that is spent entering 
reports into the laptop and sending them to headquarters 
through wireless transfer. On a monthly basis we will take 
a sample of the time logs for 12 officers on varying shifts 
to determine the average amount of time officers spend 
writing a report after the awarded equipment becomes 
operational." 

The final part of the redeployment tracking plan includes an 
explanation of how the time saved through this grant will allow the 
department to enhance its community policing efforts. 

"With the time saved through the use of the grant-funded 
equipment, the department will begin a school resource 
officer program in the high school. Additionally, we hope 
to begin conducting a citizen survey on crime and institute 
several neighborhood watch programs." 

Implementing the Redeployment Tracking Plan 

The department implements the grant and each officer submits a time 
log for each shift showing timesavings that is achieved as a result of 
the grant. The log sheets are then totaled for each officer and entered 
into a spreadsheet tracking the timesavings that each officer realizes. 
Because tracking the timesavings for 25 officers can be time 
consuming, the department uses a sample of 12 officers who work 
varying shifts to determine timesavings for the entire department. 
Using the log sheets, the department is able to create the following 
spreadsheet to determine how long it takes officers to do a report on 
average. A sample of the spreadsheet that they use to track the hours 
saved follows: 



Officer 	Reports per Shift 	Time spent writing reports 
Dame 		8 			180 minutes (3 hours) 
Chapman 	5 135 minutes 		(2.25 hours) 
Neely 		3 60 minutes 		(1 hour) 
Carey 		6 150 minutes 		(2.5 hours) 
Lynch 		6 150 minutes 		(2.5 hours) 
Carr 		2 30 minutes 		(.5 hours) 
Ng 		5 120 minutes 		(2 hours) 
Williams 	7 225 minutes 		(3.75 hours) 
Dodge 		6 150 minutes 		(2.5 hours) 
Webb 		8 180 minutes 		(3 hours) 
Phillips 	6 150 minutes 		(2.5 hours) 
Alford 		4 120 minutes 		(2 hours) 
TOTAL 		66 1,650 minutes 	(27.5 hours) 

Three months after the equipment becomes fully operational, the 
department is able to tabulate on a daily basis the timesavings that 
accrues over the course of the grant. Based on the sample, the 
department finds that, on average, each officer spends 25 minutes per 
report. This results in timesavings of 15 minutes per report. 

1,650 min. / 66 reports = 25 min. per report 
40 min. per report (prior to grant) - 25 min. per report (post grant) = 
15 min. in savings per report 

Over the three-month period, the department has generated 7,230 
reports. Therefore, their timesavings, to date, can be calculated as 
follows: 

7,230 reports x 15 min. per report = 108,450 min. 
108,450 min. /60 min. = 1,807 hrs. saved 
1,807 hrs. saved / 1,824 hrs. (COPS standard) = 1 FTE 


If the department continues to see this level of timesavings for the 
remainder of the 12 months, they can expect to realize redeployment 
of 4 FTE. Although this is slightly fewer timesavings than they 
originally estimated, it still exceeds the required level of redeployment 
for the grant. After the laptops have been implemented, the 
department notices that there are additional timesavings that occur as 
a result of the grant, including: 
 electronically transferring reports to supervisor instead of driving 
reports to headquarters, and 
 electronic revisions after review instead of re-writing reports. 

EXAMPLE 4: REDEPLOYMENT BY ARREST 

Two years ago, arrest processing in the Gotham City Police 
Department meant transporting a prisoner to a central location in 
downtown Gotham, manually fingerprinting and capturing arrest data, 
taking the arrestee's photograph, and then transporting the prisoner to 
court for arraignment. The backup of prisoners caused delays and 
officers have, on occasion, spent as much as 10 hours processing an 
arrest! The arrest processing procedures consisted of manually 
fingerprinting and photographing a suspect, entering the suspect's 
information into the department's centralized booking system, and 
then transporting the prisoner to the District Attorney to complete 
the booking process. On average, Gotham police officers spent 8 
hours per arrest completing the procedures required to process an 
arrested suspect. 

The Gotham City Police Department applied for a MORE grant to 
purchase an arrest processing system, including video conferencing, 
Live Scan fingerprinting, photo imaging, warrant checks, and 
automated arrest data processing. 

Line 1 Entry level salary of SWORN police officer 1. $ 30,000 
Line 2 Fringe benefits of SWORN police officer 2. $ 8,500 
Line 3 Add lines 1 and 2 3. $ 38,500 
Line 4 Multiply line 3 by .75 4. $ 28,875 
Line 5 Enter figure on line 4 or $25,000, whichever is less 5. $ 25,000 
Line 6 Total cost of item, system, or group of like items (100%) 6. $ 10,000,000 
Line 7 Federal amount requested. 7. $ 7,500,000 

Can be no more than 75% of total item cost (line 6)
Line 8 Divide line 7 by line 5 8. 300 FTEs



Projected/Actual Redeployment 

The formula used to calculate the projected or actual redeployment 
for this grant would be: 

Timesavings per arrest 

Travel time to central booking 1.5 hours
Report writing and mug shots .5 hours
Pro-rated travel time to fax 
& re-fingerprint rejected prints .5 hours
Travel time for affidavit issuance 1.5 hours

Total timesavings 4.0 hours 

136,800 arrests per year (September 1998-September 1999) 
136,800 x 4 hrs. saved = 547,200 hrs. saved 
547,200 hrs. saved / 1,824 hrs. = 300 FTEs redeployed 

With the help of a COPS MORE grant, the Gotham City Police 
Department has now completely decentralized its arrest processing 
system. The GCPD's arrest processing system is now composed of 
five major automated components, including Live Scan fingerprinting, 
photo imaging, warrant checks, automated arrest data processing, and 
video conferencing. The Live Scan units, photo imaging, video 
conferencing equipment, and the upgraded on-line booking system 
were purchased in 1997 and were completely operational in September 
1998. Operationally, Live Scan has eliminated the need to manually ink 
and record an arrestee's fingerprints. It generates computerized files of 
an individual's prints by guiding the user through the process and 
rejecting poor quality prints as they are generated, eliminating "bad 
prints" and the need for reprinting suspects. The prints are then 
transmitted to the Department of Criminal Justice Services at the 
State Capitol for further analysis, and to central records for storage. 
The photo imaging and warrant system takes, stores, and retrieves 
images for each of the city's five prisoner holding facilities. All 
precincts throughout the city have the ability to display and print the 
photos. Video conferencing is used in each of the precincts, 
eliminating the need to travel to the District Attorney's office to 
complete the arrest affidavit. 

Redeployment Summary 

With the installation of the automated components that comprise the 
department's decentralized booking function, it now takes 
approximately four hours to process an arrest. 


Before the decentralization afforded by the MORE technology, 
officers had to transport arrestees to a centralized booking facility for 
arrest processing. After the implementation of the technology, officers 
no longer spend an inordinate amount of time travelling (sometimes 
in city or rush hour traffic) to and from the precinct to the centralized 
booking facility. Based on calculated averages of a sample of officers 
across all the affected precincts, one and one-half (1) hours per 
arrest are saved through the elimination of travel time to the central 
booking facility. 

Prior to the implementation of the on-line booking system, officers 
were required to complete multiple written reports that often captured 
duplicative information. Additionally, the processing time for mug 
shot photographs added time to the booking process. With the 
implementation of an on-line booking system and digital mug shot 
processing, the time to process an arrest has been reduced by 30 
minutes per arrest by eliminating duplicative paperwork and reducing 
the time spent taking and developing photographs. 

Prior to Live Scan, three fingerprint cards were inked and then faxed 
to the State Capitol. Some precincts did not have a fax machine that 
would provide the level of graphic detail required to transmit the 
prints, also resulting in travel time that is no longer needed. If prints 
sent to the State Capitol were rejected, the arresting officer was 
required to reprint the arrestee and go through this process again. If 
an arrestee had been moved to a different holding facility, time was 
spent tracking the arrestee down. Based on the proportion of prints 
that required travel to an upgraded fax machine (approximately one-
fifth (1/5) of all arrestee prints), and the proportion of prints that 
required reprinting due to rejection at the State capital (approximately 
one-fourth () of all arrestee prints), an average of 30 minutes per 
arrest is saved through this automated booking technology. 

The last step in the booking process involved transporting arrestees to 
the District Attorney's Office for issuing arrest affidavits. The video 
conferencing equipment installed as part of the upgraded arrest 
processing function has virtually eliminated all travel between the 
precinct and DA's office for issuing arrest affidavits as all arrestee 
questioning is now conducted in the local precinct via video 
teleconferencing. The video teleconferencing component of the 
arrest processing system has yielded an average officer timesavings of 

1 hours per arrest. 

With the implementation of Live Scan, along with the other 
components of the system, an offender is printed and photographed 
automatically, data is entered directly into the booking system from the 
precinct (paperless reporting), and the arrest affi-davit is completed via 



video-teleconferencing. Redeployment occurs by eliminating the need 
to perform routine multiple prints, waiting time for receiving 
confirmation from the State Capitol, in reprinting rejected prints, 
taking manual photographs, and most importantly, by reducing travel 
time to and from the precinct to the central booking facility and the 
District Attorney's Office. In sum, the new technology has permitted 
the Gotham City Police Department to save police officer arrest 
processing time citywide. 

Calculation 

Redeployment Requirement = 300 FTEs, based on an awarded 
amount of $7,500,000 ($7,500,000/$25,000 maximum allowable per 

FTE = 300 FTEs) 
Timesavings per arrest 
Travel time to central booking 
Report writing and mug shots 
Pro-rated travel time to fax 
1.5 hours 
.5 hours 
& re-fingerprint rejected prints .5 hours 

Travel time for affidavit issuance 1.5 hours 

Total Timesavings 4.0 hours 

136,800 arrests per year (September 1998-September 1999) 
136,800 x 4 hrs. saved = 547,200 hrs. saved 
547,200 hrs. saved / 1,824 hrs. = 300 FTEs redeployed 
300 FTEs redeployed into community policing since the 
equipment became fully operational in September 1998. 

Unanticipated Timesavings 

Because both mug shots and fingerprints are now stored electronically 
in a centralized citywide database, detectives who formerly used to 
scour through paper files for hours on end can now search the 
fingerprint and mug shot archives during the investigative process. 
Based on a survey of the detectives conducted in the detective bureau, 
detectives are now saving an average of 1 hour per search. 

Timesavings of 1 hour per search 

One hour per either fingerprint or mug shot search x 300,000 searches
per year citywide (September 1998-September 1999) = 300,000 hrs.
saved.
300,000 hrs. saved / 1,824 hrs.

= 164.5 FTEs of unanticipated timesavings for detectives 

TOTAL FTEs Redeployed: 300 + 164.5 = 464.5 


Redeployment Tracking 

The Gotham City Police Department must now come up with a plan 
to track redeployment once its system becomes operational. Using the 
guidelines provided in the Redeployment Tracking Q&A Fact Sheet 
provided by the COPS Office, the department prepares the following 
tracking plan. 

"The Gotham City Police Department was awarded a grant 
to purchase and implement a new arrest processing system 
to significantly reduce the time spent by police officers 
processing arrestees. Prior to the implementation of the 
new system, the department documented the time spent by 
randomly sampling 25 officers (across the department) and 
tracking their time during each phase of the arrest process, 
which includes: the transport time, fingerprint processing 
time, time spent completing several required paper reports, 
and the time spent in the issuance of arrest affidavits by the 
prosecuting attorney (includes transport and holding time). 
This entire process averaged 8 hours across the 25 sampled 
arresting officers. With the installation of the multiple 
component arrest processing system, we estimated that this 
time would be reduced by 50 percent. In order to validate 
these estimates, we waited until all components of the 
arrest processing system were fully operational, which was 
approximately 18 months after receiving the grant award. 
We then ran the same time tests for each of the 
components of the arrest process on another sample of 25 
arresting officers on a quarterly basis for one year after 
becoming fully operational with the arrest processing and 
booking system." 

The quarterly time test employed by the Gotham City P.D. takes into 
consideration the potential improvements in efficiencies to be 
experienced by the members of the department. Simply put, as 
officers become familiarized with the automation and the new arrest 
processing system, the time saved could presumably increase. By 
sampling 25 officers each quarter, and tracking/documenting their 
activities during the arrest process, the Gotham City P.D. is in a good 
position to then come up with a reasonable average for the number of 
hours saved per arrest, which could then be applied to the total 
number of arrests per year. 



The following is the formula used to determine the actual timesavings 
department-wide (formula would need to be applied quarterly, at 
minimum, with each subsequent sample time test period): 

Total hours of time saved per arrest = 
Total of transportation time saved 

+ Booking/mug-shots 
+ Fingerprinting 
+ Issuance of arrest affidavits 

Total time saved x number of arrests for the quarter 
= number of hours saved/COPS standard (1,824 hrs) 
= number of FTEs redeployed 

In this case, assuming they met their projected levels, they would save 
4 hours per arrest x 34,200 arrests in the quarter, resulting in 136,800 
hours saved, or 75 FTEs redeployed, in the quarter. This process 
would need to be repeated until the full year is complete, which would 
then yield the total timesavings/redeployment that would be reported 
to the COPS Office. 

EXAMPLE 5: TASK-ORIENTED CIVILIAN REDEPLOYMENT 

The Wickersville Police Department applies for a MORE grant to hire 
four civilian Police Aides to assist with answering non-emergency calls 
for service. Currently, the department estimates that each officer 
spends about three (3) hours per shift answering non-emergency calls 
for service. The department has a sworn force strength of 34 officers 
with six patrol officers assigned to each shift. If the department 
receives the MORE grant, it estimate that each officer will save 
approximately 1.5 hours per shift as a result of the civilian hires. The 
cost of hiring these 4 civilians is $100,000 including salary and 
benefits. To determine its required level of redeployment, the 
department would use the following formula that was laid out in the 
Cost Effectiveness Worksheet portion of the grant application. 

Line 1 Entry level salary of SWORN police officer (as of Jan. 1, 1998) 1. $ 28,500 
Line 2 Fringe benefits of SWORN police officer (as of Jan. 1, 1998) 2. $ 6,800 
Line 3 Add lines 1 and 2 3. $ 35,300 
Line 4 Multiply line 3 by .75 4. $ 26,475 
Line 5 Enter figure on line 4 or $25,000, whichever is less 5. $ 25,000 
Line 6 Total cost of item, system, or group of like items (100%) 6. $ 100,000 
Line 7 Federal amount requested. 7. $ 75,000 
Can be no more than 75% of total item cost (line 6) 
Line 8 Divide line 7 by line 5 8. 3.0 FTEs 


Projected/Actual Redeployment 

Using the estimated number of hours that these civilians could save 
each officer per shift, the department uses the following formula to 
calculate the projected actual redeployment for this grant: 

1.5 hrs. per officer per shift x 34 officers x 228 shifts = 11,628 hrs. 
saved 
11,628 / 1,824 hrs = 6.4 FTEs 

The department exceeds the required redeployment level and is 
awarded the MORE grant. 

Redeployment Tracking 

The Wickersville Police Department must now come up with a plan to 
track redeployment once the civilian positions have all been hired and 
received the necessary training. Using the guidelines provided in the 
Redeployment Tracking Q&A Fact Sheet provided by the COPS 
Office, the department prepares the following tracking plan. The first 
portion provides a short summary of the project. 

"The Wickersville Police Department was awarded a grant 
to hire 4 civilian Police Aides to assist the department in 
handling non-emergency calls for service. Prior to the 
implementation of the grant, the department estimated 
that each officer spent about three hours per shift 
answering these types of calls for service. By hiring the 
civilian Police Aides, we still estimate that we have cut this 
time in half." 

Next, the department explains the method planned to use to track the 
timesavings resulting from the hiring of the civilian police aides. 

"In order to track the timesavings that officers will realize 
under this grant, we have issued log sheets to each officer 
and asked them to log in the time that they spend each shift 
on non-emergency calls for service. On a monthly basis, we 
will take a sample of the sheets for 10 officers on varying 
shifts to determine the average amount of time per shift 
that they spend answering non-emergency calls for service 
after the civilian police aides are hired and trained." 



Finally, the department details the community policing activities that 
they plan to implement as a result of the time saved as a result of the 
grant. 

"With the time saved through the hiring of these civilians, 
the department will set up a "hot spot" analysis program to 
target high crime areas." 

Implementing the Redeployment Tracking Plan 

The department implements the grant, and each officer submits a time 
log each shift showing timesavings that is achieved as a result of the 
grant. The log sheets are then totaled for each officer and entered into 
a spreadsheet tracking the timesavings that each officer realizes. Once 
the civilians are hired, the department finds that only 24 officers will 
benefit from them because they will not be working the 3rd shift. 
Because tracking the timesavings for 24 officers is very time 
consuming, the department uses a sample of 10 officers who work 
varying shifts to determine timesavings across the department. Using 
the log sheets, the department is able to create the following 
spreadsheet to determine how long it takes officers to do a report on 
average. A sample of the spreadsheet that they use to track the hours 
saved follows: 

Officer 	# of non-emergency calls 	Hours spent on non-emergency calls 
Ng 		3 				2 
Dillion 	1 				1 
Roberts 	2 				1.5 
Lynch 		2 				2.5 
Conyers 	3 				3 
Carroll1 	1 				1 
Beamon 		4 				3 
Hilliard 	3 				2 
Carey 		2 				1.5 
Carr 		3 				2.5 
Total 		24 				20 


Three months after the civilians are hired, the department is able to 
tabulate on a daily basis the timesavings that accrue over the course of 
the grant. The department finds that, on average (based on the 
sample), each officer is spending two hours per shift answering non-
emergency calls for service. This results in an average of one hour of 
timesavings per officer per shift. The department calculates the 
timesavings to date as follows: 

1 hr. x 24 Officers x 57 shifts (1/4 of 228) = 1,368 hrs. saved 
1,368 hrs. / 1,824 hrs. (COPS standard) = .8 FTEs 

If the department continues to see this level of timesavings for the 
remainder of the 12 months, they can expect to realize redeployment 
of 3.2 FTEs. This is less timesavings than what the department had 
originally projected, but it still exceeds the required level of 
redeployment. The department attributes the reduced savings to the 
fact that officers on the late shift do not have the benefit of the 
civilians who only work the first two shifts of the day. 



Appendix E: Reference Material 

U.S. Department of Justice Grant Policies 

Financial Guide: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, Office of the Comptroller; Current Edition. 

Universal Hiring Program Grant Owner's Manual: U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

COPS in Schools Grant Owner's Manual: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

COPS MORE '95 Grant Owner's Manual: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

COPS MORE '96 Grant Owner's Manual: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

COPS MORE '98 Grant Owner's Manual: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

COPS MORE 2000 Grant Owner's Manual: U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

COPS MORE 2001 Grant Owner's Manual: U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

COPS MORE 2002 Grant Owner's Manual: U.S. Department of 
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Statutes 

Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994 
42 U.S.C.  3796dd et seq. 

Administrative Requirements: 

OMB Circular A-102, "Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State 
and Local Governments" 


OMB Circular A-110, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for 
Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, 
Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations" 

Cost Principles: 

OMB Circular A-21, "Cost Principles for Educational Institutions" 

OMB Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian
Tribal Governments"

OMB Circular A-122, "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations"

Audit Requirements: 

OMB Circular A-133, "Audits of States, Local Governments and 
Non-profit Organizations" 

Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (Title 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3) 

Code of Federal Regulations: 

4 CFR Parts 101-105, Department of Justice/General Accounting 
Office, "Joint Federal Claims Collections Standards" 

5 CFR Part 1320, "Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public"

5 CFR Part 151, "Political Activity of State or Local Officers or
Employees"

28 CFR Part 23, "Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies"

28 CFR Part 30, "Intergovernmental Review of Department of Justice
Programs and Activities"

28 CFR Part 42, "Nondiscrimination; Equal Employment

Opportunity; Policies and Procedures"
28 CFR Part 66, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments"



28 CFR Part 70 , "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants 
and Cooperative Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, 
Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations" 

28 CFR Part 67, "Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free 
Workplace (Grants)" 

28 CFR Part 69, " New Restrictions on Lobbying"

31 CFR Part 205, "Rules and Procedures for Efficient Federal and
State Funds Transfers"

Executive Order 12549, " Debarment and Suspension"

Executive Order 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs"

Executive Order 12291 "Federal Regulation"


Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment 

Index


INDEX 

A 

Acceptable Sources of Matching Funds, 41 

Actual/Projected Level of Redeployment, 81 

Accepted Salary, 64, 65, 66 

AHEAD (Accelerated, Hiring, Education, and Development) 1, 9, 10, 33, 39, 44, 71, 74, 84, 
101 

Allowable Costs, 1, 16, 21, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 64, 65, 66, 81, 84 

Approved Allowable Costs, 33, 37 

Approved Benefits, 33, 34, 39, 65, 66 

Approved Salary, (See Accepted Salary) 

Approved Technology and Equipment, 44 

Auditing Requirements, 13 

Authorized Officials, 81 

B 

Baseline, 32, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 70, 72, 81, 82, 85, 88, 94, 107 

BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) funds,23, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 71, 72, 73, 81, 82, 85, 88 

Budget Documentation, 44 

C 

Career Law Enforcement Officer, 23, 88 

Cash Match, 40, 41, 68 

Changes, 18, 22, 23, 59, 61 

CIS (COPS in Schools) grantee,1, 9, 10, 21, 23, 24, 26, 33, 38, 39, 40, 46, 49, 50, 52, 61, 64, 
65, 67, 70, 74, 75, 82, 101 

Civilian Hires, Civilian Hiring, 33, 34, 39, 49, 66, 81, 121 

Civilian Positions, 28, 29, 33, 39, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 72, 73, 88, 122 

Close Out, 52 

Community Partnerships, 25, 27, 61 

Community Policing, 1, 5, 9, 10, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 34, 36, 38, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 
59, 61, 76, 77, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 107, 111, 114, 119, 123, 125 

Complaint Reviews, 13, 15 

Conditions, 1, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 29, 32, 33, 39, 41, 42, 45, 50, 54, 59, 62, 63, 64, 86, 87, 93 

COPS Audit Division, 17 

COPS in Schools (CIS), 1, 9, 10, 23, 52, 61, 75, 82, 101, 125 

CIS Grantees, 1, 39, 52, 75 

COPS in Schools Officers, (See School Resource Officer) 

COPS On-Site Program Reviews, 14 

D 

Delays in Filling Vacant Locally-Funded Sworn Officer Positions or Civilian Positions, 43, 45 

Department Annual Report, 49, 50, 74 

Department Initial Report, 49, 50, 74 

Draw Downs, 97 

E 

Early Hire, 45, 101 

Early Purchase, 45 

Enhance Community Policing, 22, 24, 38, 53, 56, 85, 87, 89 

Entry-Level Officer, 10, 67 

Equipment, 14, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 
62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 73, 74, 76, 77, 81, 85, 87, 88, 89, 93, 95, 107, 110, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118 

Exception to Pre-Award Hiring Prohibition, 45 

Exemption from the Retention Requirement, 30 

Extensions, 59, 65, 68, 82, 83 

F 

FAST, 1, 9, 10, 32, 33, 39, 44, 48, 71, 74, 84, 101 

Final Reports, 52 

Financial Reviews, 15, 16 

Financial Status Reports(FSR or 269A), 15, 16, 49, 50, 51, 52, 74, 88, 96, 97 

(FTE) Full-Time Equivalency, Full-Time Equivalent, 53, 54, 55, 56, 77, 81, 82, 84, 85, 
86, 87, 105, 106, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 119, 121, 122, 124 


Full-Time Positions, 64 

Full-Time Sworn Officers, 33 

G 

Grant Award Period, 53, 87 

Grant Number, 83, 88 

H 

Hiring Grant Funding Period, 29, 30, 63, 83 

Hiring Grants, 1, 9, 22, 23, 24, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 42, 44, 47, 48, 
49, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 94, 101 

Hiring Sworn Officers or Civilians, 43, 44 

I 

Independent Audits, 16 

L 

Lateral Transferred Officer, 84 

Legal Reviews and Guidance, 13, 15 

Local Funding, Local Funds, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 
48, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 71, 73, 84, 93, 94, 95 

Local Match Guidelines, 39 

Locally-Funded, 23, 28, 34, 35, 36, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 59, 70, 71, 72, 
73, 82, 93, 94 

M 

Matching Funds, 1, 21, 38, 40, 41, 67, 68, 69, 84, 93 

Mitigating Circumstances, 30, 31, 63 

Modification (See Changes) 

Monitoring,1, 13, 14, 15, 29, 35, 55, 82 

MORE '95, 10, 33, 34, 36, 38, 42, 54, 55, 62, 65, 77, 81, 86, 87, 89, 101, 125, 

MORE '96, 36, 54, 38, 62, 86, 89, 101, 125 

MORE '98, 28, 36, 38, 54, 62, 86, 89, 101, 125 

MORE '00, 37, 38, 54, 62, 77, 86, 89, 101, 125 

MORE '01, 37, 54, 55, 77, 85, 86, 89, 101, 125 

MORE '02, 37, 53, 54, 55, 76, 77, 85, 86, 87, 89, 101, 125 

MORE (Making Officer Redeployment Effective) Grants, 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 
28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 
53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 81, 82, 84, 
85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 93, 95, 96, 101, 105, 106, 109, 110, 112, 113, 116, 117, 118, 
121, 122, 125 

N 

Nonsupplanting, 32, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 81, 85, 94, 95, 96 

O 

OBGR (Office-Based Grant Reviews), 14 

Obligation of Funds, 84 

OIG (Office of the Inspector General) Audits, 13, 16 

One Full Local Budget Cycle, 28, 29, 30, 31, 62, 63, 83, 86 

On-Site Financial Reviews, 15 

Overtime, 10, 24, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 53, 54, 55, 62, 65, 77, 81 

P 

Partnerships, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 61 

Part-Time Positions, 48, 71, 73 

Part-Time to Full-Time Promotions, 45 

PHASE I, 1, 9, 29, 33, 50, 62, 63, 101 

(PHS) Police Hiring Supplement, 1, 9 

Pre-award, 22, 42, 43, 44, 45, 59, 96 

Problem Solving, 21, 24, 25, 27, 61, 82, 84, 107 

Program Progress Report, 13, 15, 49, 74, 88 

Program Progress Report Reviews, 13, 15 

Project Costs, 38, 39, 40, 68 

Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994, 84, 125 



R 

Realized Redeployment, 85 

Redeployment, 1, 9, 10, 14, 16, 21, 24, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 51, 53, 54, 55, 
56, 59, 62, 63, 76, 77, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 101, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 
112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124 

Redeployment Tracking, 55, 76, 77, 85, 89, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 120, 123 

Redeployment Tracking Plan, 85, 89, 106, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 123 

Reduction in Baseline Funding in Sworn Personnel, 85 

Reduction-in-Force, 32 

Rehired Officer, 33, 35, 81, 86 

Renewal, 33, 34, 35, 53, 54, 65, 67, 77, 81 

Reporting, 1, 16, 21, 49, 50, 52, 74, 96, 97, 106, 118 

Required Level of Redeployment, 29, 30, 62, 63, 81, 86, 87, 105, 109, 112, 113, 116, 
121, 124, 

Retention, 1, 16, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 47, 50, 62, 63, 83, 86 

Retention Plan, 29, 30, 31, 62 

Retention Planning, 28, 29, 31, 62 

S 

School Resource Officer, 10, 23, 25, 38, 52, 70, 82, 114, 

State Funds, 41, 127 

Supplanting, 1, 15, 16, 21, 32, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 70, 71, 72, 73, 87, 
88, 93, 94, 95, 101 

Supplement, 1, 9, 14, 15, 40, 41, 68, 70, 81, 84, 88 

Support Services, 24, 39, 48, 53, 65, 66, 67, 73, 88 

Suspension, 13, 17, 127 

Sworn, 23, 27, 33, 34, 35, 42, 43, 47, 49, 70, 81, 85, 88, 94, 105, 110, 112, 113, 
116, 121 

Sworn Officer, 10, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 
53, 54, 55, 56, 70, 75, 76, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 94, 95 

T 

Technology, 5, 21, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 53, 54, 55, 
56, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 73, 76, 77, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 
93, 95, 106, 107, 108, 109, 118, 119 

Termination of Grant Funding, 17 

Threshold Review Date, 47, 88, 101 

Timesavings for Redeployment, 1, 21, 53, 54, 55, 76, 77 

Tracking Plan, 55, 56, 76, 77, 85, 89, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 113, 114, 120, 122, 123 

Tracking Timesavings, 54 

Tracking Timesavings/Redeployment, 89 

U 

UHP (Universal Hiring Program),1, 9, 10, 24, 31, 32, 33, 39, 48, 50, 74, 83, 84, 88, 101 

Unallowable Costs, 35, 37 

V 

Veteran Officer, 10, 22, 23, 34, 36, 61 

W 

Waiver, 38, 39, 41, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 84 

Written Approval, 33, 35, 44, 45 


FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 
COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov 

e08042459 Created Date: September 16, 2004 

DOJ Seal