C O N V E R SAT IO N S 

with Rural Law 

Enforcement Leaders 

VOLUME 1
2
i

C O N V E R SAT IO N S 

with Rural Law 

Enforcement Leaders 

VOLUME 1
This project was supported, in whole or in part, by cooperative agreement / grant number 2014-CR-WX-K002awarded to National Police Foundation by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The opinions contained 

herein are those of the author(s) or contributor(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. References to specific individuals, agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered 

an endorsement by the author(s), the contributor(s), or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations 

to supplement discussion of the issues. 

The internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of publication. Given that URLs and websites are in 

constant flux, neither the author(s), the contributor(s), nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity.

This resource was developed under a federal award and may be subject to copyright. The U.S. Department of Justice reserves a 

royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use and to authorize others to use this 

resource for Federal Government purposes. This resource may be freely distributed and used for noncommercial and educational 

purposes only.

Recommended citation:

National Police Foundation. 2020. Conversations with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders: Volume 1. Rural Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Published 2020 
Contents

Letter from the Directors of the COPS Office and the Bureau of Justice Assistance

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

v

Introduction 1

Overview of rural law enforcement in the United States 1

Purpose of the project 1

Methodology 2

Overview of key topic area 2

Discussion of Key Topics, Areas of Focus, and Needs 5

Law enforcement resources 5

Staffing and personnel 5

Jail overcrowding 7

Technology and equipment 8

Federal funding and resources

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

9

Acute Challenges 13

Illicit drugs 13

Trafficking from the southern border 14

Substance use, mental health, and homelessness services 14

Interagency Relationships 17

Relationships with federal, state, and tribal partners 17

Relationships with tribes 18

Conclusion 19

Appendix A: Individual Summaries .

South Dakota . 

Oklahoma .

Utah . 

iii
Iowa .

Montana . 

Appendix B: U.S. Department of Justice Resources .

About the National Police Foundation . 

About BJA .

About the COPS Office .

i v CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
Letter from the Directors of the COPS Office and the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Colleagues: 

Rural law enforcement agencies represent a significant majority of the nation’s law enforcement, both 

in terms of number and geographical coverage. These agencies face many of the same public safety and 

crime challenges as their colleagues in larger, urban and suburban jurisdictions. At the same time, they 

face a number of challenges that are unique to rural areas. With job opportunities decreasing and poverty increasing, rural jurisdictions—individually and nationwide—have experienced increases in violent 

crime rates, as well as illicit human, gun, and drug trafficking. 

Despite these challenges, in the past rural law enforcement leaders have often been left out of conversations regarding their challenges and how the federal government can help address their needs. President 

Donald J. Trump and his administration have placed an unprecedented focus on listening to—and partnering with—rural law enforcement leaders across the nation and providing resources to reduce violent 

crime and enhance public safety. In September 2018, in an effort to be more responsive to the needs of 

rural law enforcement, the COPS Office, working with BJA, developed a strategy to facilitate discussions 

and solicit feedback from rural law enforcement executives throughout the United States.

This publication, Conversations with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders, summarizes the key topics, 

areas of focus, and needs raised by rural law enforcement leaders in South Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, 

Iowa, and Montana. 

We appreciate all the sheriffs, chiefs, and command personnel who serve and protect our nation every 

day. We particularly thank those who participated in these conversations for their open and honest 

feedback, examples, and suggestions. Their contributions provide clear recommendations and opportunities for Department of Justice in our ongoing commitment to support those who protect and 

serve our communities nationwide.

Sincerely,

Phil Keith

Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

v

Tracey Trautman

Acting Director

Bureau of Justice Assistance
v i
Introductio

Overview of rural law enforcement in the United States

Rural areas1 make up 72 percent of the United States’ land area, and are home to 46 million people.2

Though more economically diverse than in the past, rural areas are still responsible for the majority of 

production in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and forestry.3

 Declining job opportunities in these 

sectors have led to lack of employment and increasing poverty in many rural communities—as well 

as a shrinking tax base to support service providers. As a result, many rural public safety and public 

health professionals face staffing shortages, while existing staff are responsible for large geographic 

areas. Many are also challenged by lack of training and the need to wear multiple hats.4

While rural law enforcement agencies are spread thin, the violent crime rate in rural areas is rising, 

climbing above the national average in 2018 for the first time in 10 years.5

 Illicit drug use has also 

risen in rural areas, bringing its own associated crimes.6

 And of course, sparsely populated regions have 

always faced their own unique crime and disorder challenges. 

But despite their increasing crime rates, smaller rural agencies are sometimes left out of the conversation regarding contemporary law enforcement needs and challenges.

Purpose of the project

In September 2018, in an effort to be more responsive to the needs of rural law enforcement, the Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), working with the Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(BJA) and local U.S. Attorneys, developed a strategy to gather feedback from rural law enforcement 

executives throughout the United States. A series of five listening sessions, Conversations with Rural 

Law Enforcement Leaders, were planned. Their purpose was to facilitate discussions and solicit input 

from rural law enforcement leaders regarding the strengths and challenges of rural agencies, their 

technical assistance and resource needs, and the most-effective innovations in crime fighting and public 

safety response. Additionally, the sessions served as an opportunity for the COPS Office and BJA, other 

DOJ officials, and relevant stakeholders to provide information regarding existing federal resources—

1. The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas—”urbanized areas” with populations of 50,000 or more and 

“urban clusters” with populations of between 2,500 and 50,000 persons—and defines as rural “all population, 

housing, and territory not included” within such areas. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) categorizes 

entire counties as either rural or as part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area containing “at least one urbanized area of 

50,000 or more population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with 

the core as measured by commuting ties.” 

2. Sonny Perdue, Report to the President of the United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity

(Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, 2017), https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/

documents/rural-prosperity-report.pdf.

3. Perdue, Report to the President (see note 1). 

4. Perdue, Report to the President (see note 1).

5. Alan Greenblatt, “In Rural America, Violent Crime Reaches Highest Level in a Decade,” Governing, July 2018, 

https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-crime-rural-urban-cities.html. 

6. Shibani Mahtani, “’Nothing but You and the Cows and the Sirens’ – Crime Tests Sheriffs Who Police Small Towns; 

Drugs and Associated Violence Strain Rural Law Enforcement,” May 12, 2018, Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.

com/articles/nothing-but-you-and-the-cows-and-the-sirens-crime-tests-small-town-sheriffs-1526122800. 

1
2 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders

including federal grant funding opportunities, online resources, and training and technical assistance 

programs—to support rural law enforcement. The COPS Office also provided specialized on-site technical assistance during each of the meetings. 

Methodology

The National Police Foundation (NPF)—through funding from the COPS Office—worked with the 

COPS Office, BJA, and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices to coordinate and carry out five listening sessions 

during the first phase. The five sessions were held in Deadwood, South Dakota; Broken Arrow, Oklahoma; Salt Lake City, Utah; Atlantic, Iowa; and Missoula, Montana. 

The NPF team collected field notes from each of the conversations and organized them by topic area. 

(See appendix A for the notes from each meeting.) 

Overview of key topic area

Insufficient funding was an overarching topic of all five sessions. Law enforcement leaders in each 

session explained how the lack of state and local funding impacted every aspect of their agencies and 

their ability to keep pace with community needs and safety. These leaders related how funding has 

impacted their ability to hire and retain the staffing levels required for their vast jurisdictions. Funding 

levels have also contributed to shortages of traditional law enforcement technology and equipment and 

have exacerbated jail overcrowding. Many of the chief executives noted that where federal funding and 

resources are available, finding and navigating the application and reporting requirements hampers 

smaller and rural agencies from applying. Application length, administrative requirements, competitiveness, and restrictions on grant funding use similarly dissuade rural agencies from seeking funds. 

Both COPS Office Director Keith and executives from BJA and the Office of Justice Programs spoke 

about the challenges of seeking federal funding during the meetings, reporting that many of these grant 

processes have been simplified and streamlined.

Lack of funds is a self-reinforcing problem: When rural communities cannot afford to counter the 

emergence of illicit drugs and provide adequate substance abuse, mental health, and homelessness services, these problems persist and worsen, further straining resources. Insufficient funding has prevented 

some rural law enforcement agencies from participating in local and regional task forces that could impact drug trafficking. The “revolving door” dynamic, where the same persons with substance use disorders are processed and reprocessed, consuming officer or deputies’ time with seemingly no meaningful 

outcome, was raised repeatedly by law enforcement executives who serve communities where addiction 

is considered a law enforcement issue because there are insufficient resources to treat it as a community 

health issue. Rural law enforcement leaders also reported anecdotal evidence of the increases in drug 

use and sales contributing to similar increases in crimes such as burglaries and thefts and exacerbating 

issues such as homelessness and behavioral health crises.
Introduction 3

Even apart from the local impact of drug use and trafficking, the lack of funding to allocate personnel 

or resources to participate in task forces significantly hampers rural law enforcement’s interactions 

with tribal communities and law enforcement agencies located within their areas of responsibility. This 

presents significant challenges to developing and maintaining relationships with local, state, tribal, and 

federal stakeholders. 

Discussion of Key Topics, Areas of Focus, and Needs

Law enforcement resources 

Many law enforcement leaders at all listening sessions identified significant challenges stemming from 

their lack of resources. Limited staffing, jail space, technology, and equipment have hampered rural law 

enforcement agencies’ attempts to address unique challenges, reduce crime, and create safer communities. While federal resources have been available, difficulties in identifying and accessing them have 

dissuaded at least some rural agencies from applying. 

Staffing and personnel

Many of the rural law enforcement leaders identified staffing shortages as the most significant issue 

facing their agency. Approximately 88.3 percent of the 12,326 local police departments in the United 

States have fewer than 50 sworn officers and approximately 93.7 percent of local police departments 

serve a population of less than 50,000.7

 The significant majority of rural law enforcement agencies fit 

into both of these categories, and are even more likely to be among the approximately 47.8 percent of 

local police departments with fewer than 10 sworn officers.8

 When coupled with large geographic areas 

of responsibility, overlaps with tribal or federal property, and the general challenges associated with 

providing competitive compensation, rural law enforcement agencies experience significant shortages in 

staffing and difficulties recruiting and retaining personnel. 

7. Brian A. Reaves, Local Police Departments, 2013: Personnel, Policies, and Practices (Washington, DC: Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, May 2015), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd13ppp.pdf.

8. Reaves, Local Police Departments, 2013 (see note 7).

Staffing shortages

Many rural law enforcement agencies have fewer sworn personnel than needed to adequately cover 

their jurisdictions, making it difficult to cover calls-for-service and other public safety needs in their 

jurisdictions. Recent data shows that the population of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, rose by 21.4 percent from 2010 to 2019, yet the number of officers on duty rose by only 13.5 percent during the same 

time period.9

 Additionally, more than 30 South Dakota sheriff’s offices have four deputies or fewer, and 

approximately 20 South Dakota cities have only one or two officers.10 One listening session attendee 

in South Dakota said they had heard about a National Sheriffs’ Association study that determined a 

sheriff’s office needs three full-time employees, but said that their agency has not been able to meet that 

number or to increase staffing as the local crime rate has risen. 

9. Bart Pfankuch, “Police Agencies in South Dakota Struggle to Recruit, Retain Officers,” April 14, 2019, Argus Leader, 

https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/crime/2019/04/14/police-agencies-south-dakota-struggle-recruitretain-officers/3465808002/.

10. Pfankuch, “Police Agencies in South Dakota” (see note 9).

5
Staffing shortages also impede officers’ ability to engage in proactive community policing activities, 

efficiently respond to calls-for-service, and keep proficient in training and tactics that can keep officers 

and their community safe. One Oklahoma police chief noted that staffing challenges have prevented 

their officers from being able to proactively dedicate time to community engagement activities or spend 

the time needed to respond to each call effectively. Many rural agencies struggle to be able to backfill 

shifts so that personnel can attend in-person trainings, and even struggle to find the time for officers to 

participate in virtual trainings.

“No matter how proactive we want to be, none of us 

in this room have the staffing to do anything but be 

reactive.”

 – South Dakota sheriff

Drugs in Rural Communities

Illegal drug use and other drug-related issues have 

challenged rural law enforcement, straining agencies’ staffing, jail capacity, and other resources. 

One law enforcement leader in South Dakota shared 

that approximately 70 percent of the bookings in 

their county were for drug-related issues. Other 

forum attendees described the challenges of dealing with complex addiction issues and treatment 

needs, despite their limited training and lack of 

equipment for responding to overdoses. 

Without funding and support to disrupt the flow of 

drugs into their communities, these agencies have 

not been able to make an impact on drug use and 

the associated crime problems—or to respond to 

the community’s other needs. Some rural agencies have tried to fill this gap by reorganizing or 

reprioritizing units within their agencies to focus 

on drug interdiction and targeted enforcement 

efforts, but staffing and other resources remain 

a challenge. Some leaders noted that even where 

regional drug task forces have been created, their 

agencies do not have the staff numbers to allow 

for participation. Another chief executive noted 

that at one point there was only one K9 deputy 

in the northern area of their state, and that while 

there are more now, there are still not enough to 

meet the needs of the region.

6 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders

One result of short-staffed law enforcement agencies 

is excessive pressure and risk placed on officers and 

deputies when they are on duty. Staffing shortages are 

an officer safety issue: Requiring officers and deputies 

to work overtime in stressful situations contributes to 

fatigue and sleep deprivation, increasing the risk of onthe-job accidents and injuries and other personal and 

professional challenges.11 A police chief in Oklahoma 

cautioned that their officers are under constant stress 

to clear calls quickly—and must do so knowing they 

likely will not have backup—and are frequently placed 

in situations where their decisions and actions can be 

second-guessed and questioned. 

11. “Impact of Sleep Deprivation on Police Performance,” Office 

of Justice Programs, last updated January 5, 2009, 

https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/

stress-fatigue/Pages/impact.aspx. 

Officer recruitment and retention

Staffing shortages are exacerbated by recruitment and 

retention issues. Although law enforcement agencies of 

all sizes nationwide are struggling to recruit and retain 

qualified and effective sworn personnel, these issues pose 

a particular challenge for rural agencies. Listening session participants attributed the decline in applicants and 

recruits to the combination of low pay and benefits, the 

stresses and dangers of the job, the length of time from 

application to hiring, increased training and certifica-
tion requirements, and a general negative perception nationally 

associated with being a law enforcement officer. Larger jurisdictions are also often able to offset some of these issues with 

higher beginning salaries and incentives for higher education, 

which some small and rural agencies are unable to match. 

Several participants also noted that recruitment and retention issues can quickly become entrenched. Iowa participants explained 

how their inability to recruit new officers had increased the 

amount of overtime required of current personnel; this increased 

workload is not only unsustainable over the long term, it also 

discourages new applicants and drives down retention. Participants reported that their agencies commonly require 12-hour 

or longer shifts, and expect officers and deputies to be on-call 

regularly when not officially on duty. This is also not conducive 

to retaining officers and deputies who have the experience to file 

for lateral transfers to larger agencies where they are likely to 

make more money and have more balanced schedules. 

Pay and Benefits

Rural law enforcement agencies struggle to provide 

starting and longer-term salaries that can compete 

with more urban jurisdictions. The entry-level 

salary for most law enforcement agencies in South 

Dakota is approximately $40,000 to $48,000 per 

year, but small and rural agencies are less likely 

to be able to match the higher end of the scale or 

offer pay increases over time. In addition to lower 

salaries, one rural law enforcement leader in South 

Dakota suggested that some rural jurisdictions 

in the state lack the housing, entertainment and 

commerce options, and sense of community to 

entice potential recruits, leaving them inclined to 

select more urban jurisdictions. Law enforcement 

executives also noted that officers and deputies 

in larger agencies generally have a regular duty assignment in a specific unit or area. In contrast, in 

rural agencies, officers are afforded less flexibility 

for regular work schedules, professional development and career advancement, and other benefits 

associated with retention. During the convening 

in Montana, a rural chief executive explained that 

they had just finished 13 consecutive days of 24-

hour shifts because there were times when nobody 

else was available or the only other deputy available was involved in a significant response.

Sources: South Dakota listening session, April 23, 2019; 

Bart Pfankuch, “Police agencies in South Dakota struggle to recruit, retain officers,” April 14, 2019, Argus 

Leader, https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/

crime/2019/04/14/police-agencies-south-dakotastruggle-recruit-retain-officers/3465808002/; Montana 

listening session, June 18, 2019.

Discussion of Key Topics, Areas of Focus, and Needs 7

Jail overcrowding

The “revolving door” of the criminal justice system overburdens 

sheriffs’ agencies in rural jurisdictions by contributing to the 

overcrowding of their jail facilities, many of which are old, outdated, in disrepair, and not centrally located. Many rural sheriffs 

reported that arrests of individuals with drug and mental health 

issues have exceeded the capacities of their local jail facilities. 

A sheriff in Oklahoma explained that after a focused anti-drug 

initiative was conducted, the county jail did not have enough 

space for all individuals who had been arrested. In another Oklahoma sheriff’s jurisdiction, the grand jury is only convened once 

a month and jury dockets are scheduled twice-per-year, leaving 

sheriffs to deal with the strains on their jail space as individuals 

await trial. In Montana, the recent increases in substance use 

and arrests for violent crimes in rural communities have also 

contributed to significant backlogs in state and federal crime 

labs, resulting in longer periods of pretrial detention. Even after 

individuals are sentenced, the overcrowding in state and local institutions impacts where those convicted 

can serve their sentences. 

Many attendees reported that neighboring jurisdictions were also experiencing jail overcrowding, and 

that individuals experiencing homelessness, substance use disorder, and mental illness make up a large 

number of those incarcerated. In Montana, law enforcement leaders reported that local prosecutors are 
opting to release people on community supervision or 

to not press charges, often leading to a recurring cycle 

of detention or arrest and release when the underlying 

issues leading to the arrest are not addressed. 

Geographic Coverage

In some cases, jail overcrowding means that 

prisoners serve their sentence at the first available 

bed, which may be hundreds of miles away, not 

only impacting local family members’ ability to 

visit but also straining law enforcement. A sheriff 

in South Dakota described some cases where 

deputies had to drive approximately 360 miles 

roundtrip to transport an inmate to the closest 

available facility, leaving only two other deputies 

to cover the entire county. A second attendee at 

the South Dakota session expressed concern that 

if the nearest facility to their agency were closed, 

the next-closest one would be more than 400 

miles away.

CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders 8

Technology and equipment 

While many rural agencies lack the technological and 

equipment resources that larger agencies take for granted, many of them have become accustomed to providing 

law enforcement services with what they have. These 

agencies’ leaders’ main request was not for equipment or 

funding, but for more staff and vehicles. The extensive 

mileage driven by rural law enforcement daily requires 

that cars be repaired and replaced much more frequently 

than in urban jurisdictions. Some agency leaders also 

shared that limited budgets for technology did not necessarily stop them from accessing these items when needed. For example, attendees from South Dakota 

noted that within interdiction teams, technology and equipment was often shared by the team members 

and that equipment and technology needs were often met through seizure funds or through partnerships 

with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

“[We are] so used to getting by with what we have 

and keeping shoestring budgets that making a wish 

list is hard for us.”

 – South Dakota chief executive

Those leaders who were able to identify technology that would have a significant impact on their agency’s operations all focused on mobile data terminals or mobile data computers, which would greatly 

enhance officers’ and deputies’ ability to document encounters and communicate with their departments on patrol, even from hundreds of miles away.

A law enforcement executive from Oklahoma brought up another technology that offers significant 

promise for rural agencies: Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS). The attendee noted that sUAS 

technology is affordable and can be used to help bridge the coverage gap caused by limited staff and 

vast jurisdictional geography.12 They also reported having had training in sUAS operation, as well as 

experience using it for search and rescue, tactical surveillance, and locating stolen property. Attendees 

from other agencies in Oklahoma and Montana that had sUAS technology also related positive experiences with the technology, noting that it helped them with their staffing issues.

12. Maria Valdovinos, James Specht, and Jennifer Zeunik, Community Policing and Unmanned Aircraft Systems: 

Guidelines to Enhance Community Trust (Washington DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2016), 

https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-W0822. 
One of the primary factors preventing rural agencies from purchasing technology and equipment is 

the cumulative cost; that is, not just the purchase price but also the storage and maintenance costs. For 

example, Iowa attendees readily noted that these costs were a concern for body-worn cameras (BWC), 

and in the Oklahoma session, at least one department shared that they had had to discontinue their 

BWC program because of the data retention costs. Another area where technology presents as a challenge for rural law enforcement is in cybercrime, which is increasingly becoming a problem. Attendees 

from Utah reported that they have limited capability to investigate and prevent computer-aided crimes. 

Participants in Iowa similarly identified a need for forensic equipment to support investigation of electronic crimes, noting that while grants might cover some of the initial costs, cellphone unlocking and 

extraction software can cost thousands of dollars more for upgrades and fees.

Federal funding and resources

Law enforcement agencies from South Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Iowa, and Montana applied for a 

total of 577 grants from the COPS Office between 2012 and 2018. Of those applications, approximately 32 percent were approved, resulting in more than $61.8 million in funding for state administering agencies (SAAs) and law enforcement agencies throughout the states. Despite this funding, leaders 

of small rural agencies reported still being acutely affected by the staffing shortages and resource needs 

that grant funding is intended to alleviate. Rural law enforcement leaders at the meetings raised a series 

of concerns about federal funding—primarily, that the resources needed to identify, apply for, and comply with federal grants and their requirements are the very resources that small and rural agencies lack. 

“Most of us, we don’t have the manpower or grant 

writers on board that have the time. . . You have to almost write a novel to justify your need when the need 

is already known.”

 – Oklahoma sheriff

Finding and navigating available resources

Participants explained that while federal agencies provide summaries and descriptions of available 

funding and opportunities, they do not provide adequate information about where and how agencies 

can access them. While the places federal agencies post grant opportunities and application information may seem intuitive to federal employees and to agencies that traditionally receive funding, they 

can be difficult to find for agencies that do not regularly receive funding and do not have personnel 

with development experience to identify and apply for grants. Rural leaders also perceived a lack of 

coordination between federal funding components, further complicating the identification of available 

funding opportunities.

Discussion of Key Topics, Areas of Focus, and Needs 9
Besides struggling to identify funding opportunities, participants described being overwhelmed at 

the requirements just to be eligible to apply for grants. The process agencies must complete prior to 

applying for federal grants—obtaining a valid originating agency identifier (ORI) number from the 

COPS Office; then getting a Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number; then ensuring active 

registration with the System for Award Management (SAM) database, which is also required to be 

updated or renewed on an annual basis; and, lastly, registering on grants.gov and completing the SF424 form— can take significant time for small agencies. Some agency leaders explained that although 

they would be interested in applying for numerous federal grants, the separate processes for each of 

these components made applying very difficult for them. One Montana law enforcement executive 

noted that while many grants are available for state agencies, including SAAs, there are fewer grants 

available directly to local jurisdictions, particularly small and rural ones. Multiple attendees noted 

that working with SAAs can be time-consuming and difficult.

Application length, requirements, and competitiveness

Participants also noted that federal grant applications are too long and complicated for many smaller 

and rural agencies facing staffing shortages. A participant from Iowa estimated that completing a single 

application could take approximately 40 hours for one person. Additionally, since some applications 

are more attractive when they include letters of support from elected officials and potential partners, 

attendees said that the time spent getting these additional materials can further complicate the process 

for agencies and discourage them from applying.

Some participants also said that the competitiveness of some federal grants has dissuaded them from 

applying. These participants believed that larger agencies have an advantage in pursuing federal solicitations because they can either hire dedicated grant-writing staff or contract grant writers during the time 

when most federal grants are released. One participant in Oklahoma noted that their department was 

lucky to have an officer who is good at grant writing and has been successful at obtaining a couple of 

grants, but was cautious to note that without this individual their agency would not be able to apply for 

grants. In addition to having grant writers, some rural law enforcement executives perceived that larger 

agencies are more likely to receive competitive federal funding because they have higher numbers of violent crimes and job vacancies than smaller and rural agencies and have experience with previous grants. 

Additionally, some federal grants require agencies that receive awards provide either financial or inkind matches, as well as other requirements that limit small and rural agencies from applying. For example, the Bulletproof Vest Program (BVP) provides funding for law enforcement agencies to purchase 

bulletproof vests. An executive in Oklahoma, however, explained that while they would love to obtain 

grant funding to purchase bulletproof vests, they are unable to meet the 50 percent match requirement, 

and there are prohibitions against using other federal funds as the 50 percent match for the BVP vests. 

Additionally, the BVP vests can only be purchased for sworn, full-time personnel, while the agency 

needed vests for reserve officers as well. Jurisdictions receiving funding for the reimbursement of body 

armor purchases are also required to have a “uniquely fitted armor vest requirement” and a written 

“mandatory wear” policy prior to submitting their applications, which some rural law enforcement 

leaders found cumbersome for their agencies.13

13. Bulletproof Vest Partnership, Office of Justice Programs, accessed August 21, 2019, https://ojp.gov/bvpbasi/.

1 0 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
Restrictions on funding uses

Concerns with restrictions on the use of federal funding have 

also dissuaded rural law enforcement agencies from applying 

for grants. In South Dakota, a participant shared that their 

agency was able to fund civilian positions through the School 

Violence Prevention Program, but their need was for sworn 

personnel that could serve as school resource officers when 

school is in session and regular patrol officers the rest of the 

time. Likewise, rural sheriff’s department executives in South 

Dakota and Montana shared that while they appreciate the 

funding the COPS Office’s hiring program provides for law 

enforcement officers, the inability to use the funding for hiring 

correctional officers prevented them from applying. Also in 

South Dakota, one department leader explained that because 

their K9 grant required a committed officer that had completed K9 training, once that officer moved to a different agency, 

the department was forced to end its K9 program. Additionally, rural chief executives indicated that the limitation on using 

COPS Office hiring funds to support pre-existing positions—

since the program only provides funding for the initial hiring 

of personnel and the first three years of their employment—inhibits rural agencies from applying.

In addition to restrictions on personnel, rural law enforcement 

executives are also impeded by the limitations on using grant 

funding for new construction, renovations, and equipment 

purchases. Rural law enforcement executives in Montana, for 

instance, expressed frustration that the COPS Office and BJA 

do not provide funding for agencies who need to build new 

stations or corrections facilities or make renovations to provide 

treatment wings or areas that could provide services to persons 

who are incarcerated. Some agency executives in Oklahoma 

noted that they are unable to use federal funding to purchase BWCs because the costs of video storage 

and IT resources to complement the new equipment cannot be covered with grant funding. 

Funding Sustainability

Sustainability requirements associated with certain funding opportunities may unintentionally 

limit rural agencies from applying. The COPS Office 

Hiring Program (CHP)—a solicitation for state, 

local, and tribal law enforcement agencies with 

primary law enforcement authority to increase the 

total number of sworn officer positions that would 

not have existed if not for the award—funds 

sworn officer positions for three years. However, 

since the CHP has a three-year funding limit, with 

no option to reapply or apply for continuation 

funding, chief executives at the listening sessions 

said that they cannot guarantee the continuation 

of grant-funded positions—and perceived that 

they had lost points on the application for failing 

to demonstrate the sustainability of the position. 

Representatives in Iowa and Montana said that 

city and county councils are often reluctant to 

fund these positions after federal grants have run 

out, leaving them unable to apply for those hiring 

grants because of sustainability concerns. Similarly, participants in Oklahoma explained that it can 

take longer than the three years of the grant for 

local legislators to see the benefit associated with 

spending more on law enforcement and create the 

funding streams to support it.

Source: COPS Hiring Program (CHP), COPS Office, accessed 

August 21, 2019, https://cops.usdoj.gov/chp.

Discussion of Key Topics, Areas of Focus, and Needs 1 1

Administration, management, and reporting requirements

Federal grants have ongoing administrative, management, and reporting requirements that rural law 

enforcement leaders find difficult and cumbersome to keep up with. Because the requirements are part 

of the conditions of receiving federal funding, these leaders explained that they would simply rather 

not apply for grants than have to allocate the resources needed to conduct the administration, management, and reporting associated with federal grants. For example, participants in Montana indicated that 
tribal agencies often do not have the capacity to manage grants. Other Montana participants highlighted seemingly nonsensical reporting requirements, noting that many of the quarterly reporting questions 

required by federal grants are not applicable to them. This frustrates staff who are not sure how to 

answer required questions. 

Funding needs

Since small and rural agencies often need to compete for funding against larger agencies with more 

staffing capacity and in-house grant expertise, greater access to grants and easier application processes 

would help these agencies to pursue these opportunities. With this in mind, the COPS Office and BJA 

have already begun to reevaluate and develop grant application categories that consider agency size 

and will allocate bonus points and dedicated funds to small and rural agencies. Similarly, the COPS 

Office and BJA have begun to streamline grant application processes to make them less arduous for 

agencies to complete, while still asking for all important and necessary information.

Participants repeatedly identified the need for longer funding cycles or opportunities to apply for continuation funding. They also asked for fewer restrictions on potential uses of funding, such as the ability 

to use hiring grants to hire non-sworn officers or corrections officers. Fewer administrative, management, and reporting requirements would help to alleviate the burden on already understaffed agencies. 

Additional training and technical assistance opportunities would be valuable in other areas like juvenile 

justice, school active shooter training and response, and executive leadership, among others. 

1 2 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
Acute Challenges

Chief executives at the listening sessions reported that their agencies and communities face serious 

challenges related to substance use, mental illness, and homelessness. Rural communities lack the 

funding for effective approaches to these problems, which cause further strain on resources when 

they go unaddressed. 

Illicit drugs 

A major common theme arising from all five listening sessions was the effect of illegal drug use and 

trafficking and associated violence on small and rural communities. The current opioid epidemic has 

disproportionately impacted small and rural communities. Other small and rural agencies are overwhelmed with methamphetamines and with increases in the potency and purity of other drugs. One 

Iowa leader noted that the methamphetamines encountered in their community are almost 100 percent pure, while the emergence of fentanyl as an ingredient in drug mixtures has contributed to more 

opioid overdoses and fatalities. In addition, some agencies are grappling with authorities’ reluctance to 

prosecute marijuana-related crimes, including illegal marijuana-growing operations and possession of 

amounts of marijuana in excess of medicinal or decriminalized levels, because of the general legislative 

acceptance of marijuana. 

Despite the national focus on the opioid epidemic, some rural law enforcement chief executives reported that not a lot of support is coming to them from the state and federal governments. Participants in 

Iowa and Oklahoma reported a lack of state resources to address drug-related problems. Some rural 

law enforcement leaders described increasing problems associated with shifting priorities for federal 

prosecutors and with their states decriminalizing and legalizing certain amounts of marijuana. One 

meeting attendee in Montana explained that despite being aware of an illegal marijuana-growing 

operation, their agency was unable to find a state or federal prosecutor willing to press charges because 

of hesitation to devote resources to trying such cases. Leaders in other states reported that even cases 

involving methamphetamines are not being prosecuted. Some leaders also expressed concern that even 

if their state prosecutes a case, the sentences do not serve as a deterrent. These leaders suggested that 

this has emboldened criminals to continue committing crimes and has contributed to the feeling that 

crimes are increasing but funding and support has not. 

Most agencies are also being forced to deal with repeat offenders who are released with limited consequences. According to some of the rural executives in Iowa, the manufacture, distribution, use, and 

negative effects of methamphetamine is taking over their communities and many children are suffering 

from abuse and neglect. 

1 3
Trafficking from the southern border

Attendees at each session attributed the emerging drug 

problems at least in part to illicit substances being trafficked across the southern U.S. border. Whether north 

and south along Interstates 9, 29, and 35, or east and 

west along Interstates 80 or 90, rural law enforcement 

leaders were able to identify the major thoroughfares 

in or near their jurisdictions for trafficking drugs, illicit 

weapons, and persons. Once across the border, rural law 

enforcement leaders suggested that cartel members work 

with local gangs to distribute their drugs and weapons, 

exacerbating crime problems in their communities.

Rural law enforcement leaders requested more support 

from the federal and state levels to identify and interdict large shipments of illicit drugs across the southern 

border and along the interstates. They say that law 

enforcement efforts at the southern border are mostly 

ineffective in stopping the flow of dangerous drugs and 

other illegal materials and activities, including human 

trafficking, coming from Mexico and other parts of 

Central and South America. These law enforcement 

leaders noted that cartels are much more sophisticated 

and have more resources than the law enforcement agencies trying to identify and counter them. Task 

forces have been a force multiplier to bring together agencies for criminal interdiction, and have had 

success in stemming the flow of drugs in some areas, but the cartels have adapted their strategies to 

avoid them.

Task Forces and Criminal Interdictio

A number of counties have formed multijurisdictional task forces to saturate problem areas and 

combine limited resources to combat the spread 

of illegal drugs. However, many rural law enforcement agencies do not have the equipment and 

resources necessary to join these task forces, or to 

conduct interdiction or other enforcement efforts 

on their own, as city and county funding for personnel and resources has been substantially cut 

back. With fewer resources to offer to task forces, 

small and rural agencies have fewer opportunities 

to benefit from task force funding and assistance. 

Their inability to participate also hinders their 

criminal investigations, as they are unable to 

build the infrastructure and networking ties to 

foster intelligence-sharing with neighboring agencies. Building capacity to obtain, analyze, and 

develop actionable intelligence and the resources 

to act upon it is a challenge for rural agencies. 

1 4 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders

Substance use, mental health, and homelessness services

Rural law enforcement leaders from each of the five states discussed the troubles in their communities 

associated with substance use, mental health, and homelessness. These issues intersect with and aggravate their agencies’ resource issues, such as staffing shortages and jail overcrowding. Across multiple 

sessions, leaders explained that the lack of community-based resources to address mental health—including funding for in-patient treatment facilities—has resulted in increased calls for service related to 

persons in mental health crisis. A law enforcement leader in Oklahoma noted that a call for service involving a person in mental health crisis that results in an emergency detention order can take an officer 

several hours to resolve, which is particularly challenging when the department only has two officers 

on duty when fully-staffed. 
Furthermore, since community agencies do not have the resources to provide treatment programs in 

their facilities, there are few opportunities to partner with community-based providers for treatment 

services. A sheriff in South Dakota suggested that their jail facility provides the most mental health 

services in the state, with approximately 17 percent of the incarcerated population having severe mental 

illness, compared to approximately four percent of the general population.14 Social service agencies in 

attendee’s jurisdictions are equally overwhelmed due to limited resources and severe understaffing. Law 

enforcement officers shared that it is not uncommon in rural jurisdictions to have one social service 

person assigned to six counties, with response time aggravated by the expansive distances that must be 

traversed. In Montana, officers brought up the resources available in larger counties and more urban areas, such as drug courts, as being something that could be helpful but are currently unavailable to them. 

In the meantime, the issue is largely dealt with by detention in jails, which in some jurisdictions have 

become the de facto holding facilities. For example, a sheriff in Utah noted that they had to house an 

individual with difficult mental health issues for over eight months because all six mental health beds 

in southern Utah were occupied, leaving no other option. Despite having an order to transport the individual to a mental health facility, the sheriff was unable to find an opening or the available funding to 

conduct the transport. Other sheriffs in Utah also perceived their jails as expected to operate as mental 

health facilities, and described the risky liability situations that their agencies and personnel—who generally have little to no training on interacting with persons in mental crisis—are placed in as a result. A 

similar sentiment was expressed by a law enforcement executive in Oklahoma who articulated officers’ 

need for access to training in dealing with individuals with mental health issues. The executive suggested that some calls for service involving persons with mental health issues leave officers no option other 

than detaining the individual until they are no longer considered a threat to themselves or others. 

14. “Mental Health by the Numbers,” National Alliance on Mental Illness, last updated September 2019, 

https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-by-the-numbers.

Acute Challenges 1 5

Interagency relationships are a key component of successful policing, especially for law enforcement 

agencies in rural areas. Since many rural agencies lack the staffing and resources needed to conduct all 

the enforcement and community safety services expected of agencies, partnerships and participation 

in local and regional task forces are force multipliers and opportunities to pool resources to purchase 

equipment and technology and share information. Listening session participants revealed that rural 

agencies tend to have good relationships with one another but can feel less positive about their relationships with state and federal law enforcement and criminal justice partners. 

Relationships with federal, state, and tribal partners

Rural agency executives at each of the sessions highlighted challenges partnering with, and receiving 

support from, state and federal stakeholders. Some rural agency leaders expressed that they have not 

felt supported by law enforcement, legislators, and prosecutors at the state level. These leaders said 

that state agencies have been hesitant to get involved in collaborative operations because of issues with 

ongoing lawsuits involving task forces, asset forfeitures, and seizures. Other local leaders perceived that 

federal participants in task forces expect information to be shared with them, but are hesitant to share 

information and intelligence back with the task force member agencies. This has hampered some rural 

agencies from allocating personnel and other resources to task forces, particularly those focused on 

drug interdiction and human trafficking. 

Some rural leaders suggested that there is minimal interest on the part of federal law enforcement 

agencies—primarily from the DEA; Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)—to partner with small and rural agencies, and a general lack 

of federal attention to crime issues in rural communities. For example, rural law enforcement leaders 

in South Dakota and Oklahoma believed that the focus of DEA agents has been on interdicting drugs 

and weapons from the southern border and large cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles, and that FBI 

agents have been similarly focused on supporting violent crime initiatives in large cities, at the expense 

of rural communities. One rural law enforcement executive in Montana provided an example of an 

instance where local Customs and Border Protection agents would not provide assistance on task force 

arrests and warrant services in the area because they did not have the operation order they needed 

from the federal government, forcing the local task force to delay their operations. 

Geographic distance has created some challenges for building stronger partnerships between agencies. 

Some rural agencies in Iowa have been unable to identify federal agents who are willing to live and 

work in their areas; attendees said the lack of resident agents in the western part of the state makes it 

difficult to pursue federal prosecutions. There is generally no regular full-time federal law enforcement 

support for these rural areas, because federal stakeholders have to travel hundreds of miles. Participants in Utah explained how this distance complicates joint investigations, because rural agencies have 

to expend additional resources to build a case that federal partners would be enticed to join. Therefore, 

some federal crimes are not prosecuted at the federal level, frustrating rural agencies. 

1 7
1 8 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders

In addition to the challenges caused by distance and perceived lack of attention, some rural law enforcement leaders indicated that they do not feel state and federal government stakeholders contribute 

enough funding for protection of state and national parks and forests that are part of their geographic 

areas but are not part of the county tax base. One attendee in Montana noted that approximately 70 

percent of their county is national forest land, but the federal government does not contribute to the tax 

base, so the county has to fund the sheriff’s office based on 30 percent of the county, even though the 

deputies have to travel through and respond to calls for service in the national forest. Another Montana 

attendee’s county is primarily state land, but has the same issue. This lack of financial support hampers 

relationships between rural law enforcement agencies and state and federal stakeholders. 

Relationships with tribes

The challenges associated with balancing financial support with expectations of responding to calls for 

service also affect partnerships between rural law enforcement agencies and tribal lands. Constantly 

changing jurisdictional lines have caused confusion for rural law enforcement and tribal leaders. Further complicating the ability to discern who has jurisdiction in some locations is the fact that state and 

federal highways cross many rural and tribal areas. This has affected how areas are policed and how 

crimes are prosecuted in some cases, and strains relationships across jurisdictions who share responsibility for these unique areas.

Some rural agency leaders also perceived that tribes receive more attention and have access to additional funding support, but rural law enforcement agencies often end up being responsible for primary 

issues like responding to calls for service on tribal lands with no law enforcement capacity and housing 

tribal members that have been incarcerated. Additionally, while housing may not require an agency 

to have special knowledge of tribal requirements, moving forward with a criminal case can. As cases 

move towards prosecution, some tribes lack detectives, which becomes another resource that rural 

agencies are required to provide, even though their detectives may lack the necessary knowledge of 

tribal codes. Rural and tribal jurisdictions lack the funding, training, and support to work together to 

find consistent, workable solutions to their many issues and are often forced to be solely reactive.

Furthermore, if a rural area borders a tribal area, the rural law enforcement agency will likely need to interact with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Some rural agencies have found it difficult to develop and 

maintain relationships with BIA agents. Attendees noted that BIA staffing has been inconsistent, with 

agents frequently rotating for various reasons, complicating their ability to build lasting relationships 

and understanding of rules and regulations. Some tribal leaders have also required BIA involvement in 

any arrests of members of their tribe by a non-tribal agency, which can result in delays of several hours, 

further straining rural law enforcement agencies and complicating partnerships with the BIA.
1 9

Conclusion

Rural law enforcement agencies, over the years, have become adept at ‘doing without,’ ensuring the 

safety of their communities with minimal resources. They are used to competing with other agencies 

for scarce county and municipal budget line items, being understaffed, losing officers and deputies 

to larger agencies, and serving as the catchall for challenges in the community. They are increasingly 

stretched beyond their limits with the seemingly constant flow of illicit gun, drug, and human trafficking and the crime associated with them. Officers are also being asked to adapt every day—to do more, 

cover more geography, and address more crime and calls for service than ever before. At the same time, 

these agencies are struggling to compete for federal dollars with larger agencies that have denser populations and higher crime numbers. 

These five DOJ Conversations with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders listening sessions brought the 

needs of law enforcement agencies in predominately rural states to the forefront. While the key topics, 

areas of focus, and needs summarized in this report were consistent across the convenings, there were 

also state-specific and regional resource, technical assistance, and training needs raised during each of 

the listening sessions. 

Providing support that adapts to the needs of our nation’s rural law enforcement, and the communities they serve, is a must. The COPS Office and BJA have already revised some of their solicitations 

to include increased and more diversified funding categories. They have also reduced the length and 

application requirements of some of their solicitations, and the frequency and volume of reporting 

requirements associated with certain grants. Both organizations have also enhanced their marketing 

of training and technical assistance, resources available to address common challenges, and funding 

opportunities to rural agencies. 

Additionally, understanding the importance of the information that arose from each of the listening sessions, the COPS Office expanded the scope of this program. The COPS Office has already hosted similar 

convenings in additional states—including Texas, Michigan, Nevada, and New Mexico—and will 

continue to identify more opportunities to work in partnership with BJA and U.S. Attorneys to gather 

feedback and suggestions from rural law enforcement leaders, and to act on those recommendations.

Appendix A: individual Summaries

Following are individual summaries of each of the U.S. Department of Justice Conversations with 

Rural Law Enforcement Leaders listening sessions held from April through June 2019:

South Dakota

Date: April 23, 2019

Location: The Lodge at Deadwood, Deadwood, South Dakota

Number of Attendees: 53 South Dakota state and local law enforcement leaders 

Ron Parsons, U.S. Attorney – U.S. District of South Dakota

Gregg Peterman, Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorney – District of South Dakota

Phil Keith, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Jon Adler, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Identified Needs: Funding, Human/Gun/Drug Trafficking, Staffing, and Substance Use / Mental Health 

Treatment Options

Summary: State and local law enforcement leaders in South Dakota discussed operating with reduced 

budgets and the impacts on staffing and resources. Sheriffs particularly highlighted the effects of these 

shortages on their ability to participate in interdiction efforts on interstate highways that are known to 

be channels for human, gun, and drug trafficking from the southwestern border; to have enough space 

for all the individuals that are arrested as a result of increasing methamphetamine use; and to provide 

effective substance use and mental health treatment in their correctional facilities. Rural chiefs and 

sheriffs also discussed the challenges in recruiting new officers to work in areas that do not have adequate housing and entertainment options, as well as retaining experienced officers who can earn more 

money and have more standard schedules working in larger cities. 

Oklahoma

Date: May 20, 2019

Location: Stoney Creek Hotel and Conference Center, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

Number of Attendees: 59 Oklahoma state and local law enforcement leaders

R. Trent Shores, U.S. Attorney – Northern District of Oklahoma

Phil Keith, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Jon Adler, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

2 1
CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders

Identified Needs: Funding, Staffing, and Officer Training for Addressing Substance Use / Mental Health 

Issues

Summary: Rural law enforcement leaders in Oklahoma identified being able to effectively cover and address all the community and public safety needs and identifying funding sources to continue to support 

officers who were hired using grant funds as two main challenges. Attendees also discussed the increasing number of crimes committed by persons with mental health or substance use disorders and the lack 

of resources to train officers to effectively respond to these calls. A number of chiefs also mentioned the 

challenge of applying for and managing federal grants and the impacts that has on staffing, resources, 

and equipment, including body armor, body-worn cameras, vehicles, and emerging technologies. 

Utah

Date: June 5, 2019

Location: U.S. Attorney’s Office – District of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah

Number of Attendees: 27 Utah state and local law enforcement leaders

John Huber, U.S. Attorney – District of Utah

Phil Keith, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Identified Needs: Justice Reinvestment Initiative, Border Security, Civil Asset Forfeiture, and Funding

Summary: Rural law enforcement leaders in Utah identified the state’s justice reinvestment initiative; 

southwestern border security; changes in the civil asset forfeiture process; and funding for staffing for 

drug task forces, training opportunities, and technology as the most significant public safety hurdles in the 

state. Some attendees perceived the increasing leniency of recent criminal laws and the lack of state-level 

prosecutions associated with the justice reinvestment initiative as the state’s being unresponsive to the 

needs of law enforcement. Some attendees explained that more support is needed at the state and federal 

levels to address the cartel-related crime and drug activity crossing the southwestern border. Additionally, 

participants highlighted the importance of civil asset forfeiture, and correlated changes in the process and 

the amount of funding received from it with reductions in funding for staffing and participation in drug 

task forces, technology such as automated license plate readers and camera systems, and funding for rural 

law enforcement leaders to attend trainings at the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement. 

Iowa

Date: June 7, 2019

Location: Atlantic Golf and Country Club, Atlantic, Iowa

Number of Attendees: 17 Iowa state and local law enforcement leaders

Marc Krickbaum, U.S. Attorney – Southern District of Iowa

Richard Rothrock, U.S. Department of Justice Bureau Chief, Southern District of Iowa

Phil Keith, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Jon Adler, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

2 2
Identified Needs: Support from State Legislature and Funding

Summary: Rural law enforcement leaders in Iowa highlighted the perceived lack of support from the 

state legislature and state law enforcement in a variety of areas, including drug interdiction efforts. 

Some attendees expanded that they perceived a general lack of federal resources allocated and assigned 

to western Iowa and noted that federal agents and resources for their area are assigned out of Nebraska. Attendees also discussed the purity of methamphetamines coming into the state, the increasing use 

of methamphetamines and opioids, and the increasing number of crimes involving firearms and the 

lack of forensic staffing and equipment needed to respond to these crimes. Despite these shortages, 

attendees noted that they are hesitant to apply for federal funding because cities and counties are often 

reluctant to sustain funding beyond the grant. 

Montana

Date: June 18, 2019

Location: Hilton Garden Inn, Missoula, Montana

Number of Attendees: 65 Montana state and local law enforcement leaders

Kurt Alme, U.S. Attorney – District of Montana

Matt M. Dummermuth, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs

Phil Keith, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Identified Needs: Staffing, Funding, and Substance Use / Mental Health Treatment Options

Summary: State and local law enforcement leaders in Montana identified staffing and resource shortages as their primary challenge. Attendees explained that some of these shortages are caused by the lack 

of income from large amounts of state and federal land that do not contribute to the tax base but do 

contribute to their geographical boundaries. Some sheriffs also discussed the overcrowding of county 

jails and their inability to provide social services and treatment for inmates with mental health or substance use disorders because of resource shortages. Illicit drugs—particularly methamphetamines and 

fentanyl—were also mentioned as an increasing challenge. Attendees discussed challenges associated 

with the inflexibility of federal grants; sheriffs noted that the COPS Office hiring grants are helpful but 

cannot be used to hire corrections employees, and leaders of small agencies explained that the administrative aspects are not conducive to their agencies applying. Leaders of small agencies also explained 

that having to compete with larger agencies and not having enough time to pull together all the requirements in grant proposals prevent them from applying, despite needing the funding. 

Appendix A: Individual Summaries 2 3

Appendix B: U.S. Department of Justice Resources

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

U.S. DOJ Program Plan: https://grantsnet.justice.gov/programplan/html/Home.htm

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office)

COPS Office Grants: https://cops.usdoj.gov/grants

2019 COPS Office Anti-Heroin Task Force Program: https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2019AwardDocs/ahtf/

Post_Award_Fact_Sheet.pdf

2019 COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program: https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2019AwardDocs/camp/

Post_Award_Fact_Sheet.pdf

“North Texas Sheriffs Work Together to Reduce Drug Smuggling and Human Trafficking” – 

Community Policing Dispatch, December 2018, Volume 11, Issue 12: https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/

dispatch/12-2018/texas_sheriffs.html

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)

BJA Grants: https://www.bja.gov/funding.aspx

OJP Grants/Funding: https://www.ojp.gov/funding

BJA Programs Supporting Law Enforcement (March 2020): https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/

xyckuh186/files/media/document/bja-programs-supporting-law-enforcement-3-2020.pdf

Learn About BJA National Training and Technical Assistance Center Resources for State, Local, and 

Tribal Criminal Justice Agencies: 

https://bjatta.bja.ojp.gov/sites/default/files/uploaded/BJA_NTTAC_IACA_Flyer_090613_final.pdf

Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program (COSSAP): 

https://bja.ojp.gov/program/cossap/overview

Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Program Law Enforcement / First Responder Diversion: 

https://www.coapresources.org/Content/Documents/BriefingSheets/BJA_COAP_Law_Enforcement_

First_Responder_Diversion.pdf

Responding to the Opioid Crisis in Rural America—Judges and Sheriffs Workshop - Meeting Summary 

(August 2019): https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/

responding-to-opioid-crisis-in-rural-america-meeting-summary.pdf

VALOR Officer Safety and Wellness Program—https://www.valorforblue.org/

VALOR Training Events: https://www.valorforblue.org/VALOR-Training/VALOR-Training-Events

2 5

About the National Police Foundation

The National Police Foundation is America’s oldest non-membership, non-partisan police research 

organization. We were founded in 1970 by the Ford Foundation to advance policing through innovation and science. We integrate the work of practitioners and social scientists to facilitate effective crime 

control and the progress of democratic policing strategies. We have a wide breadth of projects throughout the U.S. and Mexico. Among other efforts, we conduct scientific evaluations of policing strategies, 

organizational assessments, critical incident reviews, and police data projects and issue timely policing 

publications critical to practitioners and policymakers. We also have a strong interest in officer safety 

and wellness, preventable error in policing, and helping policing enhance community trust and confidence, especially in the area of police use of force.

National Police Foundation information and resources, covering a wide range of topics and research 

can be accessed on our website, https://www.policefoundation.org/.

2 7

About BJA

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) helps to make American communities safer by strengthening the 

nation’s criminal justice system: Its grants, training and technical assistance, and policy development 

services provide state, local, and tribal governments with the cutting edge tools and best practices they 

need to reduce violent and drug-related crime, support law enforcement, and combat victimization.

BJA is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, which also includes 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, Office for Victims of Crime, and Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking.

BJA is led by Acting Director Tracey Trautman.

BJA Mission

BJA provides leadership and services in grant administration and criminal justice policy development 

to support local, state, and tribal law enforcement in achieving safer communities. BJA supports programs and initiatives in the areas of law enforcement, justice information sharing, countering terrorism, 

managing offenders, combating drug crime and abuse, adjudication, advancing tribal justice, crime 

prevention, protecting vulnerable populations, and capacity building. Driving BJA’s work in the field 

are the following principles:

•	 Emphasize local control.

•	 Build relationships in the field.

•	 Provide training and technical assistance in support of efforts to prevent crime, drug abuse, and 

violence at the national, state, and local levels.

•	 Develop collaborations and partnerships.

•	 Promote capacity building through planning.

•	 Streamline the administration of grants.

•	 Increase training and technical assistance.

•	 Create accountability of projects.

•	 Encourage innovation.

•	 Communicate the value of justice efforts to decision makers at every level.

2 9
3 0 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders

BJA has four primary components: Policy, Programs, Operations, and the National Officer Safety and 

Wellness Office. The Policy Office provides national leadership in criminal justice policy, training, and 

technical assistance to further the administration of justice. It also acts as a liaison to national organizations that partner with BJA to set policy and help disseminate information on best and promising 

practices. The Programs Office coordinates and administers all state and local grant programs and acts 

as BJA’s direct line of communication to states, territories, and tribal governments by providing assistance and coordinating resources. The Operations Office coordinates the planning, communications, 

and budget functions; provides overall BJA-wide coordination; and supports streamlining efforts.

To learn more about BJA (https://www.bja.gov/), follow us on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/

DOJBJA/) and Twitter @DOJBJA (https://twitter.com/DOJBJA).

Learn about BJA Programs (https://www.bja.gov/programs.aspx) or Contact BJA (https://www.bja.gov/

About/contact.html) for additional information.
3 1

About the COPS Office

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) is the component of the U.S. Department of Justice responsible for advancing the practice of community policing by the nation’s state, 

local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement agencies through information and grant resources.

Community policing begins with a commitment to building trust and mutual respect between police 

and communities. It supports public safety by encouraging all stakeholders to work together to address 

our nation’s crime challenges. When police and communities collaborate, they more effectively address 

underlying issues, change negative behavioral patterns, and allocate resources. 

Rather than simply responding to crime, community policing focuses on preventing it through strategic 

problem-solving approaches based on collaboration. The COPS Office awards grants to hire community policing officers and support the development and testing of innovative policing strategies. COPS 

Office funding also provides training and technical assistance to community members and local government leaders, as well as all levels of law enforcement. 

Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested more than $14 billion 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. Other achievements include 

the following:

•	 To date, the COPS Office has funded the hiring of approximately 130,000 additional officers 

by more than 13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies in both small and large 

jurisdictions.

•	 Nearly 700,000 law enforcement personnel, community members, and government leaders 

have been trained through COPS Office–funded training organizations.

•	 To date, the COPS Office has distributed more than eight million topic-specific publications, 

training curricula, white papers, and resource CDs and flash drives.

•	 The COPS Office also sponsors conferences, round tables, and other forums focused on issues 

critical to law enforcement.

COPS Office information resources, covering a wide range of community policing topics such as school 

and campus safety, violent crime, and officer safety and wellness, can be downloaded via the COPS 

Office’s home page, www.cops.usdoj.gov. This website is also the grant application portal, providing 

access to online application forms.
3 2

Rural law enforcement agencies face increasing rates of crime and disorder—and often have dwindling resources with which to combat them. To discuss critical issues in 

rural policing, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) and 

the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) convened five listening sessions with rural law 

enforcement stakeholders in September 2019 to discuss rural law enforcement’s common 

concerns, challenges, and needs. The results of these sessions are summarized here. 

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services

145 N Street NE

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details about COPS Office programs, call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770.

Visit the COPS Office online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

810 Seventh Street NW

Washington, DC 20531

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street, NW

Washington, DC 20531

2550 S Clark Street, 

Suite 1130, 

Arlington, VA 22202

111915930

Published 2020