United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

the Budget, and the Chairman,

Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on

the Judiciary, House of Representatives

September 1997 COMMUNITY

POLICING

Issues Related to the

Design, Operation, and

Management of the

Grant Program

GAO/GGD-97-167

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-272329 

September 3, 1997

The Honorable John R. Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

The Honorable Bill McCollum

Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

The enactment of the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing

Act of 1994,1

 Title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act, established what officials described as the largest grant program ever

administered by the Department of Justice (Justice). The Community

Policing Act authorizes $8.8 billion to be used from fiscal years 1995 to

2000 to enhance public safety. It has goals of adding 100,000 officer

positions, funded by grants, to the streets of communities nationwide and

of promoting community policing.

Under the Community Policing Act, the Attorney General had discretion to

decide which Justice component would administer community policing

grants. Justice officials believed that a new, efficient customer-oriented

organization was needed to process the record number of grants. The

result was the creation of the new Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services (COPS). At the end of fiscal year 1997, the community policing

grant program will be at the midpoint of its 6-year authorization period.

In view of the large size and scope of the COPS grant program, you asked us

in a November 15, 1996, letter to review several issues related to the

program’s design, operation, and management. You asked us to review the

implementation of the Community Policing Act with special attention to

statutory requirements for implementing the COPS grants. You also asked

us to (1) assess how the COPS Office monitored the use of grants it

awarded; (2) describe the distribution of COPS grants nationwide by

population size of jurisdiction served, by type of grant, and by state;

(3) describe how law enforcement agencies used grants under the COPS

Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE)2 program; (4) describe the

1

Public Law 103-322.

2

The COPS MORE grant program is one of the specific grants authorized by the Community Policing

Act. It is designed to expand the time available for community policing by current law enforcement

officers, rather than fund the hiring of additional officers. Grantees can use the funds to purchase

equipment and technology, hire civilian personnel as support staff, and pay law enforcement officers

overtime.

Page 1 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

process the COPS Office used to calculate the number of officers on the

street; and (5) describe funding distributions and uses of COPS hiring grants

by special law enforcement agencies.3

You also requested that we describe how community policing was

implemented in several communities that received COPS grants. The results

of this work are described in appendix II.

We did our review at the COPS Office in Washington, D.C., and we visited

six law enforcement jurisdictions that received grants—Los Angeles, Los

Angeles County, and Oxnard, CA; Prince George’s County, MD; St.

Petersburg, FL; and Window Rock, AZ (Navajo Nation). We interviewed

COPS officials, local law enforcement agency officials, and representatives

of local government and community groups. We also reviewed

documentation and analyzed data files on grants awarded in fiscal years

1995 and 1996, and we surveyed a nationally representative sample of

agencies that had been awarded MORE grants as of September 30, 1996. Our

work was done between July 1996 and July 1997 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. A detailed description

of our objectives, scope, and methodology is contained in appendix I.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Attorney

General or her designee on July 24, 1997. Justice provided both written

and oral comments that are incorporated where appropriate. The written

comments are reproduced in appendix III.

Results in Brief Under the Community Policing Act, grants are generally available to any

law enforcement agency that can demonstrate a public safety need;

demonstrate an inability to address the need without a grant; and, in most

instances, contribute a 25-percent match of the federal share of the grant.

The act requires that 50 percent of the grant funds allocated go to law

enforcement agencies serving populations of 150,000 or less, and that

50 percent of the grant funds go to law enforcement agencies serving

populations exceeding 150,000. The act does not require the COPS Office to

target grants to those law enforcement agencies that need the most

assistance. In previous reports on grant design,4

 we have suggested that

3

These law enforcement agencies serve specialized populations, such as Native Americans, college

students, and mass transit passengers. The COPS Office also considered new police departments to be

special agencies.

4

Federal Grants: Design Improvements Could Help Federal Resources Go Further (GAO/AIMD-97-7,

Dec. 18, 1996) and Deficit Reduction: Better Targeting Can Reduce Spending and Improve Programs

and Services (GAO/AIMD 96-14, Jan. 16, 1996).

Page 2 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

targeting federal aid on the basis of measurable need and the ability to pay

could help scarce federal resources go further.

To achieve the goal of increasing the number of community policing

officers, the law required that grants be used to supplement, not supplant,

state and local funds. Grantees are also required to have plans for the

assumption of a progressively larger share of the cost, looking toward the

continuation of the increased hiring levels using state or local funds at the

conclusion of the period of federal support.

The COPS Office provided limited monitoring of the grants during the

period we reviewed; however, the office was taking steps to increase its

level of monitoring. Justice also had some efforts under way to review

compliance with the requirement of the Community Policing Act that

grantees not supplant local funding, but rather use the federal funds for

additional law enforcement beyond what would have been available

without a grant. However, as our prior work on grant design has shown, it

is difficult to establish with certainty that supplanting has not occurred

because of the lack of evidence to determine what would have occurred in

the absence of a grant. In April 1997, COPS Office officials said that they

were also discussing ways to encourage grantees to sustain hiring levels

achieved by COPS grants after the grant program expires.

The majority of the 13,396 COPS grants awarded5

 in fiscal years 1995 and

1996 for about $2.6 billion went to law enforcement agencies serving small

populations.6

 Almost 50 percent of the grants were awarded to agencies

serving populations of fewer than 10,000, and 83 percent of the grants

were awarded to agencies serving populations of fewer than 50,000.

Communities with populations of over 1 million were awarded less than

1 percent of the grants, although they were awarded over 23 percent of the

total grant dollars. About 50 percent of the grant funds were awarded to

law enforcement agencies serving populations of 150,000 or less, and

about 50 percent of the grant funds were awarded to law enforcement

agencies serving populations exceeding 150,000, as the Community

Policing Act required.

5

COPS Office officials define this point in the award process as grant “acceptance.” The data reflect

numbers of grants for which applicants had been advised they would receive funding and for which

they had received estimated award amounts. Grantees are then to submit completed budget

worksheets in order to receive notification of actual award amounts.

6

We considered communities with populations of fewer than 50,000 to be small.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

About $286 million, or 11 percent of the total grant dollars awarded in

fiscal years 1995 and 1996, were awarded under the MORE grant program.

According to the results of a survey we did of a representative national

sample of those receiving grants under the COPS MORE grant program in

fiscal years 1995 and 1996, grantees had spent an estimated $90.1 million,

or a little less than one-third of the funds they were awarded. They spent

about 61 percent of these funds to hire civilian personnel, about 31 percent

to purchase technology or equipment, and about 8 percent on overtime

payments for law enforcement officers.

The distributions of MORE program grant expenditures were heavily

influenced by the expenditures of the New York City Police Department,

which spent about one-half of all of the MORE program grant funds

expended nationwide. Excluding a heavy New York City Police

Department expenditure for the hiring of civilian personnel, the highest

expenditures were for purchases of technology and/or equipment, which

represented about 48 percent of the MORE program grant spending by all

other grantees.

To calculate its progress toward achieving the goal of 100,000 new

community policing officers on the street as a result of its grants, the COPS

Office did telephone surveys of grantees. As of June 1997, the COPS Office

estimated that a total of 30,155 law enforcement officer positions funded

by COPS grants were on the street. The COPS Office counted in this estimate

new officers on the street as a result of hiring grants, as well as existing

officers who were redeployed to community policing as a result of time

savings achieved by MORE program grants, and 2,000 positions funded by

another Justice component before the COPS grant program was

established.7

According to the results of our review of COPS Office files, special law

enforcement agencies were awarded 329 community policing hiring grants

in fiscal years 1995 and 1996—less than 3 percent of the total hiring grants

awarded. We reviewed 293 of the 329 special agency grant application files8

 and found that almost 80 percent of these files were from Native

American and college or university law enforcement agencies. Special

agency grantees applied most frequently to use officers hired with the COPS

7

These officer hiring grants were administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance under the Police

Hiring Supplement Program. According to a COPS Office official, the program was implemented in

1994 as a precursor to the COPS grant program.

8

The 36 files that we did not review were in use by COPS Office staff at the time we did our work.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

funds to write strategic plans, work with community groups, and provide

community policing training to officers and citizens.

Background Community policing is a philosophy under which local police departments

develop strategies to address the causes of and reduce the fear of crime

through problemsolving tactics and community-police partnerships.

According to the COPS Office program regulations, there is no one

approach to community policing implementation. However, community

policing programs do stress three principles that make them different from

traditional law enforcement programs: (1) prevention, (2) problemsolving,

and (3) partnerships (see app. II). Community policing emphasizes the

importance of police-citizen cooperation to control crime, maintain order,

and improve the quality of life in communities. The police and community

members are active partners in defining the problems that need to be

addressed, the tactics to be used in addressing them, and the measurement

of the success of the efforts.

The practice of community policing, which emerged in the 1970s, was

developed at the street level by rank-and-file police officers. Justice

supported community policing and predecessor programs for more than

15 years before the current COPS grant program was authorized. Previous

projects noted by Justice officials as forerunners to the funding of

community policing included Weed and Seed, which was a communitybased strategy to “weed out” violent crime, gang activities, and drugs and

to “seed in” neighborhood revitalization.

House and Senate conferees, in their joint statement explaining actions

taken on the Community Policing Act, emphasized their support of grants

for community policing.9

 The conferees noted that the involvement of

community members in public safety projects significantly assisted in

preventing and controlling crime and violence.

As shown in table 1, $5.2 billion was authorized for the COPS grant program

from its inception in fiscal year 1995 to the end of fiscal year 1997;

$4.1 billion of which was appropriated over this period.

9

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 103-694, at 402.(1994).

Page 5 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

Table 1: Authorizations and

Appropriations for COPS Grant

Program, Fiscal Years 1995-97 COPS Grant Program

Dollars in billions

Fiscal year Amount authorized Amount appropriated

1995 $l.3 $1.3

1996 1.9 1.4

1997 2.0 1.4

Total $5.2 $4.1

Source: Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act and COPS Office data.

COPS Grants Not

Targeted to Specific

Law Enforcement

Agencies and

Supplanting Is

Prohibited

The Community Policing Act does not target grants to law enforcement

agencies on the basis of which agency has the greatest need for assistance.

Rather, agencies are required to demonstrate a public safety need and an

inability to address this need without a grant. Grantees are also required to

contribute 25 percent of the costs of the program, project, or activity

funded by the grant, unless the Attorney General waives the matching

requirement. According to Justice officials, the basis for waiver of the

matching requirements is extraordinary local fiscal hardship.

In one of our previous reports,10 we reviewed alternative strategies,

including targeting, for increasing the fiscal impact of federal grants. We

noted that federal grants have been established to achieve a variety of

goals. If the desired goal is to target fiscal relief to areas experiencing

greater fiscal stress, grant allocation formulas could be changed to include

a combination of factors that allocate a larger share of federal aid to those

states with relatively greater program needs and fewer resources.

The Community Policing Act also requires that grants be used to

supplement, not supplant, state and local funds. To prevent supplanting,

grantees must devote resources to law enforcement beyond those

resources that would have been available without a COPS grant. In general,

grantees are expected to use the hiring grants to increase the number of

funded sworn officers above the number on board in October 1994, when

the program began. Grantees are required to have plans to assume a

progressively larger share of the cost over time, looking toward keeping

the increased hiring levels by using state and local funds after the

expiration of the federal grant program at the end of fiscal year 2000.

10GAO/AIMD-97-7.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

Assessing whether supplanting has taken place in the community policing

grant program was outside the scope of our review. However, in our

previously mentioned report on grant design, our synthesis of literature on

the fiscal impact of grants suggested that each additional federal grant

dollar results in about 40 cents of added spending on the aided activity.

This means that the fiscal impact of the remaining 60 cents is to free up

state or local funds that otherwise would have been spent on that activity

for other programs or tax relief.11

COPS Office Grant

Monitoring Was

Limited

Monitoring is an important tool for Justice to use in ensuring that law

enforcement jurisdictions funded by COPS grants comply with federal

program requirements. The Community Policing Act requires that each

COPS Office program, project, or activity contain a monitoring component

developed pursuant to guidelines established by the Attorney General. In

addition, the COPS program regulations specify that each grant is to contain

a monitoring component, including periodic financial and programmatic

reporting and, in appropriate circumstances, on-site reviews. The

regulations state that the guidelines for monitoring are to be issued by the

COPS Office.

COPS Office grant-monitoring activities during the first 2-1/2 years of the

program were limited. Final COPS Office monitoring guidance had not been

issued as of June 1997. Information on activities and accomplishments for

COPS-funded programs was not consistently collected or reviewed. Site

visits and telephone monitoring by grant advisers did not systematically

take place.

COPS Office officials said that monitoring efforts were limited due to a lack

of grant adviser staff and an early program focus on processing

applications to get officers on the street. According to a COPS Office

official, as of July 1997, the COPS Office had about 155 total staff positions,

up from about 130 positions that it had when the office was established.

Seventy of these positions were for grant administration, including

processing grant applications, responding to questions from grantees, and

monitoring grantee performance. The remaining positions were for staff

who worked in various other areas, including training; technical

assistance; administration; and public, intergovernmental, and

congressional liaison.

11The studies we reviewed generally looked at the fiscal impact of grants in the aggregate or for broad

categories of grants. Like the COPS grant, some of the grants studied incorporated nonsupplant

requirements. Others did not incorporate such requirements.

Page 7 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

In January 1997, the COPS Office began taking steps to increase the level of

its monitoring. It developed monitoring guidelines, revised reporting

forms, piloted on-site monitoring visits, and initiated telephone monitoring

of grantees’ activities.

As of July 1997, a COPS Office official said that the office had funding

authorization to increase its staff to 186 positions, and it was in the

process of hiring up to this level. In commenting on our draft report, COPS

officials also noted that they were recruiting for more than 30 staff

positions in a new monitoring component to be exclusively devoted to

overseeing grant compliance activities.

COPS Office officials also said that some efforts were under way to review

compliance with requirements of the Community Policing Act that grants

be used to supplement, not supplant, local funding. In previous work,12 we

reported that enforcing such provisions of grant programs was difficult for

federal agencies due to problems in ascertaining state and local spending

intentions. According to the COPS Office Assistant Director of Grant

Administration, the COPS Office’s approach to achieving compliance with

the nonsupplantation provision was to receive accounts of potential

violations from grantees or other sources and then to work with grantees

to bring them into compliance, not to abruptly terminate grants or

otherwise penalize grantees. COPS Office grant advisers attempted to work

with grantees to develop mutually acceptable plans for corrective actions.

Although the COPS Office did not do proactive investigations of potential

supplanting, its three-person legal staff reviewed cases referred to it by

grant advisers, grantees, and other sources. COPS Office officials said that

they also expected that referrals to Justice’s Legal Division will result from

planned monitoring activities. Of the 506 inquiries that required follow-up

by the Legal Division as of December 1996, about 70 percent involved

potential supplanting.

In addition, Justice’s Inspector General began a review in fiscal year 1997

that was to assess, among other things, how COPS grant funds were used,

including whether supplanting occurred. In the course of this review, the

Inspector General planned to complete 50 audits of grantees by the end of

fiscal year 1997. The Office of Justice Programs also conducted financial

monitoring of COPS grants, which officials said is to include review of

financial documents and visits to 160 sites by the end of fiscal year 1997.

12Proposed Changes in Federal Matching and Maintenance of Effort Requirements for State and Local

Governments (GAO/GGD-81-7, Dec. 23, 1980).

Page 8 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

In April 1997, COPS Office officials said that they were discussing ways to

encourage grantees to sustain hiring levels achieved under the grants, in

light of the language of the Community Policing Act regarding the

continuation of these increased hiring levels after the conclusion of

federal support. The COPS Office officials also noted in commenting on our

draft report that they had sent fact sheets to all grantees explaining the

legal requirements for maintaining hiring levels. However, the COPS Office

Director also noted that the statute needed to be further defined and that

communities could not be expected to maintain hiring levels indefinitely.

A reasonable period for retaining the officers funded by the COPS grants

had not been determined.

Small Communities

Were Awarded Most

COPS Office Grants,

but Large Cities

Received the Largest

Awards

Law enforcement agencies in small communities were awarded most of

the COPS grants. As shown in figure 1, 6,588 grants—49 percent of the total

13,396 grants awarded—were awarded to law enforcement agencies

serving communities with populations of fewer than 10,000. Eighty-three

percent—11,173 grants—of the total grants awarded went to agencies

serving populations of fewer than 50,000.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

Figure 1: Number of COPS Grants

Awarded by Jurisdictional Population,

Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Number of grants awarded

1-<10 10-<50 50-<150 150-<500 500-<1,000 Over 1,000

Population in thousands

Note 1: Thirty-nine of 13,396 grantees for which we lacked population data are excluded.

Note 2: Number of grants awarded are shown in thousands.

Source: GAO analysis of COPS Office data, as of September 30, 1996.

Large cities—with populations of over 1 million—were awarded only

about 1 percent of the grants, but these grants made up over 23

percent—about $612 million—of the total grant dollars awarded. About 50

percent of the grant funds were awarded to law enforcement agencies

serving populations of 150,000 or less, and about 50 percent of the grant

funds were awarded to law enforcement agencies serving populations

exceeding 150,000, as the Community Policing Act required. As shown in

figure 2, agencies serving populations of fewer than 50,000 also received

about 38 percent of the total grant dollars—over $1 billion.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

Figure 2: Amount of COPS Grant

Dollars Awarded by Jurisdictional

Population, Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Grant dollars awarded (in millions)

1-<10 10-<50 50-<150 150-<500 500-<1,000 Over 1,000

Population in thousands

Note: Thirty-nine of 13,396 grantees for which we lacked population data are excluded.

Source: GAO analysis of COPS Office data, as of September 30, 1996.

In commenting on our draft report, the COPS Office noted that these

distributions were not surprising given that the vast majority of police

departments nationwide are also relatively small. The COPS Office also

noted that the Community Policing Act requires that the level of assistance

given to large and small agencies be equal.

As of the end of fiscal year 1996, after 2 years of operation, the COPS Office

had issued award letters to 8,803 communities for 13,396 grants totaling

about $2.6 billion. Eighty-six percent of these grant dollars were to be used

to hire additional law enforcement officers. MORE program grant funds

were to be used to buy new technology and equipment, hire support

personnel, and/or pay law enforcement officers overtime. Other grant

Page 11 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

funds were to be used to train officers in community policing and to

develop innovative prevention programs, including domestic violence

prevention, youth firearms reduction, and antigang initiatives. The

Community Policing Act specifies that no more than 20 percent of the

funds available for COPS grants in fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and no more

than 10 percent of available funds in fiscal years 1997 through 2000 were

to be used for MORE program grants. Table 2 shows the number and

amount of the COPS grants (awarded in fiscal years 1995 and 1996) by the

type of grant.

Table 2: Number and Amount of COPS

Grants Awarded by Grant Type, Fiscal

Years 1995 and 1996 COPS Grant Program

Dollars in billions

Grant type Number of grants awarded Amount awarded

Hiring 11,434 $2.26

MORE program 1,565 .29

Othera 397 .08

Total 13,396 $2.63

aOther grants include domestic violence, youth firearms reduction, and antigang initiatives.

Source: GAO analysis of COPS Office data, as of September 30, 1996.

Figure 3 shows the distribution of community policing grant dollars

awarded by each state and Washington, D.C.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

Figure 3: Total Amount of Community Policing Grants Awarded by State and Washington, D.C., Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996

Grant amount (in millions)

$100 to $363

$50 to $100

$25 to $50 

$2 to $25 

(Figure notes on next page)

Page 13 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

Note: Grant amounts to four U.S. territories are not shown. Puerto Rico was awarded $47 million,

and American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands were each awarded $2.7 million or less.

Source: GAO analysis of COPS Office data, as of September 30, 1996.

We Estimated That 61

Percent of MORE

Program Grant Funds

Were Spent to Hire

Civilian Personnel

Our survey results showed that in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, grantees

were awarded an estimated $286 million (plus or minus 3 percent)13 in

MORE program funds to use for purchases of technology and equipment,

hiring of support personnel, and/or payment of law enforcement officers’

overtime. We estimated that, as of the end of fiscal year 1996, 61 percent of

these funds had been spent to hire civilian personnel.

According to our survey, MORE grantees had spent an estimated

$90.1 million in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, a little less than one-third of the

$286 million in MORE funds they were awarded. Overall, we estimated that

about 61 percent of the MORE program grant funds spent during the first 2

years of the program was to hire civilian personnel. About 31 percent of

the funds went for the purchase of technology and/or equipment, primarily

computers, and about 8 percent was spent on overtime for law

enforcement officers. Figure 4 shows how these funds were spent.

13Because the mail survey results came from a sample of 366 MORE program grant recipients out of a

universe of 1,524 recipients, all results were subject to sampling errors, along with other potential

sources of errors associated with surveys, such as nonresponse and question misinterpretation. For

the $286 million estimate, the 95-percent confidence interval of plus or minus 3 percent indicates that

we are 95-percent confident that the interval from $279 million to $293 million includes the actual

dollar amount grantees had been awarded. Unless otherwise noted, all dollar estimates in this report

for this survey have 95-percent confidence intervals of plus or minus 4 percent or less of the dollar

value of the estimate. All percentage estimates have 95-percent confidence intervals of plus or minus

6 percentage points or less. Number estimates have 95-percent confidence intervals of plus or minus

9 percent of the number.

Page 14 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

Figure 4: Estimated MORE Program

Grant Funds Spent for Technology

And/or Equipment, Civilian Personnel,

and Overtime, Fiscal Years 1995 and

1996

61% • Civilian personnel ($55.8 million)

•31%

Technology and/or equipment

($26.9 million)

•

8%

Overtime ($7.7 million)

Note: Total spending was an estimated $90.1 million.

Source: GAO survey of a nationally representative sample of 366 of 1,524 MORE program grant

recipients.

Time savings achieved through MORE program grant awards were to be

applied to community policing. Allowable technology and equipment

purchases were generally computer hardware or software. Some

technology/equipment items, such as police cars, weapons, radios, radar

guns, uniforms, and office equipment—such as fax machines and

copiers—could not be purchased with the grant funds. Additional support

resources for some positions, such as community service technicians,

dispatchers, and clerks, were allowable. Law enforcement officers’

overtime was to be applied to community policing activities. Overtime was

not funded for the 1996 application year.

Distributions of MORE program grant expenditures were heavily influenced

by the expenditures of one large jurisdiction, the New York City Police

Page 15 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

Department. This police department was awarded about one-third of the

total amount of MORE grant funds awarded and had spent about one-half of

all MORE grant funds expended nationwide. About 86 percent of the money

that the department spent, or $38.7 million, was for the hiring of civilian

personnel. Excluding the New York City Police Department’s

expenditures, the highest percentage of expenditures went for purchases

of technology and/or equipment, which represented about 48 percent of

the MORE program grant spending by all other grantees.

Table 3 shows the percentages of MORE grant funds expended for all survey

respondents, the New York City Police Department, and all other survey

respondents after excluding the New York City Police Department.

Table 3: Percentage of MORE Grant

Funds Expended by Survey

Respondents, Fiscal Years 1995 and

1996 Percentage of MORE program grant expenditures, by survey

respondents

Dollars in millions

Type

All survey

respondents

New York City

Police Department

Survey

respondents,

excluding the New

York City Police

Department

Hire civilian personnel 61% 86% 38%

Purchase technology

and/or equipment

31 12 48

Pay law enforcement

officers overtime

8 2 14

Total 100% 100% 100%

In commenting on our draft report, COPS officials noted that nearly

two-thirds of the MORE program funds awarded nationwide were for

purchases of technology and/or equipment. The officials believed that

significant local procurement delays may explain our finding that most

expenditures through fiscal year 1996 were for civilian personnel hiring.

Survey Respondents

Reported Redeployments

to Community Policing

Resulting From MORE

Program Grants

We asked survey respondents to calculate the number of officer

full-time-equivalent positions that their agency had redeployed to

community policing as a result of MORE program grant funds spent in fiscal

years 1995 and 1996. The respondents were asked to do these calculations

using instructions provided to them in the original MORE program grant

application package. (See p. 18 for a discussion of how these calculations

were to be made.)

Page 16 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

We estimated that nearly 4,800 (plus or minus 9 percent) officer

full-time-equivalent positions had been redeployed. Of these, about 40

percent of the positions were redeployed as a result of technology and/or

equipment purchases, about 48 percent of the positions were attributable

to hiring civilian personnel, and about 12 percent of the positions were a

result of law enforcement officers’ overtime. The total full-time-equivalent

positions were associated with an estimated $82 million, or about

91 percent of the MORE program grant funds spent, because some survey

respondents reported that they were not able to calculate positions

redeployed to community policing. The most common reasons the

respondents cited for not being able to do so were that equipment that had

been purchased had not yet been installed, and/or that it was too early in

the implementation process to make calculations of time savings.

We estimated based on our mail survey responses that about 2,400

full-time civilian personnel were hired with MORE program funds spent in

fiscal years 1995 and 1996. The most frequently reported technology or

equipment purchases were mobile data computers or laptops, personal

computers, other computer hardware, and crime analysis computer

software.

New Officers and

Redeployments to

Community Policing

Count Toward the

Goal of 100,000 New

Officers on the Street

As of June 1997, a total of 30,155 law enforcement officer positions funded

by COPS grants were estimated by the COPS Office to be on the street. COPS

Office estimates of the numbers of new community policing officers on the

street were based on three funding sources: (1) officers on board as a

result of COPS hiring grants; (2) officers redeployed to community policing

as a result of time savings achieved through technology and equipment

purchases, hiring of civilian personnel, and/or law enforcement officers’

overtime funded by the MORE grant program; and (3) officers funded under

the Police Hiring Supplement Program, which was in place before the COPS

grant program.

According to COPS Office officials, the office’s first systematic attempt to

estimate the progress toward the goal of 100,000 new community policing

officers on the street was a telephone survey of grantees done between

September and December, 1996. COPS Office staff contacted 8,360 grantees

to inquire about their progress in hiring officers and getting them on the

street.

According to a COPS Office official, a follow-up survey, which estimated

30,155 law enforcement officer positions to be on the street, was done

Page 17 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

between late March and June, 1997. The official said that this survey was

contracted out because the earlier in-house survey had been extremely

time consuming. The official said that, as of May 1997, the office was in the

process of selecting a contractor to do three additional surveys during

fiscal year 1998.

In addition to collecting data through telephone surveys on the numbers of

new community policing officers hired with hiring grants, the COPS Office

reviewed information provided by grantees on officers redeployed to

community policing as a result of time savings achieved by MORE program

grants. To receive MORE program grants, applicants are required to

calculate the time savings that would result from the grants and apply the

time to community policing activities. To assist applicants in doing these

calculations, the COPS Office provided examples in the grant application

package.

The following is an excerpt from one sample calculation:

“Hessville is a rural department with 20 sworn law enforcement officers. Officers in the

Hessville Police Department spend an average of three hours each per shift typing reports

by hand at the station. Based on information collected from similar agencies that have

moved to an automated field-report-writing system, the department determines that if all of

the patrol cars are equipped with laptop computers, the same tasks will take the officers

only two hours each per shift to complete—a [time savings] of one hour per officer, per

shift.

“On any given day, 10 officers in the Hessville Police Department will use the four laptop

computers being requested (some laptops will be reused by officers on different shifts) to

complete paperwork in their patrol cars. Since each officer is expected to save an hour of

time each day as a result of using the computers, 10 hours of sworn officer time will be

saved by the agency each day, which would equal approximately 1.3 FTEs (full time

equivalents) of redeployment over the course of one year, using a standard of 1,824 hours

(228 days) for an FTE.”

The COPS Office also counted toward the 100,000-officers goal 2,000

positions funded under the Police Hiring Supplement Program, which was

administered by another Justice component before the COPS grants

program was established. An official said that a policy decision had been

made early in the establishment of the COPS Office to include these

positions in the count.

Page 18 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

Special Law

Enforcement

Agencies Were

Awarded Less Than 3

Percent of All Hiring

Grants

Special law enforcement agencies, such as those serving Native American

communities, universities and colleges, and mass transit passengers, were

awarded 329 hiring grants in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. This number was

less than 3 percent of the 11,434 hiring grants awarded during the 2-year

period.

We reviewed application files for 293 of these grants and found that almost

80 percent were awarded to Native American police departments and

university or college law enforcement agencies. Other special agencies

included mass transit, public housing, and school police. The COPS Office

also considered new police departments as special agencies. The awards

to special agencies averaged about $291,000 per grant.

The 293 special agency grantees applied most frequently to use officers

hired with the COPS funds to (1) write strategic plans for community

policing, (2) provide community policing training for citizens and/or law

enforcement officers, (3) meet regularly with community groups, and

(4) develop neighborhood watch programs and antiviolence programs.

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report for comment to the Attorney General

and received comments from the Director of the COPS Office. The

comments are reprinted in appendix III. The COPS Office also provided

some additional information and oral technical comments.

The COPS Office generally agreed with the information we presented and

provided updates on the progress of the office on some of the issues

addressed in the report. These comments are incorporated in the report

where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Members of

your Committee and Subcommittee and other interested parties. We will

also make copies available to others on request.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
B-272329 

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. Please feel

free to call me at (202) 512-3610 if you have questions or need additional

information.

Norman J. Rabkin

Director, Administration of

 Justice Issues

Page 20 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Page 21 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

24

Appendix II 

Community Policing

Projects in Locations

We Visited

Emphasized

Prevention,

Problemsolving, and

Partnerships

26

Community Groups and Local Government Representatives

Generally Supported Community Policing in Their

Neighborhoods

31

Appendix III 

Comments From the

U.S. Department of

Justice

33

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

35

Tables Table 1: Authorizations and Appropriations for COPS Grant

Program, Fiscal Years 1995-97

6

Table 2: Number and Amount of COPS Grants Awarded by Grant

Type, Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996

12

Table 3: Percentage of MORE Grant Funds Expended by Survey

Respondents, Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996

16

Table II.1: Locations We Visited 26

Table II.2: Interviewees Commenting on Community Policing

Implementation in the Six Locations We Visited

27

Page 22 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Contents

Table II.3: Selected Examples of Community Policing Projects in

Locations We Visited

29

Figures Figure 1: Number of COPS Grants Awarded by Jurisdictional

Population, Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996

10

Figure 2: Amount of COPS Grant Dollars Awarded by

Jurisdictional Population, Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996

11

Figure 3: Total Amount of Community Policing Grants Awarded

by State and Washington, D.C., Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996

13

Figure 4: Estimated MORE Program Grant Funds Spent for

Technology and/or Equipment, Civilian Personnel, and Overtime,

Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996

15

Abbreviations

COPS Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

MORE Making Officer Redeployment Effective

Page 23 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To determine grant program design features in the Public Safety

Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994, we reviewed the act and

its legislative history and discussed the results of our review with COPS

Office officials.

To determine how the COPS Office monitored the use of grants it awarded,

we reviewed documentation on monitoring procedures and interviewed

officials about actions taken and planned.

To determine how COPS grants were distributed nationwide, we obtained

COPS Office data files on all grants awarded in fiscal years 1995 and 1996,

and we analyzed the distributions by grant type; by population size

reported to the COPS Office; by recipient jurisdictions according to COPS

data; and by state. The data reflect the number of grants for which

applicants have been advised that they will receive funding and for which

they have received estimated award amounts. They do not reflect dollar

amounts of funds obligated by the COPS Office or actually spent by

agencies that received the grants.

To determine how law enforcement agencies used grants under the MORE

program, we surveyed by mail a stratified, random sample of 415 out of a

total of 1,524 agencies that had been awarded MORE grants as of

September 30, 1996. Using COPS Office application data, we stratified the

grant recipients into four population categories, according to the

population of the jurisdiction served, and six total MORE grant award

amount groups. The population categories were: fewer than 50,000; 50,000

to fewer than 100,000; 100,000 to fewer than 500,000; and 500,000 and over.

The MORE grant award amount categories were: fewer than $10,000;

$10,000 to fewer than $25,000; $25,000 to fewer than $50,000; $50,000 to

fewer than $75,000; $75,000 to fewer than $150,000; and $150,000 or more.

Regardless of population size, we selected all agencies that had accepted

grants of $150,000 or more. We received usable responses from 366, or

88 percent, of our contacts with the sample of 415 agencies. All survey

results were weighted to represent the total population of 1,524 MORE

program grant recipients.

Our questionnaire asked agencies to provide the following information as

of September 30, 1996: (1) the total amount of MORE program grant funds

accepted; (2) the categories under which grant funds were

spent—technology and/or equipment, civilian personnel, or law

enforcement officer overtime; (3) the types of technology and equipment

purchases made or contracted to make; (4) the types of civilian personnel

Page 24 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

hired; and (5) the number of officer positions redeployed to community

policing, according to calculations of time savings achieved through MORE

program grant spending.

We pretested the questionnaire by telephone with officials from

judgmentally selected MORE program grant recipients, and we revised the

questionnaires on the basis of this input. To the extent practical, we

attempted to verify the completeness and accuracy of the survey

responses. We contacted respondents to obtain answers to questions that

were not completed and to resolve apparent inconsistencies between

answers to different questions.

To determine the process the COPS Office used to calculate the number of

officers on the street, we interviewed officials and reviewed

documentation on how calculations were made.

To describe funding distributions and uses of COPS hiring grants in special

law enforcement agencies, we used a data collection instrument to review

the COPS Office’s grant application files of hiring grants accepted by special

law enforcement agencies. We reviewed 293 of the 329 (89 percent) hiring

grants that were awarded to special agencies in fiscal years 1995 and 1996,

according to COPS Office data. The 36 files that we did not review were in

use by COPS Office staff at the time we did our work.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Appendix II 

Community Policing Projects in Locations

We Visited Emphasized Prevention,

Problemsolving, and Partnerships

We looked at how community policing was implemented in six locations

that had received COPS grants. The locations we visited were Los Angeles,

Los Angeles County, and Oxnard, CA; Prince George’s County, MD; St.

Petersburg, FL; and Window Rock, AZ (Navajo Nation).

These locations were judgmentally selected to include four city or county

police departments and two special law enforcement agencies. The

departments we visited were in varying stages of implementing community

policing activities. They served communities with populations ranging

from 155,000 to over 1 million. Table II.1 provides additional information

about the locations we visited.

Table II.1: Locations We Visited

Location Population

Law enforcement

agency Sworn officers

Officers dedicated to

community policing

at time of visit

Los Angeles, CA 3,600,000 Los Angeles Police

Department

8,915 1,093

Los Angeles County, CA 1,500,000 Los Angeles County

Metropolitan Transit

Authority Police

Department

329 12

Oxnard, CA 155,000 Oxnard Police

Department

179 18

Prince George’s County,

MD

758,000 Prince George’s

County Police

Department

1,283 120

St. Petersburg, FL 240,000 St. Petersburg Police

Department

480 52

Window Rock, AZ 

(Navajo Nation)

186,000 Navajo Department of

Law Enforcement

253 0

Note: Numbers of community policing officers are those serving in positions dedicated for

community policing. Officials noted that officers in nondedicated positions also used community

policing practices.

Source: Law enforcement agency officials in the locations we visited.

In each law enforcement jurisdiction, we did structured interviews with

the police chief or community policing coordinator, a panel of community

policing officers, and representatives of local government agencies and

community groups involved in community policing projects. We discussed

community policing projects and asked interviewees to characterize the

level of support by their organization for community policing and to

Page 26 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Appendix II 

Community Policing Projects in Locations

We Visited Emphasized Prevention,

Problemsolving, and Partnerships

discuss what they viewed as major successes and limitations of

community policing for their communities. Table II.2 lists the interviewees

by job title.

Table II.2: Interviewees Commenting

on Community Policing

Implementation in the Six Locations

We Visited

Location Interviewees

Los Angeles, CA •Commander, Los Angeles Police Department

•Panel of community policing officers, Los Angeles Police

Department

•District Director, City Council, 3rd District

•Program Coordinator, Criminal Justice Planning Office

•Chief Inspector, Los Angeles, Department of Building &

Safety

•Executive Director, Barrio Action Group

•Executive Director, Challenger Boys & Girls Club 

•Executive Director, Los Angeles Free Clinic

•Co-Chair, Rampart Community Police Advisory Board

•Co-Chair, 77th Street Community Police Advisory Board

•Co-Chair, West Valley Community Police Advisory Board

•Researcher, California State University, Fullerton,

Department of Criminal Justice

•Researchers, University of Southern California, Social

Science Research Institute

Los Angeles County, CA •Chief, Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) Police

Department

•Panel of community policing officers, MTA Police

Department

•Senior Code Law Enforcement Officer, City of Lawndale

•Probation Officer, County of Los Angeles

•Project Director, Esteele Van Meter Multi-Purpose Center

•Assistant Principal, Manchester Elementary School (MTA

officers work with students on campus)

Oxnard, CA •Police Chief, Oxnard Police Department

•Panel of community policing officers, Oxnard Police

Department

•Assistant City Manager, City of Oxnard

•Chair, Inter-Neighborhood Community Committee

(liaison between neighborhood councils and city

departments)

•Marketing Director, AT&T

•President, Channel Islands National Bank

•President, Colonial Coalition Against Alcohol and Drugs

•Executive Director, El Concilio (Latino multiservice

nonprofit) 

•Coordinator, Interface Children and Family Services

•Director, Instructional Support Services at the Oxnard

High School District

•Member, Sea Air Neighborhood Watch

(continued)

Page 27 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Appendix II 

Community Policing Projects in Locations

We Visited Emphasized Prevention,

Problemsolving, and Partnerships

Location Interviewees

Prince George’s County, MD •Community Policing Director, Prince George’s County

Police Department

•Panel of community policing officers, Prince George’s

County Police Department

•Public Safety Director, Prince George’s County

•Prince George’s County Multi-Agency Services Team

(county agencies and the police address crime concerns

in communities)

•Chair, Public Safety Issues, Interfaith Action Committee

(consortium of churches involved in social service issues)

•Vice President, Government Affairs, Apartment and

Building Owners Association

•Resident Manager, Whitfield Towne Apartments

St. Petersburg, FL •Chief and Director of Special Projects, St. Petersburg

Police Department

•Panel of community policing officers, St. Petersburg

Police Department

•Neighborhood Partnership Director, Office of the Mayor

•Executive Director and staff, St. Petersburg Housing

Authority

•Administrator and staff, St. Petersburg Department of

Leisure Services

•Chief, St. Petersburg Fire Department

•Executive Director and staff, Center Against Spouse

Abuse

•Coordinators, Black on Black Crime Prevention Program

and Intervention Program, Pinellas County Urban League

•Director, Criminal Justice Administration, Operations

Parental Awareness and Responsibility (PAR), Inc.

Window Rock, AZ (Navajo

Nation)

•Chief and Captain, Navajo Department of Law

Enforcement

•Panel of community policing officers, Navajo

Department of Law Enforcement

•Executive Director, Division of Public Safety, Navajo

Nation 

•Program Coordinator; Navajo Housing Authority;

Window Rock, AZ

•Security Chief; Window Rock Unified School District; Fort

Defiance, AZ

•Program Coordinator; Sanders School District; Sanders,

AZ

•Coordinators; Positive Alternatives for Youth/ACES (a

nonprofit organization which sponsors activities for

Navajo youth); Window Rock, AZ

•Community Planning Committee; Navajo, AZ

Six law enforcement agencies we visited—three city police departments,

one county police department, a Native American police department, and

a mass transit police department—had a variety of community policing

projects under way. The projects illustrated three key principles of

community policing identified by the COPS Office: prevention,

Page 28 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Appendix II 

Community Policing Projects in Locations

We Visited Emphasized Prevention,

Problemsolving, and Partnerships

problemsolving, and partnerships. Representatives of community groups

and other local government agencies working with the police on

community policing activities were generally supportive of the community

policing concept.

Table II.3 provides examples of community policing projects in these

locations. The projects ranged from starting 18 community advisory

boards in neighborhoods throughout a major city to curbing drug activity

by working with the resident manager and residents of an apartment

complex.

Table II.3: Selected Examples of

Community Policing Projects in

Locations We Visited

Law enforcement agency Project description

Los Angeles, CA, Police

Department

The police department established 18 Community Police

Advisory Boards. Each board consisted of 25 volunteers

whose roles were to advise and inform area commanding

officers of community concerns (e.g., enforcement of

curfew laws and education on domestic violence). Each

board used community and police support to address the

problems that had been identified. Interviewees said the

boards had been effective in helping the police to build

trust, involve citizens, solve problems, and reduce

citizens’ fear of crime.

Los Angeles County, CA,

Metropolitan Transit Authority

Police Department

The transit authority was part of a task force that

addressed problems associated with loitering and

drinking by day laborers on railroad property. Using

community policing techniques such as problem

identification and specific actions, such as clearing

shrubs, painting over graffiti, and securing railroad ties

that were being used to build tents for shelter, the task

force resolved the problems.

Oxnard, CA, Police

Department

“Street Beat” was an award-winning cable television

series sponsored by local businesses and the cable

company. Interviewees said the weekly series had been

one of the department’s most effective community

policing tools. Over 500 programs had been aired since

1985. Street beat offered crime prevention tips and

encouraged citizens to participate in all of the

department’s community policing activities. Over 300

departments contacted the Oxnard Police Department for

information on replicating the television series in their

cities.

(continued)

Page 29 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Appendix II 

Community Policing Projects in Locations

We Visited Emphasized Prevention,

Problemsolving, and Partnerships

Law enforcement agency Project description

Prince George’s County, MD,

Police Department

Citizens, the resident manager, and a community policing

officer worked to remove drug dealers from an apartment

complex. The community policing officer used several

successful tactics, including citing suspected drug

dealers, most of whom were not residents, for trespassing

and taking photographs of them. Citizens formed a

coalition that met with the community policing officer in

her on-site office, thereby increasing the willingness of

residents to come forward with information on illegal

activities. Some disorderly tenants were evicted. The

resident manager estimated that drug dealing at the

complex was reduced by 90 percent.

St. Petersburg, FL, Police

Department

Community policing helped to improve relations between

police officers and the residents of a shelter run by the

Center Against Spouse Abuse. Interviewees said that the

shelter had a policy, until about 1992, that police could

not enter the property. Residents were distrustful of the

police. Some had negative experiences when officers

went to their homes to investigate complaints of abuse.

For example, residents reported that officers failed to

make arrests when injunctions were violated. Since the

inception of community policing, interviewees said that

officers were more sensitive to victims when they

investigated spouse abuse cases. Officers visited the

shelter to discuss victims’ rights, and residents were

favorably impressed by their openness. The community

policing officer in the neighborhood was praised by the

shelter director for his responsiveness. On two occasions,

he responded quickly to service calls, arresting a

trespasser and assisting a suicidal resident.

Window Rock, AZ Navajo

Department of Law

Enforcement

A police official noted that the department was in the early

development phase of community policing, attempting to

demonstrate a few successful projects that could be used

in locations throughout the over 26,000-square-mile

reservation. One interviewee said that gang activity was

partially a result of teens having nothing to do on the

reservation. A community policing project had officers

working with youth groups to develop positive activities

and encourage participation by organizing a blood drive,

sponsoring youth athletic teams, and recruiting young

people to help elderly citizens. Another community

policing project was the development of a computer

database on gang activities and membership.

Page 30 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Appendix II 

Community Policing Projects in Locations

We Visited Emphasized Prevention,

Problemsolving, and Partnerships

Community Groups

and Local

Government

Representatives

Generally Supported

Community Policing

in Their

Neighborhoods

We asked interviewees representing community groups and local

government agencies participating in community policing activities to

characterize the level of support their organization had for community

policing in their neighborhoods. Thirty-two of the 39 interviewees said that

they were supportive of their local community policing programs. Seven

other interviewees offered no specific response to this question, except to

say that they felt it was too early in their implementation of community

policing to make assessments.

We also asked interviewees representing law enforcement agencies,

community groups, and local government agencies what they felt were the

major successes and limitations of community policing. Responses on

community policing successes emphasized improved relationships

between the police and residents and improvements in the quality of life

for residents of some neighborhoods. Responses on limitations

emphasized that there was not enough funding and that performance by

some individual community policing officers was disappointing.

Summaries of several responses on the major successes of community

policing were the following:

• “I have seen a big turnaround in some apartment complexes. The entire

atmosphere of these places has changed. People are outside. Children are

playing. This is due to efforts of community policing officers to get drug

buyers and sellers off of the properties.” (A community group

representative.)

• “There have been big-time changes here as a result of community policing.

The police have developed a much higher level of trust from public

housing residents than existed before. Residents will work with the police

now and provide them with information. In this public housing complex,

the sense of safety and security has increased. Before the community

policing officers were on patrol, residents did not want to walk past the

basketball courts into the community center. That is not a problem any

longer. The police worked with the Department of Parks and Recreation to

improve lighting and redesign a center entrance. We are now offering a

well-attended course on computers at the center. People are enjoying the

parks. They are even on the tennis courts. Our community policing officer

has been successful in working with problem families and the housing

authority staff. We provide referrals, counseling, and other resources. We

have either helped families address their problems or had them evicted

from our units. There are many individual success stories of young people

Page 31 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Appendix II 

Community Policing Projects in Locations

We Visited Emphasized Prevention,

Problemsolving, and Partnerships

developing better self-esteem and hygiene as a result of interacting with

the community policing officer.” (A housing authority director.)

• “Community policing has changed how we practice law enforcement in a

substantial way. We applied community policing strategies to a distressed

neighborhood plagued by crime. The area had prostitution and drug

dealing, and service calls to the police were high. We worked with

residents and landlords to improve the situation. Closer relationships

developed, and we began working on crime prevention with community

groups, schools, and parents. Property managers provided better lighting

for their property, cut their weeds, and screened tenants more carefully.”

(A community policing officer.)

Summaries of several responses on major limitations to community

policing were:

• “Community policing is working here, but we still have a long way to go.

The challenge for the department is to convince the force that community

policing is not a fad and is not a select group of officers doing touchy/feely

work, but that it is a philosophy for the whole department. I think we need

to reengineer the entire police department structure to fully integrate

community policing into the community. I don’t believe we have

decentralized the department enough. For example, I think detectives

should be out in the community with community policing officers, instead

of at police headquarters. They should know the people in the areas to

which they are assigned.” (A director of public safety.)

• “We don’t have “Officer Friendly” yet, even though overall attitudes have

improved. The concept is good. The limitations are in the individuals doing

the work. Some are good. Some are not.” (A community group member.)

• “Some residents have an unrealistic expectation of what community

policing can do and what it cannot do. The majority of calls for service

involve social problems. Some residents expect the police to solve all their

social problems, such as unemployment and mediating family and

neighbor disputes.” (A local government official.)

Page 32 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Department of

Justice

Page 33 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Appendix III 

Comments From the U.S. Department of

Justice

Page 34 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Weldon McPhail, Assistant Director

Deborah Knorr, Evaluator-in-Charge

David Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

Catherine M. Hurley, Computer Analyst

Charlotte Moore, Communications Analyst

Pamela V. Williams, Senior Communications Analyst

Dirk Schumacher, Evaluator

Accounting and

Information

Management Division,

Washington, D.C.

Elizabeth H. Curda, Senior Evaluator

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney

Los Angeles Field

Office

Janet Fong, Senior Evaluator

Lisa Shibata, Evaluator

(182027) Page 35 GAO/GGD-97-167 Community Policing Grant Program
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100