C O N V E R SAT IO N S 

with Rural Law 

Enforcement Leaders 

VOLUME 2
2
i

C O N V E R SAT IO N S 

with Rural Law 

Enforcement Leaders 

VOLUME 2
This project was supported in part, by cooperative agreement number 2014-CR-WX-K002 awarded to the National Police Foundation and contract number DJJ17-C-2773 awarded to Sidem Group 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.

Recommended citation:

COPS Office. 2021. Conversations with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders: Volume 2. Rural Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Published 2021 
Contents

Letter from the Director of the COPS Office .

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

 .

 .

 .

 .

 .

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

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

v

Introduction 1

Overview of rural law enforcement in the United States 1

Purpose of the project 1

The listening sessions 2

Recurring Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3

Funding 3

Recruitment and retention 4

Pay and benefits 5

Training 5

Equipment 6

Substance use and addiction 7

Illegal drug trafficking and related crime 7

Jail capacities 8

Mental health and medical care 8

Obtaining and using grants 9

Specific Challenges 11

Inconsistencies in federal drug prosecution 11

Elder justice 11

Technology .

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

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

 .

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

12

Domestic violence 12

Encryption 13

School safety 13

Grant administration 14

iii
Interagency Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 .

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

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

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

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

 .

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

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

17

Task forces 17

Tribes 18

Progress, Best Practices, and New Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

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

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

 .

 .

 .

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

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

19

Progress 19

Best practices 20

New ideas 21

Conclusion 23

Solicitation revisions 23

Grant administration—Rural and tribal justice outreach and site visitations (January–February 2020) 24

Funding opportunities for rural jurisdictions 24

Training and technical assistance for rural jurisdictions 25

Appendix A. Individual State Listening Session Summaries 27

Texas 27

Michigan 27

Nevada 28

New Mexico 29

Ohio .

 .

 .

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

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

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

29

North Dakota 30

Pennsylvania 30

Appendix B. U.S. Department of Justice Resources 31

About BJA 33

About the COPS Office 35

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

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 and BJA directors 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: Volume 2, summarizes the key 

topics, areas of focus, and needs raised by rural law enforcement leaders at the second series of these 

discussions in Texas, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. 

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 DOJ in our ongoing commitment to support those who protect and serve our communities nationwide.

Sincerely,

v

Phil Keith

Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
v i
Introduction

Overview of rural law enforcement in the United States

Rural areas make up 72 percent of the United States and are home to 46 million people. Though more 

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

agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and forestry. 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.1

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.2

 Illicit drug use has also 

risen in rural areas, bringing its own associated crimes.3

 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. As a result, a series of listening sessions, U.S. Department of 

Justice (DOJ) Conversations with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders, was planned. The purpose of these 

sessions is 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—including federal grant funding opportunities, online 

resources, and training and technical assistance programs—to support rural law enforcement.

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

Department of Agriculture, October 21, 2017, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ruralprosperity-report.pdf.

2. Alan Greenblatt, “In Rural America, Violent Crime Reaches Highest Level in a Decade,” Governing: The Future of 

States and Localities, July 2018, https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-crime-rural-urbancities.html.

3. Shibani Mahtani, “‘Nothing But You and the Cows and the Sirens’ - Crime Tests Sheriffs Who Police Small Towns,” 

The Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/nothing-but-you-and-the-cows-and-the-sirenscrime-tests-small-town-sheriffs-1526122800.

1
2 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders

The listening sessions

The first round of listening sessions, in South Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Iowa, and Montana, are 

described in Volume One of this series.4

 This publication covers the second round of listening sessions in Texas, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania that took 

place in late 2019 and early 2020. A third round of listening sessions was also conducted later in 

2020, although because of the COVID-19 pandemic, those took place over teleconference. 

In the second round, some sessions were standalone meetings, while others occurred in conjunction 

with annual meetings of state sheriffs’ and chiefs’ associations. More than 250 state and local law 

enforcement executives—sheriffs, chiefs, supervisory special agents, and executive directors from 

national associations—from states and Tribal Nations met with DOJ representatives to discuss and 

identify areas of concern and collaborate on short-term and long-term solutions including grants, 

operational challenges, training and technical assistance, hiring programs, officer safety and wellness, 

and a myriad of other federally supported and organized resources. The obstacles attendees described 

were broadly similar to those heard previously, though the particulars were often state- or agencyspecific. This report examines the overarching themes associated with the challenges of rural policing, 

the specific concerns of individual states and agencies, and new ideas regarding how to move the profession forward.

4. National Police Foundation, Conversations with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders: Volume 1., Rural Law Enforcement 

(Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2020), https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ric.php?

page=detail&id=COPS-W0892.
3

Recurring Themes

The continuation of this series of listening sessions brought new ideas and perspectives and provided a space to share valuable information about targeted solutions to serious problems facing law 

enforcement agencies. As well, the repetition of the most significant and common concerns raised in the 

previous forums validated the severity and uniformity of those problems. While different states and 

agencies each encounter different specific issues, the broad themes across all listening sessions have 

remained consistent: funding, recruitment and retention, staffing, training, equipment, substance use 

and addiction, illegal drug trafficking and related crimes, jail capacity, mental health and medical care, 

and complications obtaining and maximizing federal grants. Immigration enforcement and drug interdiction was also a theme common to border states in both the northern and southern United States. 

Funding

As demonstrated in the first series of listening sessions, insufficient funding is a consistent and widespread problem that touches nearly every component of a law enforcement agency and creates a 

feedback loop: less funding means fewer training opportunities, fewer officers, and fewer resources, 

which, in turn, can enable widespread drug trafficking, with fewer investigations and fewer convictions. 

Increased drug trafficking sparks increases in drug use and related crime, which results in overcrowding 

of jails and overtaxing of the jurisdiction’s available mental health and medical resources. Overtaxed 

jails and mental health resources cannot accommodate the demand for services and many substance 

users remain beholden to their addiction, creating more opportunities for drug trafficking. Rural police 

agencies are already taxed by their size and locations; they are unable to exploit economies of scale 

that favor larger agencies and face logistical hurdles to coordinating efforts with their neighbors. As 

a result, they often find themselves constantly reacting to the public safety threats and urgent crises 

associated with drug trafficking, rather than proactively planning and training to execute long-term, 

targeted, visionary solutions to the systemic problems they have identified. In Michigan, attendees 

identified a lack of resources for conducting daily law enforcement activities, participating in drug 

interdiction operations, or joining homeland security task forces as the “most significant hurdle” to 

the preservation of public safety.

Even where they do not lead to increases in crime, limited resources can increase the perception of 

crime and disorder, by lowering agencies’ ability to focus on order maintenance, low-level crimes, and 

highway safety. 

While total funding remains the most broadly applicable, persistent, uniform concern, several law enforcement executives articulated that federal funding to states was distributed inequitably and did not 

reach most of the state’s law enforcement agencies. In Texas, as in many other sessions, sheriffs 

expressed frustration with Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG funding), stating that it had been allocated only to larger jurisdictions, not to the majority of agencies. Some noted 

that the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) designation was paramount to securing supplemental federal funds to combat drug trafficking. One sheriff did explain that, in cases when only one of 

two geographically proximate agencies is designated, there are often agreements in place to ensure the 

two agencies share the increased resources.
Recruitment and retention

Recruiting the right personnel to work in law enforcement is an increasingly difficult task. A report 

by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found an 11 percent decrease in sworn officers between 1997 and 

2016,5

 during which time the United States population increased by 21 percent.6 Agencies of all sizes 

are struggling with recruitment due to negative perceptions about law enforcement and inadequate pay, 

and rural agencies have been the most impacted.7

 While no agency is ever satisfied that it has the best 

possible people, training opportunities, equipment, and resources, most rural agencies—those that police a population of fewer than 50,000—have fewer than 10 sworn employees, so any vacancy means 

at least a 10 percent reduction in authorized personnel.8

 Further, because of perceptions of the safety of 

rural communities,9

 the number of authorized officers may be only a fraction of the ideal number.

Across all listening sessions, many attendees discussed the difficulties they face with both recruitment 

and retention: The job is tougher than ever; officers are expected to perform their duties flawlessly; 

fewer people feel called to service, while many of those who do use smaller agencies as stepping stones 

into larger and more prominent police departments in urban areas; and, amid an overall national 

decline, crime in rural areas is increasing.10

For some, the problem is as simple as not having the financial resources to bring in new officers or 

compete with larger agencies to retain the people they have. Sheriffs from multiple states noted that 

COPS Office Hiring Grants have helped but represented only a temporary solution. For a smaller agency, the loss of the grant funding can often mean the permanent loss of that officer, and even one person 

is a sizeable loss in smaller agencies.

For other agencies, the problem was more complex. One sheriff stated that his office is simply not able 

to attract the right applicants: “This is a time where people don’t want to be in law enforcement. We 

have enough money and there is grant money available for hiring, but we can’t find people to hire.” 

Attendees provided similar anecdotes across the listening sessions, and the data further illustrate the 

problem: The Police Executive Research Forum found that 36 percent of member agencies reported a 

“significant decline” in applications between 2014 and 2019, while an additional 27 percent reported 

at least a “slight” decline.11

5. Shelley Hyland, “Full-Time Employees in Law Enforcement Agencies, 1997-2016,” Statistical Brief, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, August 2018, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ftelea9716.pdf.

6. “Population, Total - United States,” The World Bank | Data, accessed November 17, 2020, 

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=US.

7. Brett Meade, “Recruiting, Selecting, and Retaining Law Enforcement Officers,” Blog, National Police Foundation Blog, 

March 17, 2016, https://www.policefoundation.org/recruiting-selecting-and-retaining-law-enforcement-officers/.

8. Policing in Small, Rural, and Tribal Communities, Practices in Modern Policing (Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2018), https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/IACP_PMP_SmallTribal.pdf.

9. Sarah M. Chilenski, Amy K. Syvertsen, and Mark T. Greenberg, “Understanding the Link between Social Organization 

and Crime in Rural Communities,” Journal of Rural and Community Development, June 26, 2015, 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4482473/?report=reader.

10. Greenblatt, “In Rural America, Violent Crime” (see note 2).

11. Police Executive Research Forum, The Workforce Crisis, and What Police Agencies Are Doing About It (Washington, DC: 

Police Executive Research Forum, 2019), https://www.policeforum.org/assets/WorkforceCrisis.pdf.

4 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
The problems of insufficient financial resources and a lack of applicants are intertwined: Larger 

jurisdictions can often offer better pay and benefits to incentivize applications and, perhaps more 

importantly, these better-funded agencies can make decisions that promote officer safety and wellness. Officers who feel safe and supported continue to serve for longer, reducing the need to fill vacancies.

Pay and benefits

Across the country, police officers earned an average of $56,160 in 2011. That figure was $65,210 in 

2018, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.12 Although this represents important progress, the 

gains were not shared equitably across all agencies. In New Jersey—the most densely populated state13—

the median salary for police was more than $105,000 by 2016 after regular increases since 2010.14 Rural 

departments struggle to match those salaries. Several sheriffs noted that younger officers are less likely to 

choose small towns, and that lower pay and benefits is undoubtedly one reason why.

Training

Another casualty of budget shortfalls in rural areas is funding for training. Funding for Nevada Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), for example, is at the same level as in 2008,15 despite 18 percent population growth in the state during that same period.16 Sheriffs reported that their agencies are finding it nearly impossible to meet POST training requirements due to budgetary concerns. Population has increased, as 

have the requirements for officers, programs, and training. Unfortunately, that increase in demand has not 

resulted in a commensurate increase in budget to meet it.

The problem of inadequate training resources goes beyond Nevada and beyond POST. At several forums, 

attendees discussed additional training that would be particularly useful to their individual agency or 

region, such as a “critical need” for forensic training for crime scenes (and the necessary equipment to 

conduct proper forensic investigations), intelligence collection, school resource officer (SRO) training—

particularly in areas in which schools are overcrowded and new SROs will need to be hired—and training 

on the requirements of prosecuting federal gun cases, so that law enforcement officers can better partner 

with prosecutors in prompting just outcomes.

12. Shako Liu, and Phil McCausland, “Rural Police Struggle to Recruit amid Poor Pay and Public Perception,” 

NBCNews.com, November 10, 2019, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rural-police-struggle-recruit-amidpoor-pay-public-perception-n1078496.

13. Emma Caplan, “Most Densely Populated U.S. States,” WorldAtlas, September 8, 2020, https://www.worldatlas.com/

articles/most-densely-populated-u-s-states.html.

14. “Cops in N.J. Now Earn Over $100K. See How Much They Make in Your Town,” NewJersey.com, April 22, 2019, 

https://www.nj.com/news/2017/05/how_much_is_the_median_cop_salary_in_your_town.html.

15. Report of Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (Las Vegas, NV: Nevada State Legislature, 2018), 

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/InterimCommittee/REL/Document/11044.

16. Health Resources and Services Administration, “Nevada Population Data,” 2008 State Profiles - Nevada. Health 

Resources and Services Administration,accessed November 17, 2020, https://hab.hrsa.gov/stateprofiles2014/2008/

states/nv/State-Population-Data.htm; U.S. Census Bureau, “Nevada and Idaho Are the Nation’s Fastest-Growing 

States,” press release, December 20, 2018, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/estimatesnational-state.html.

Recurring Themes 5
Throughout the listening sessions, sheriffs were supportive of training—any training—and expressed gratitude to officers who sought out these opportunities, particularly those that were free (i.e., grant-funded), 

but attendees from smaller agencies, such as one Michigan sheriff, reported that backfill costs and strain 

on remaining staff can make even no-cost opportunities difficult. In these small departments, any time 

one officer attends a training, the others are forced into overtime, which an already strained budget cannot accommodate.

Equipment 

The subject of equipment was raised in every listening session, with some agencies reporting that even 

their most basic needs are not being met because of budgetary constraints. In one instance, a Nevada 

sheriff noted that even internet access is too costly, with one communications company asking $1,400 per 

month for access to existing infrastructure. Other sheriffs also discussed lacking communications equipment—including body-worn cameras, radios, and mobile data terminals—and interoperability capacity. 

Tactical equipment, such as tourniquets, ballistic helmets, and bulletproof vests, was also either unavailable or came at the expense of other valuable equipment and training resources.

Border areas reported additional unmet equipment needs, including equipment for vehicles, intelligence 

gathering tools, portable x-ray machines, and License Plate Readers (LPR) linked to regional and national systems.

Some agencies were interested in pushing technology forward to help reduce the unique burdens of rural 

policing—the use of small Unmanned Arial Systems (sUAS), for example, could allow police to better 

locate stolen property and missing persons in regions where there is simply too much land to expect 

officers to search through more traditional methods. While this has become standard practice in a few 

departments across the country,17 some attendees indicated that drone use is not on their radar, instead 

inquiring more about how to police the general public’s drone use, expressing concern over the lack of 

clarity around rules and regulations—and over whom to contact for more information.

Although no specific funding opportunities dedicated to sUASs were shared, COPS Office Director Phil 

Keith, former BJA Acting Director Michael Costigan, and former BJA Principal Deputy Director Tracey 

Trautman offered targeted solutions to many other equipment issues by discussing how Byrne JAG funding and the Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) can be used to provide the most essential 

equipment, and how severe budget limitations could prompt a waiver on any matching funds requirements. Some attendees reported already having purchased bulletproof vests out of pocket, but DOJ staff 

were clear that the federal support is there for these vital tools.

17. John Seewer, “Law Enforcement Agencies Turning to Drones to Fight Crime,” Washington Post, May 28, 2018, 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2018/05/28/

84041c42-62bd-11e8-a768-ed043e33f1dc_story.html.

6 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
Substance use and addiction

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), drug overdoses are the leading 

cause of injury-related death.18 Despite a four percent decrease from 2017 to 2018, over 67,000 people 

still died as a result of overdose in the United States in 2018. In 1999, 4.0 people per 100,000 died 

of drug overdose in rural communities. Since then, the numbers have trended upward, reaching over 

20.0 people per 100,000 in 2017.19 The increase was consistent across sex and race and with respect to 

intent (i.e., homicide, suicide, accidental death).

In 2017, the CDC found that “the percentage of people reporting illicit drug use is less common in 

rural areas, [but] the effects of use appear to be greater.” Because of this, and because of the geographic challenges of low population density, police in rural areas are tasked not only with drug trafficking 

interdiction and arrest of distributors, but also with saving and supporting addicts as first responders. 

With jail as the primary tool at their disposal, officers often arrest users and addicts, who are slowly 

processed through the courts—often without getting treatment or other help—and released back to the 

streets to use again and be arrested and jailed again.

The cycle of abuse often starts early. Addiction is not limited to adults—several sheriffs cited drug 

psychosis as a primary or base issue with teenage students, and schools often face some of the same 

funding and resource issues that police encounter.

Further complicating matters, Ohio sheriffs noted that, as federal resources have addressed the opioid crisis,20 new complications have arisen, including the resale and abuse of suboxone—a drug often 

prescribed to reduce the symptoms of opiate addiction and withdrawal—and the rise of methamphetamine production and distribution.21 Attendees from other states reported similar issues.

Illegal drug trafficking and related crime

A common theme across all listening sessions to date has been illegal drug trafficking and associated 

violence. Attendees from several states noted that, as governments have ramped up efforts to combat 

the opioid crisis, neither the supply nor demand for drugs has abated. Further, successful efforts by law 

enforcement to interdict the trade often have violent ramifications after the fact. Attendees in several 

states spoke of gun violence and prostitution being closely tied to drug trafficking, with border states 

adding the element of illegal immigration and even human trafficking to the radar of their law enforcement teams. While multiagency task forces work to combat these public safety problems, some attendees 

18. “Opioid Overdose,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accessed March 19, 2020, 

https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/index.html.

19. Salynn Boyles, “CDC: Overdose Death Rates Now Highest in Cities — But Rural Women Are Still Dying at Higher Rates 

than Urban Women,” Public Health and Policy, Medpage Today, August 2, 2019, 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/publichealth/81383.

20. G. William Hoagland, Anand Parekh, Tim Swope, Morgan Bailie, Nick Hart, Regina LaBelle, and Capri S. Cafaro, 

“Tracking Federal Funding to Combat the Opioid Crisis,” (Washington, DC: Bipartisan Policy Center, 2019), 

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Tracking-Federal-Funding-to-Combat-the-Opioid-Crisis.pdf.

21. “Suboxone Addiction and Abuse Treatments,” American Addiction Centers, accessed January 23, 2020, 

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/suboxone.

Recurring Themes 7
from smaller agencies reported they are unable to participate due to budget shortages, removal of road 

deputies, and a lack of necessary equipment (such as portable x-ray machines, K9 units, LPRs, etc.). 

While southern border state attendees reported that Drug Enforcement Administration support has been 

critical, attendees from northern border states indicated that they do not receive the same attention, 

which may increase the success rate of traffickers in those jurisdictions.

Jail capacities

Despite some progress, the opioid crisis has not ended as a result of new programs and initiatives. 

Police are first responders, tasked with tackling this crisis as it happens, which routinely puts officers in 

difficult positions. Jails are overcrowded and drug addicts—and many others found in violation of the 

law—need medical care and mental health services that the jails (as presently constructed) are not wellequipped to provide. Officers are not tasked with deciding what the law should be, nor with judgment 

or sentencing, but the circumstances are such that there may be no other place for an offender if arrested, leaving officers in a bind and choosing from bad options. Attendees from some states reported that 

not only did their jails lack both space and mental health resources, but state hospitals had also begun 

turning away individuals brought in by police. When taken to jail, some individuals suffering from 

withdrawal or more complicated issues have attacked correctional officers and other inmates. Knowing 

this possibility, police in multiple states explained that they must make difficult choices. Sometimes the 

best choice is not to arrest, but making the wrong decision in these challenging cases leads to public 

mistrust and even fear. Conversely, choosing to arrest can result in the offender being processed and 

released and returning to the same situation. 

Mental health and medical care

Attendees in several states highlighted the need for mental health and medical support with for those 

who are arrested and detained. The system, as presently constituted, is set up to house suspects and 

offenders, but not to provide them with meaningful care and support. With jails in many jurisdictions 

overcrowded, inmates in need of mental health or medical care are regularly released pending adjudication, which, in the case of mental health issues, is a disservice to both victim and offender and damages 

trust and accountability. 

Most rural agencies lack the funds to provide adequate medical and mental health services on their 

own, and rely on collaborations with external partners. Many agencies, however, reported that they do 

not have the funding to sustain such a collaboration. Even if they are able to establish one with a grant, 

the collaboration will end when the grant does, making agencies hesitant to apply for limited-term grant 

funding. “Three years is not enough,” one sheriff offered.

According to one attendee, a rural county in Nevada had an independent audit conducted and the 

concluding recommendation was that medical and mental health resources be made available 24 hours 

a day in the jail. The cost estimate for providing these services was at least $450,000 annually—budgetarily impossible, as the county’s tax base is extremely low, a limitation which impacts all county services, not just jails. Moreover, these resources do not currently exist in the county: to establish it, the

CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders 8
agency would need to not only pay the salary of the providers but incentivize their relocation to rural 

Nevada to work with a jailed population that requires work on nights and weekends—a difficult task, 

even if the funding were available.

Although the optimal solution may be to have a team of providers available 24/7 and year-round, dedicated to the jailed population, one attendee noted that his county benefitted significantly from part-time 

access to one licensed clinical social worker. Unfortunately, that person left for a similar position in a 

more populous area with better pay and the county does not have the budget to make the position fulltime or offer other incentives, decreasing the likelihood of finding a suitable replacement. 

Obtaining and using grants

At all 12 listening sessions to date, attendees have raised the issue of obtaining and using grants. Sheriffs 

express frustration with the lack of funding assistance from the federal government. In response, the 

COPS Office and BJA have discussed grant opportunities and programs that have provide meaningful 

assistance to similar agencies throughout the country, but not all agencies that apply will be awarded 

grants and many law enforcement leaders have articulated real challenges to obtaining or accessing 

grants, training, and other programs.

The most basic concern expressed by leaders of many agencies in several states is that the smallest and 

most rural agencies simply lack the grant-writing capacity and resources—even identifying all of the 

grants for which an agency is eligible is a considerable task for someone inexperienced. Larger agencies can afford to have dedicated staff specializing in grants, but smaller agencies cannot budget for 

that, particularly given the brevity of most grants—for agencies that will be unable to sustain funding 

when the grant period expires, it is not worth risking the dedicated person-hours needed to apply on an 

uncertain payout of limited duration. Excessive reporting requirements exacerbate the problem–though 

some attendees did express gratitude to the COPS Office for already having worked to reduce the most 

burdensome and least valuable reporting requirements significantly.

Attendees of several listening sessions also noted that the process feels opaque, even to those who are 

familiar with it, at every level from solicitation through reporting. Questions frequently arose as to why 

an application was awarded or denied, why it would be different from year to year, and what would 

have bolstered an application that was not awarded. In addition to clarity about the review process, 

attendees expressed an interest in more concrete and direct guidance as to what might disqualify an 

application. It is important that grant opportunities strike the right balance between being informative 

and clear and being unnecessarily cumbersome and daunting.

Local governments can sometimes add layers of unnecessary complications. Some attendees explained 

that their County Boards require someone from the sheriff’s office to justify why they are applying for 

the grant. Because local county politics is based on personal relationships, the sheriff must personally 

justify each application, rather than delegating a deputy or a contracted grant-writer to engage with 

the County Board for the sake of efficiency. This, too, can be a deterrent to the progress that all parties 

claim to seek. As one sheriff put it: “It’s not the need and it’s not the availability of federal dollars and 

resources—it’s the process in the middle that local agencies and the federal government need to work 

to address.”

Recurring Themes 9

Specific Challenges

In addition to the broader trends within rural law enforcement across the country, law enforcement 

leaders at the second series of listening sessions also brought up significant, specific challenges their 

jurisdictions have faced. These included inconsistencies with prosecution and courts, elder justice issues 

(especially financial fraud), technological shortcomings, the dangers of responding to domestic violence 

situations, problems with encryption of illegal communications, persistent challenges in maintaining 

safe schools, and obstacles to obtaining and maximizing grant funding. 

Inconsistencies in federal drug prosecution 

Some attendees noted that, while addiction is a health and a community issue and addicts need more 

help than jails can provide, laws and enforcement guidelines do not reflect this understanding—even 

if the resources were there to deal with substance users outside of the criminal justice system, they are 

still required to enforce the laws as they exist. This leads to a “revolving door” dynamic where some 

substance users are repeatedly arrested, processed, adjudicated, and released only to cycle through the 

system again because the underlying addiction is never sufficiently addressed. Consistently re-arresting 

the same people for the same reasons and putting them into a system that does not seem to recognize 

the obvious pattern of recidivism leads some to feel that their work in law enforcement has had no 

meaningful purpose, and leads others to feel the burden of making decisions that could reduce public 

safety or public trust. 

Some attendees also complained of the discrepancies between state or local and federal laws and 

enforcement guidelines and how that can lead to declined prosecutions of some cases. They reported 

bypassing certain prosecutors entirely for federal crimes, bringing them directly to a different jurisdiction within the state to ensure that the case would proceed. Fortunately, this practice was not 

common and is no longer necessary, as the current group of U.S. Attorneys is more consistently committed to working with law enforcement to effectively communicate regarding best practices and 

obtain just outcomes.

Elder justice

Some sheriffs reported that elder justice a significant concern in their counties—in particular, financial 

scams preying on the elderly. They noted that many of the elderly are uneducated about the different 

forms of modern financial scams and are likely to be confused by technological changes from governments and banks, enabling scammers to pose as representatives of trusted institutions.

1 1
Physical elder abuse is common in community-living situations,22 but the social isolation more commonly found in rural elderly populations also provides time and space for financial exploitation, and the 

data reflect this.23 The resources to fight financial abuse are available to both law enforcement and to 

the elderly population, but meaningfully educating the most vulnerable communities is both challenging 

and insufficient—fraud is not a constant practice and new techniques are typically identified only after 

they have been used effectively.

Technology

Advancements in technology can make policing safer, more effective, and more efficient. But while 

some larger departments are pushing the profession forward with sUASs, LPRs, predictive policing,24

and data mining,25 other agencies are still struggling to provide each deputy or officer with a functioning radio. Multiagency task forces have proven effective, but basic information sharing between state 

and local law enforcement is still not universal, and poor records management within an agency26 can 

mean that even information access is a challenge. With insufficient funds and staffing shortages compounded by technological inefficiencies, many attendees expressed that their objective is to meet long 

overdue technological standards, rather than pursuing innovations to advance the field of policing. 

Domestic violence

Women in rural communities experience intimate partner violence (IPV) at a higher rate than women in 

urban and suburban areas but live farther away from both resource programs and law enforcement.27

With increased social isolation due to the geography of rural communities, IPV is not often immediately 

evident to neighbors and others in the community. From the perspective of law enforcement, domestic 

violence situations can be extremely volatile, with officers and deputies entering tense situations not 

knowing what to expect—situations that could be complicated by substance use or access to deadly weapons. U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman (Northern District of Ohio) described these as “the most 

dangerous and difficult situations law enforcement officers will face,” noting that last year two officers 

were killed responding to a domestic violence call in Westerville, Ohio, and another officer was killed 

in a similar situation in Girard, Ohio, before he could even enter the residence—the suspect opened fire 

rather than grant access.

22. Xin Qi Dong, “Elder Abuse: Systematic Review and Implications for Practice,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 63, no. 6 (2015): 1214–38, https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13454.

23. Rural and Tribal Elder Justice Resource Guide (Washington, DC: Department of Justice Elder Justice Initiative, 2018), 

https://www.justice.gov/elderjustice/book/file/1110846/download.

24. Martin Kaste, “How Data Analysis Is Driving Policing,” National Public Radio, All Things Considered, June 25, 2018, 

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/25/622715984/how-data-analysis-is-driving-policing.

25. Police Executive Research Forum, Research on the Impact of Technology on Policing Strategy in the 21st Century, 

(Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2016), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251140.pdf.

26. Steve Terrell, “New Mexico State Police Chief Clearing Controversies,” Santa Fe New Mexican, November 2, 2019, 

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/new-mexico-state-police-chief-clearing-controversies/

article_05f5917b-057b-5924-98c2-a80fe0e317f9.html.

27. Corinne Peek-Asa, Anne Wallis, Karisa Harland, Kirsten Beyer, Penny Dickey, and Audrey Saftlas, “Rural Disparity in 

Domestic Violence Prevalence and Access to Resources,” Journal of Women’s Health 20, no. 11 (November 11, 2011): 

1743–49. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2011.2891.

1 2 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
For victims of IPV whose abuser has access to a firearm, the likelihood of a fatal confrontation is greatly 

increased—at least sixfold, according to Herdman, though some studies suggest the risk of death may be 

as much as 40 times greater.28 Anyone with even a misdemeanor conviction for domestic abuse or with 

an active order of protection against them (criminal or civil) is prohibited by federal law from owning 

a firearm.29 Some of the U.S. Attorneys advised law enforcement officers in attendance that they may 

be able to bring federal charges against these offenders when serial abusers are released by the local or 

state judicial system, or when there is insufficient available evidence to prosecute other serious crimes 

for which the offender is known to be responsible.

Encryption

An increasing number of communications are encrypted, with even the largest tech companies providing comprehensive encryption services to all for all types of communications. Unfortunately for law 

enforcement, drug trafficking and sexual abuse are made easier by these technologies—even obtaining warrants for known offenders, arresting the suspect in question, and confiscating the devices used 

for the illegal communications is sometimes insufficient in obtaining the key information required 

to support a prosecution.30 One sheriff added that, in many cases, the communications themselves 

are criminal, as in the case of child sexual abuse, but cannot be intercepted or decrypted. Attendees 

explained that they understood the desire for privacy for law-abiding citizens but expressed that there 

must be a solution for law enforcement officers who go through the proper channels to obtain search 

and arrest warrants.

School safety

The national conversation relating to school safety is typically focused on the rare and sensational 

criminal behaviors, such as mass shootings. At many of the listening sessions, sheriffs expressed concern over common, persistent problems that have been insufficiently addressed. For example, overcrowding is typically viewed as an issue faced only by the school, but in North Dakota, a large and 

rapid influx of students has resulted in a shortage of both classroom space and school resource officers 

(SRO), the existing SROs are unable to enforce building security, as campuses expand into temporary 

buildings. Attendees noted that, while North Dakota has become the second-largest oil-producing state 

in the U.S., the local schools and law enforcement agencies have not seen the requisite increase in funding and resources to meet the increased demand.31 Even with proper funding, quickly recruiting and 

training more SROs and adapting security plans is a significant challenge for local agencies.

28. S.B. Sorenson and R.A. Schut, “Non-Fatal Gun Use in Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review of the 

Literature,” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838016668589.

29. 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.

30. Tom Ridge, “Law Enforcement’s Encryption Dilemma,” The Hill. September 16, 2019, 

https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/461558-law-enforcements-encryption-dilemma.

31. “North Dakota Fracking and Water Use Facts” (Bismarck, ND: North Dakota State Water Commission, 2019), 

https://www.swc.nd.gov/pdfs/fracking_water_use.pdf.

Specific Challenges 1 3
One sheriff noted that schools dealing with rapid increases in student populations are not equipped to 

manage the influx of students with language barriers, special needs, or substance use or mental health 

issues. Teachers in North Dakota have reported that classroom overcrowding has increased tensions 

between students, but they struggle to keep order while managing these other increases to their professional burdens. As a result, frustrated students become more agitated and violent, gangs become more 

prevalent, and the drug trade becomes impossible for educators to interdict. Another sheriff noted that 

“the prolonged use of drugs is affecting many school-related activities.” Law enforcement, then, becomes the catch-all for these problems not otherwise addressed in schools, as counseling and resources 

become overtaxed or small issues go undetected long enough to morph into larger issues that result in 

violent behavior.

Grant administration

The acquisition and administration of grant funding has been a topic of many conversations across all 

listening sessions, with multiple attendees identifying frustrations and DOJ staff—from both the COPS 

Office and BJA—both (1) providing insights into best practices and (2) working to better understand 

the concerns of the local law enforcement and improve the process moving forward.

In some sessions, attendees noted particular frustration with the Byrne JAG funding levels, noting that 

they are subject to change annually, creating uncertainty for sheriffs and challenges for counties working with significant budget constraints due to a low tax base. Some attendees noted that their County 

Boards are willing to provide the funding, while others indicated that their Boards prefer sheriffs apply 

for as many grants as possible in the hopes of cutting funding to police in order to address the county’s 

other needs. Because of this, many grants do not end up increasing agency budgets or capabilities. In 

many parts of the country, county and state policies and review boards are established to oversee and 

assist in the application process but, in so doing, often add to the time it takes to apply. Some grants 

have short application windows and many County Boards meet infrequently; as a result, some agencies 

noted that they have had to submit rushed work.

1 4 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
Law enforcement leaders also expressed concern over the administration of the funding by the State 

Administering Agency (SAA). Because the SAA is also classified as a law enforcement agency, it is permitted to keep some of the grant funds for its own use in its statewide grant administration. The SAA 

possesses what seems to be unilateral authority in the dissemination of federal funds in some states.

Similarly problematic were grants for task forces, which require the participation of multiple agencies 

from local, state, and federal law enforcement; those agencies, however, may not want to participate 

as secondary stakeholders in one task force when they already hold primary responsibility on another. 

Interagency cooperation and coordination is already a well-documented challenge, and grant funding 

opportunities are not immune.

In addition to the flaws of the application and acquisition processes, law enforcement leaders lamented 

the burdensome requirements on the administration of grant funds. The consensus was that monitoring and reporting is unnecessarily complicated and requires too much information, disproportionately 

impacting the smallest and most rural agencies which cannot dedicate staff to the task.

Implementation, too, was a concern for some agencies. National Public Safety Partnership (PSP) grantees received funding and resources, but leaders in immediately adjacent agencies not receiving assistance expressed concern that crime from grantees’ jurisdictions is merely being pushed into their own, 

further straining their own personnel.32

32. “About,” National Public Safety Partnership, accessed November 18, 2020, 

https://www.nationalpublicsafetypartnership.org/#about.

Specific Challenges 1 5

I

Smaller and rural agencies may be able to compensate for some of their natural limitations by cooperating with law enforcement at other levels and jurisdictions, but creating effective and efficient teams 

across agencies is a complex task. 

Task forces

In 2014, Texas Sheriffs A.J. Louderback and Michael O’Connor initiated a coalition of 18 sheriffs in 

southern Texas to establish a partnership of cooperation relating to 287(g) assistance.33 According to 

Sheriff O’Connor, Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) was the catalyst for the creation of this partnership, as their perception was that larger jurisdictions were receiving the bulk of federal resources and 

attention.34 Each participating sheriff signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) of cooperation 

in investigation and interdiction of violent crime, illegal drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and human 

trafficking. The MOU was later expanded to include disasters, information sharing, cross deputization, 

and equipment sharing. The coalition has proved successful, intercepting and confiscating or destroying 

large quantities of drugs, guns, and illegally obtained cash. In addition to their cooperative agreement, 

these 18 sheriffs also stated that they actively and consistently support the Border Patrol.

While the success of the project is encouraging, it is not broadly representative of the experiences of 

rural law enforcement agencies attempting to partner and cooperate. In Michigan, 33 percent of attendees stated that they did not participate in any interagency drug task force, and half of the attendees did 

not participate in a Joint Terrorism Task Force. In both cases, this was due primarily to budget constraints and a lack of equipment, not a lack of interest or need. Geographic limitations were also cited 

as considerable obstacles to effective interagency operations.

In multiple meetings, sheriffs discussed the scarcity of cell phone towers in more rural areas and the lack 

of radio and CAD interoperability. Several attendees specifically lamented their inability to communicate 

to offer or request mutual aid. In the most rural agencies, the closest officer who can provide backup 

may not be from the same agency. Two sheriffs recounted an incident in which an officer was struggling 

on the side of the road with a suspect and was not able to communicate directly with other officers to 

ask for backup—he could only communicate with his own dispatch, which then had to call 911 to facilitate communication with another agency, delaying the arrival of the support he required.

Information sharing was the greatest concern relating to interagency relationships, particularly the 

sharing of digital evidence between law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. Even law enforcement 

agencies in the same county cannot always efficiently share data—one attendee reported that their county has over 40 law enforcement agencies and it is almost impossible for them all to the effectively and 

securely share pertinent evidentiary data is almost impossible for them, given their current technological 

capacities and training.

33. “Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act,” Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 27, 2020, https://www.ice.gov/287g.

34. “Project Safe Neighborhoods,” Project Safe Neighborhoods, U.S. Department of Justice, April 22, 2019, 

https://www.justice.gov/psn.

1 7
1 8 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders

Tribes

In North Dakota, attendees from several tribes reported that they have drafted and signed MOUs to 

obtain grant funding and awards for victim services. One tribe is the lead on the application, with the 

others effectively classified as “subcontractors,” awarded by the lead so that the necessary resources 

are shared. This is particularly useful for larger grants that might not be awarded to a single tribe. 

Counties could also sign MOUs with tribes to cooperate in requesting grant funding, but no attendees 

reported that this had happened in their state.

While some attendees described successful cooperation between tribes or between agencies, the relationship between the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and local law enforcement agencies was described 

by most as “strained.” In Nevada, some attendees expressed concerns over a fundamental breakdown 

of communications, with law enforcement leaders not even being able to identify a point of contact 

within the BIA for a variety of different questions, including basic inquiries about jurisdiction and 

payment. One sheriff suggested that BIA bureaucracy is too bloated and not in touch with the more 

localized issues, and nearly all attendees from Nevada expressed frustration with the BIA’s process of 

managing offenders, which is supposed to pay the county jails for costs associated with tribal arrests 

but typically pays only a small portion of the bills that the law enforcement agencies would expect BIA 

to pay.

Some expressed concern that they could not afford to arrest and detain tribal citizens (due to these and 

related costs, such as travel between detention and adjudication facilities), and that this could prompt 

officers to handle tribal suspects more leniently. Some law enforcement leaders saw mutual aid agreements as more fertile ground for cooperation than cross-deputization, because they more easily accommodate differences in training and related requirements across agencies.

1 8 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
1 9

Progress, Best Practices, and New ideas

The listening sessions were convened for the U.S. Department of Justice to hear from rural law enforcement leaders whose needs had been underrepresented in national policing dialogue. Acting on the 

feedback received is an ongoing process. Some comprehensive solutions will require significant structural change, but both the COPS Office and BJA are committed to making immediate changes wherever 

possible to address the needs of local law enforcement throughout the country.

Progress

In recent listening sessions, COPS Office Director Keith has explained that his agency is changing the 

grant-making process to base awards more heavily on need. To this end, it is eliminating the peer review process, which favored the best-written applications. Further, all rural agencies will receive bonus 

points for self-designating as rural in the application process, ensuring that they are not passed over for 

larger departments from urban areas. Because most rural agencies do not have a dedicated grants team, 

the COPS Office is working to keep all solicitations open a minimum of 60—and ideally 90—days, addressing the concerns of some sheriffs that their county boards must provide approval but do not meet 

more than once in a 30-day period.

Former BJA Acting Director Costigan also noted that grant applications historically have been as long 

as 75 pages, which he described as “unnecessarily daunting” and conceded would be enough to make 

sheriffs decide against applying. He stated that the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) will be 

working to bring all solicitations down to less than 25 pages, focusing on the essential information to 

communicate to the agency what might constitute a winning application. In addition, OJP is reworking 

the language of the solicitations to ensure that more agencies are eligible; going forward, OJP will look 

to categorize certain grants based on agency size so that smaller agencies compete with smaller agencies 

and larger agencies compete with larger agencies.

In response to questions relating to a lack of training, Director Keith highlighted the Collaborative 

Reform Initiative Technical Assistance Center (CRI-TAC) as an invaluable resource that has already 

fielded over 300 requests for technical assistance at no cost to the recipients.35 The National Sheriffs’ 

Association provides the subject matter experts (SME), so the program is “sheriffs training sheriffs,” 

and the response time for requests is less than nine days for the majority of requests. Accordingly, he 

encouraged chiefs, sheriffs, and other executives to adopt his “if it’s free, it’s for me” mantra and pursue 

the training and technical assistance they most need, noting that one type of training could focus on 

grant applications if that is what an agency needs most.

One notable story was shared from Texas, where a multiagency interdiction team had phenomenal success. CRI-TAC now has a training program in which sheriffs train sheriffs on how to form and manage 

effective multiagency interdiction teams; this information was of interest to a number of attendees who 

had detailed their agencies’ challenges in interagency cooperation.

35. “Collaborative Reform Initiative Technical Assistance Center (CRI-TAC),” National Sheriffs’ Association, accessed 

November 30, 2020, https://www.sheriffs.org/programs/cri-tac.
2 0 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders

For those who expressed concern about even no-cost trainings putting a strain on their resources, 

Director Keith mentioned the development of an online training portal. In this portal, the COPS Office 

will make available its full suite of training modules to law enforcement agencies at no cost. The COPS 

Office is working with its training providers to ensure portal courses can meet various state POST 

requirements or obtain national certifications with state and national agencies, in the hopes it can help 

compensate for insufficient training budgets in some states.

In response to several law enforcement leaders who reported their local schools desperately need cameras and communications equipment, the COPS Office directed attendees to the School Violence Prevention Program grant, with over $50 million in funding available for K–12 school safety measures.

On the subject of equipment, BJA representatives made clear that the BJA’s Patrick Leahy Bulletproof 

Vest Partnership (BVP) is available to all attending agencies, and indicated that severe budget limitations would prompt a waiver on any matching funds requirements,36 adding also that this issue was of 

particular importance to then Attorney General William Barr.

In addressing the opioid epidemic and the scourge of associated violence, the COPS Office explained to 

attendees that its antidrug programs are state-centric. Prior to Attorney General Barr’s tenure, states did 

not have to work with local law enforcement agencies, and rural counties were often unable to obtain 

their share of federal antidrug resources. Today, there is a special condition on all state awards requiring them to work with local law enforcement agencies to combat drug trafficking and associated crime. 

Director Keith informed the attendees that, should that ever not be their experience, they should reach 

out to the COPS Office, which will, in turn, address the issue with the appropriate points of contact for 

the state.

Best practices

Presenting in Nevada, Chief Mike Butler discussed the relative successes of two opioid initiatives in his 

own agency: Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD)37 and the Angel Initiative.38 Butler focused 

on the initiatives’ collaborative nature and advocated for a restorative justice approach. He reported 

that the recidivism numbers for participants in the programs are significantly lower than those of the 

nonparticipating population, and that crime reporting has gone up, indicating that the community is 

developing trust in the justice process. 

36. “Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership: Overview,” Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Assistance, accessed November 30, 2020, 

https://www.ojp.gov/program/bulletproof-vest-partnership/overview.

37. “LEAD Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion / CO-RESPONDER | City of Longmont, Colorado,” City of Longmont, 

Colorado, accessed December 28, 2020, https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/departments/departments-n-z/

public-safety-department/community-programs/lead-co-responder.

38. “Angel Initiative,” City of Longmont, Colorado, accessed December 28, 2020, https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/

departments/departments-n-z/public-safety-department/community-programs/police-assisted-addiction-recoveryinitiative-paari.
Progress, Best Practices, and New Ideas 2 1

The success of these initiatives is notable and relevant, particularly in light of the concerns law enforcement leaders from other states shared relating to public trust. Operating programs at the community 

level is one way around the “revolving door” that attendees of several listening sessions have complained of. Chief Butler encouraged his peers to think beyond large, detached oversight functions and 

consider what they need at the local level, where they are the experts, and stressed that there is no one 

form of a community-based approach.

It is important for police officers to be viewed as key members of the cities and towns they serve. This 

engagement is necessary for effective crime reporting, prosecution, and recruitment and retention of the 

right officers. In New Mexico, attendees reported that community engagement has meant more time 

listening to the people to hear their concerns—going into schools, engaging the public, and showing 

availability and care to build trust and relationships.

New ideas

The listening sessions were a forum for ideas for progress and suggestions for practice. Ideas raised at 

the sessions included the following:

• Microgrants. One sheriff proposed making more microgrants available to small agencies—small 

grants focused on smaller opportunities, with streamlined application processes and fewer restrictions and reporting requirements.

• Redefining terms. Some asked that the “rural” designation not be limited by population size 

but suggested expanding it to categorize agencies by access to resources, population density, and 

other factors.

• Online forum. One person suggested that the COPS Office create an online forum where law enforcement agencies can submit questions relating to specific, acute, or unique challenges.

• Changing the narrative. One attendee proposed the creation of a national-level program, managed 

by the COPS Office, with the stated objective of changing the narrative around policing. This program would collaborate with local law enforcement agencies nationwide to help identify creative, 

effective recruitment strategies and would work to share best practices with smaller agencies.

• Standards. One sheriff suggested that the DOJ work to create a federal standard for information 

sharing across agencies, guiding law enforcement agencies in developing their processes allowing 

technical vendors to develop to that standard and maximizing interoperability and effectiveness.

Progress, Best Practices, and New Ideas

2 3

Conclusion

The second series of rural law enforcement listening sessions reinforced the takeaways from the first—

smaller agencies have been effective despite minimal resources and considerable obstacles. Hearing 

the same concerns voiced by many experienced leaders in different jurisdictions across the country 

has made it clear that the issues facing them are serious and must be addressed comprehensively 

and thoroughly.

Still, there is progress to celebrate and opportunities for more. In the most recent sessions, concerns 

relating to the grant application and reporting processes prompted not only a response of understanding, but the articulation of specific, immediate solutions. Complaints about the “revolving door” were 

answered by U.S. Attorneys, who presented solutions for moving cases from local to federal courts and 

for prosecuting violations of gun laws when admissible evidence does not adequately support more 

serious prosecutions (and are collaborating with local law enforcement to better understand what is 

needed to facilitate these prosecutions). DOJ personnel offered better access to no-cost trainings—both 

online and in-person—and new, targeted grant opportunities to addressing specific challenges outlined 

by smaller agencies. Further, the bonus points for self-designated rural agencies makes these agencies 

competitive for federal grants, even against departments from larger, more densely populated areas.

As the listening sessions continue, and feedback and ideas are presented, the COPS Office and BJA 

will continue to document their concerns and solutions—and to use rural law enforcement’s feedback to retool, revise, and rethink their practices advancing the DOJ mission. The U.S. Attorneys, 

the COPS Office, and BJA are all working together to understand the immediate and long-term challenges facing law enforcement, share best practices, find and implement solutions, and imagine a better 

landscape. They will continue this work with planned sessions in additional states. In the meantime, the 

COPS Office and BJA have responded to smaller agencies’ voices with the following transactions and 

resources from FY 2019 through 2020.

Solicitation revisions

Both BJA and the COPS Office streamlined their solicitations in order to simplify the application processes and minimize post-award burdens for the field. As an example, the COPS Office integrated the 

following revisions into all its programs: 

• Reduced the number of questions asked in all applications.

• Reduced by half the number of words/character counts in fields requiring narratives. 

• Created new quick-start application guides for all programs.

• Reduced progress reporting from four to two times per year.

• Changed scoring on applications to provide bonus points to rural agencies who focus on violent 

crime, border security, opioids, schools, and building trust and respect.

2 3
In FY 2020, in addition to executing any statutory prioritization that may be applicable, OJP provided priority consideration to applications in its solicitations that addressed specific challenges faced 

by rural communities. To receive priority consideration under the rural priority, applicants must have 

described what makes the geographic service area rural (using U.S. Census or other appropriate government data), how isolated the area is from needed services, and how they would address specific 

challenges in rural communities.

Grant administration—Rural and tribal justice outreach and site 

visitations (January–February 2020)

DOJ leadership is committed to ensuring that rural and tribal agencies acquire needed assistance and 

full support in making their states, localities, and communities stronger and safer. In response, DOJ 

representatives from OJP (BJA, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention) and the COPS Office visited several states to provide assistance and answer 

any questions that may be hindering these underserved groups from receiving funding. 

The purpose of these events was to provide outreach, promote upcoming solicitations, and provide 

information regarding the grant application process, to rural and tribal organizations who often do not 

apply for or understand how to apply for DOJ funding. In addition to providing more information, 

training and technical assistance were offered to those who would benefit the most from the information. The states visited during these events included Arizona, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

Funding opportunities for rural jurisdictions

• BJA FY 2019 Southwest Border Rural Law Enforcement Information Sharing and Interdiction 

Assistance Grants

This innovative program sought to provide resources, training, and technical assistance to rural 

law enforcement agencies along the Southwest Border to assist with the reduction of violent crime, 

including drugs and human traffickers. The initiative included two areas of funding: field-based 

initiatives and a training and technical assistance (TTA) initiative.

https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/opportunities/bja-2019-16289

• FY 2020 Supporting Small and Rural Law Enforcement Agency Body-Worn Camera Policy and 

Implementation Program 

The purpose of this program is to provide funding and program development support to small and 

rural agencies that intend to initiate expanded body-worn camera (BWC) programs. The program 

will support rural law enforcement agencies that are seeking to establish or expand comprehensive 

BWC programs and have made plans to implement this technology in a manner that maximizes the 

benefits of BWCs.

2 4 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
This is a TTA provider–based program. The selected TTA provider, in conjunction with BJA, will 

develop mechanisms to ensure that subrecipients engage in a deliberate and phased plan to deploy 

this technology.

https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/opportunities/bja-2020-17011

Training and technical assistance for rural jurisdictions

• Southwest Border Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Program

This innovative program provides resources to small, rural, and tribal law enforcement agencies along or near the southwest border of the United States. The program will support efforts 

in addressing precipitous increases of all types of crime unique to this region, including human 

trafficking, sexual assaults, extortion, gang activity, murder, drug trafficking, and other forms of 

violent crime.

https://southwestborder.ncirc.gov/

• FY 2020 Northern and Middle States Rural Law Enforcement Training and Technical Assistance 

Grant Program 

This program will provide resources and TTA to smaller rural and tribal law enforcement agencies located in the northern and middle states of the United States to support their efforts to reduce 

violent crime, including drug-related crime and human trafficking. This support could include 

enhancing information sharing (including of investigatory and intelligence data) and dedicated 

communications capability among federal, state, local, and tribal agencies throughout these state. 

It may also include providing previously identified specialized equipment to address crime issues 

unique to a designated area, for which the TTA provider must ensure that the proper training 

is provided.

https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/opportunities/bja-2020-17373

• FY 2020 Law Enforcement Training & Technical Assistance Response Center

Through this opportunity, BJA sought applications to fund a TTA provider to provide law enforcement agencies with information and expertise from multiple organizations or consortia via a onestop, dedicated response center. Its specific objectives were to coordinate TTA provided by national 

leaders, develop information and resources for the field; and deliver TTA to state, local, and tribal 

law enforcement agencies.

https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/opportunities/bja-2020-18813

Conclusion 2 5
2 6
Appendix A. individual State Listening Session 

Summaries

The following are individual summaries of each of the USDOJ Conversations with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders listening sessions held from September 2019 through March 2020.

Texas

Date: September 12, 2019

Location: United States Attorney’s Office—Southern District of Texas, Houston, Texas

Number of Attendees: 19 Texas state and local law enforcement leaders 

Ryan Patrick, U.S. Attorney – Southern District of Texas

Phil Keith, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Presentation on Southern Texas Interdiction Task Force by Sheriff A. J. Louderback, Jackson County, 

Texas; Sheriff T. Michael O’Connor, Victoria County, Texas; Sheriff Brian Hawthorne, Chambers 

County, Texas

Identified Needs: Resources and technological upgrades (e.g., communications equipment, equipment 

for vehicles, cameras for schools, x-ray units, license plate readers, tactical gear), training and strategy 

development, grant-writing assistance, and education on liability risk and mitigation.

Summary: State and local law enforcement leaders in Texas discussed fostering interagency cooperation through the creation of task forces and the support of the Border Patrol. Drug trafficking, human 

trafficking, and illegal immigration were cited as the primary areas of focus for most rural law enforcement agencies. They discussed the challenges of inconsistencies among federal prosecutors and in the 

allocation of funding and resources. Sheriffs particularly highlighted their concerns regarding access to 

and compatibility of technology. 

Michigan

Date: October 15, 2019

Location: Lansing Center, Lansing, Michigan

Number of Attendees: 51 Michigan state and local law enforcement leaders

Matthew Schneider, U.S. Attorney – Eastern District of Michigan

Andrew B. Birge, U.S. Attorney – Western District of Michigan

Phil Keith, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Michael Costigan, Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

2 7
Identified Needs: Training and technical assistance, continuity and reliability of grant funding, a streamlined grant application process, consistent funding levels from the counties, equipment (e.g., body-worn 

cameras, license plate readers, portable x-ray machines), and equitable distribution of asset forfeiture 

funds with smaller and more rural agencies.

Summary: State and local law enforcement leaders in Michigan discussed funding and staffing shortages, inadequate access to resources (particularly equipment), and the complexity of the grant application 

and administration processes. Drug trafficking, human trafficking, and illegal immigration were cited as 

the primary areas of focus for most rural law enforcement agencies, and leaders noted that they felt less 

attention was paid to these serious public safety concerns at the northern border than at the southern 

border. They discussed challenges with interagency communication and operations. Sheriffs particularly 

highlighted their concerns regarding access to drug interdiction equipment and training and their frustrations with obtaining and administering grants. 

Nevada

Date: December 11, 2019

Location: Regional Public Safety Training Center, Reno, Nevada

Number of Attendees: 16 Nevada state and local law enforcement leaders

Sue Fahami, Assistant U.S. Attorney – District of Nevada

Deborah L. Spence, Assistant Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Edward Puccerella, Special Advisor, Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs

Identified Needs: Jail space, budget increases (specifically for interagency task forces and mental health 

resources), consistent access to mental health providers, reduced grant reporting requirements, improved 

relationships between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and state and local law enforcement agencies, and 

microgrants (smaller grants with fewer restrictions).

Summary: State and local law enforcement leaders in Nevada discussed increases in training requirements 

with decreased available funding, challenges communicating effectively with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

the opioid crisis, and best practices for community relations. Drug trafficking, opioid abuse, and mental health support were cited as the primary areas of concern for rural law enforcement agencies. They 

discussed the impact of poor interagency communication and support on both officer wellness and public 

trust. Sheriffs particularly highlighted their concerns regarding both medical and mental health support in 

dealing with addiction and other crises that, while commonly associated with criminal behavior, are not 

well-addressed by jails.

2 8 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
New Mexico

Date: December 12, 2019

Location: State of New Mexico Office of the Attorney General, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Number of Attendees: Several New Mexico state and local law enforcement leaders

Shannon Long, Assistant Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Edward Puccerella, Special Advisor, Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs

Identified Needs: Recruitment and retention of sworn officers, improved records management and 

other technological upgrades, community and public trust.

Summary: State and local law enforcement leaders in New Mexico discussed challenges communicating effectively with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, drug production and interdiction, access to technology, and sharing of information between agencies. Methamphetamine production and distribution and 

domestic violence were cited as primary areas of concern for rural law enforcement agencies. They 

discussed the impact of poor interagency communication, staffing shortages, and outdated technology 

on officer wellness and public trust. Sheriffs particularly highlighted failures in interagency communication leading to more dangerous situations for officers and deputies. 

Ohio

Date: February 19, 2020

Location: Crowne Plaza Columbus North–Worthington, Columbus, Ohio

Number of Attendees: 70 Ohio state and local law enforcement leaders

David M. DeVillers, U.S. Attorney – Southern District of Ohio

Justin Herdman, U.S. Attorney – Northern District of Ohio

Phil Keith, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Michael Costigan, Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Identified Needs: Recruitment and retention of officers, mental health support, improved interagency 

communication, evidence-gathering capabilities (e.g., breaking encryption for known offenders—with 

a warrant), training and technical assistance, and grant-writing support and assistance.

Summary: State and local law enforcement leaders in Ohio discussed increased inconsistencies in grant 

funding, opioid addiction, production and trafficking of methamphetamines, recidivism, and investigative obstacles. Drug trafficking, opioid abuse, mental health support, and domestic violence were 

cited as the primary areas of concern for rural law enforcement agencies. They discussed the impact 

of serial recidivism and strategized how to break the cycle. Sheriffs particularly highlighted their concerns regarding the difficulty of investigating and building cases against known offenders, often due to 

encryption of illegal communications.

Appendix A. Individual State Listening Session Summaries 2 9
North Dakota

Date: March 3, 2020

Location: North Dakota Heritage Center and State Museum, Bismarck, North Dakota

Number of Attendees: 34 North Dakota state and local law enforcement leaders

David Hagler, Assistant U.S. Attorney – District of North Dakota

Phil Keith, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Michael Costigan, Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Identified Needs: Secure campuses, cameras, and school resource officers; mental health resources and 

provider access; jail space.

Summary: State and local law enforcement leaders in North Dakota discussed operating with insufficient budgets and how to handle a dramatic increase in population without the commensurate increase 

in staffing, training, and equipment. Sheriffs particularly highlighted the effects of these shortages on 

schools, which are also strained and ill-equipped to manage language barriers, gang violence, substance 

use, and overcrowding on what have become open and unsecure campuses. Tribal representatives 

shared their success in sharing grant funds, and the U.S. Attorney’s office provided strategies for using 

gun charges to make cases federal where appropriate.

Pennsylvania

Date: March 13, 2020

Location: Wyndham Garden State College, Boalsburg, Pennsylvania

Number of Attendees: 62 Pennsylvania state and local law enforcement leaders

Bruce D. Brandler, First Assistant U.S. Attorney – Middle District of Pennsylvania

Tracey Trautman, Principal Deputy Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Matthew Scheider, Assistant Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Identified Needs: Jail space, equipment (e.g., radios, tactical equipment, vehicles), recruitment 

and retention of deputies, clarity of grant application eligibility, and mental health resources and 

provider access.

Summary: State and local law enforcement leaders in Pennsylvania discussed their lack of access to 

equipment and resources, overcrowding of jails, and addressing mental health crises. Sheriffs particularly highlighted the effects of equipment shortages on officer safety. Mental health and medical care 

in correctional facilities was a primary area of concern for sheriffs, who expressed frustration when 

state-run hospitals turned away suspects and offenders whose needs jails were ill-suited to meet. Some 

sheriffs also noted issues getting clarity on laws and regulations related to rapidly evolving technology 

issues, such as the use of drones.

3 0 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
Appendix B. U.S. Department of Justice Resources

FY 2020 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

2020 COPS Office Anti-Heroin Task Force Program: https://cops.usdoj.gov/ahtf

2020 COPS Office Anti-Heroin Task Force Program Pre-Award fact sheet: 

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2020AwardDocs/ahtf/Fact_Sheet.pdf

2020 COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program: https://cops.usdoj.gov/camp

2020 COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program Pre-Award fact sheet: 

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2020AwardDocs/camp/Pre_Award_Fact_Sheet.pdf

School Violence Prevention Program: https://cops.usdoj.gov/svpp

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

Policing Dispatch 11, no. 12 (December 2018), 

https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/12-2018/texas_sheriffs.html

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)

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

OJP Human Trafficking Awards: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-awardsnearly-101-million-combat-human-trafficking#:~:text=OVC%20awards%20the%20Promoting%20

Employment,for%20survivors%20of%20human%20trafficking

BJA Funding & Awards: https://www.bja.gov/funding.aspx

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

BJA Programs that Support Rural and Tribal Justice (February 2020): https://bja.ojp.gov/library/

publications/bureau-justice-assistance-programs-support-rural-and-tribal-justice

BJA National Training and Technical Assistance Center: https://bjatta.bja.ojp.gov/

Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP): 

https://www.ojp.gov/program/bulletproof-vest-partnership/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

3 1
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-toopioid-crisis-in-rural-america-meeting-summary.pdf

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

Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI): https://www.sakitta.org/

Body-Worn Camera Toolkit: https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/bwc/index.html

Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Community Engagement Guidance: Engaging the Community in BWC 

Policy Development and Reviews of BWC Operations: https://bja.ojp.gov/library/publications/

bwc-community-engagement-guidance-engaging-community-bwc-policy-development

BJA’s Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program (COSSAP) Resource Center: 

https://www.cossapresources.org/

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program: 

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

SchoolSafety.Gov - Find Resources to Create a Safer School: https://www.schoolsafety.gov/

3 2 CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
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.

3 3
3 4

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.

CONVERSATIONS with Rural Law Enforcement Leaders
3 5

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 6

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) has convened a listening session series 

with rural law enforcement stakeholders to discuss rural law enforcement’s common 

concerns, challenges, and needs. The results of the second round of these sessions, 

which took place in seven states in late 2019 and early 2020, 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

e112016970

Published 2021