Review: Federal Support for Local 

Law Enforcement Equipment 

Acquisition

Executive Office of the President

December 2014
 2 

Background

For decades, the federal government has provided billions of dollars in equipment to state 

and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) through excess equipment transfers, asset forfeiture 

programs and federal grants. Particularly in the years since September 11, 2001, Congress and 

the Executive Branch have steadily increased spending and support for these programs, in light 

of legitimate concerns about the growing threat of terrorism, shrinking local budgets, and the 

relative ease with which some criminals are able to obtain high-powered weapons. These 

programs have significantly expanded over decades across multiple federal agencies without, at 

times, a commensurate growth in the infrastructure required to standardize procedures governing 

the flow of equipment from the federal government to LEAs. At the same time, training has not 

been institutionalized, specifically with respect to civil rights and civil liberties protections, or 

the safe use of equipment received through the federal government. Concerns over the lack of 

consistent protections have received renewed focus and attention in light of the recent unrest in 

Ferguson, Missouri. 

The White House has engaged federal agencies, law enforcement stakeholders, civil 

rights stakeholders and academics in conducting a review of federal funding and programs that 

provide equipment to state and local LEAs. During the course of this review, White House 

components have explored whether existing federal programs: 1) provide LEAs with equipment 

that is appropriate to the needs of their communities, 2) ensure that LEAs are properly trained to 

employ the equipment they obtain, and 3) encourage LEAs to adopt organizational and 

operational practices and standards that prevent misuse/abuse of the equipment.
 3 

Summary of Findings

Between FY2009 and FY2014, the federal government provided nearly $18 billion 

dollars in funds and resources to support programs that provide equipment and tactical resources 

to state and local LEAs. LEAs can acquire equipment through various programs administered by 

the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), Treasury 

(Treasury), and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).1 DOJ, DHS and ONDCP 

directly fund equipment purchases through multiple grant programs. DOD manages the transfer 

of excess equipment and also helps LEAs obtain new equipment at lower DOD prices. 

Additionally, DOJ and Treasury fund equipment purchases and other law enforcement activities 

through the equitable sharing component of the federal asset forfeiture programs. These 

programs, in the main, have been valuable and have provided state and local law enforcement 

with needed assistance as they carry out their critical missions in helping to keep the American 

people safe.

The bulk of the equipment transferred from federal sources to LEAs is fairly routine—

office furniture, computers and other technological equipment, personal protective equipment 

and basic firearms. But federal agencies also transfer, or fund the purchase of, military 

equipment, including high powered weapons and tactical vehicles. Although such tactical 

equipment constitutes a small percentage of the total material that flows from the federal 

government to LEAs, it is nonetheless substantial. For example, under the DOD 1033 program, 

only 4% of the property provided to LEAs last year was “controlled property2” (property listed 

on the Department of State Munitions Control List or Department of Commerce Control List). 

However, this 4% translates into 78,000 pieces of controlled equipment transferred from DOD to 

LEAs. To date, approximately 460,000 pieces of controlled property are currently in the 

possession of LEAs across the country. 

Despite the fact that federal equipment and purchasing programs generally share some of

the same goals, each operates independently from the others and the policies and practices by 

which they are governed vary widely. When shared goals exist, it may be preferable to establish 

some common standards and practices. With respect to commonality, for instance, the lists of 

permissible equipment vary across programs, and each program employs different oversight and 

auditing procedures. They differ not only in the kind of reporting required by LEAs, but also in 

the frequency of reporting and level of detail required. These programs also vary in the type of 

training—if any—they require of LEAs. For example, the programs reviewed do not necessarily 

foster or require civil rights/civil liberties training and they generally lack mechanisms to hold 

LEAs accountable for the misuse or misapplication of equipment. This variation among federal 

agencies makes tracking the overall effects, use and misuse of federal or federally-funded 

equipment difficult.

Given the lack of consistency in how federal programs are structured, implemented and 

audited, and informed by conversations with stakeholders, four areas of further focus have 

 

1 A description of each program is attached to this memorandum.

2 Examples of controlled property, as defined by DOD’s 1033 Program, include small arms, night vision devices, 

tactical vehicles and aircraft.
 4 

emerged that could better ensure the appropriate use of federal programs to maximize the safety 

and security of police officers and the communities they serve: 1) Local Community 

Engagement, 2) Federal Coordination and Oversight, 3) Training Requirements, and 4) The 

Community Policing Model.

A. Local Community Engagement

Both law enforcement and civil rights stakeholders agreed that there is often insufficient

transparency to decisions surrounding the acquisition of equipment. These programs often 

permit LEAs to request equipment outside of a local government’s standard budget process and 

without civilian (non-police) government approval. Local elected officials are frequently not 

involved in the decision-making, and the general public is similarly unaware of what their LEAs 

possess. As noted by some of the law enforcement stakeholders who contributed to this review, 

this lack of transparency can adversely impact neighboring LEAs in the event of an emergency 

when they do not know what resources may be nearby. Additionally, this lack of transparency 

can result in the proliferation of equipment in amounts that are often inconsistent with the size 

and training capacity of smaller LEAs.

B. Federal Coordination and Oversight

Federal programs for equipping LEAs lack interagency coordination and uniform 

standards. At present, these programs generally do not share data or reporting requirements for 

tracking inventory and use of equipment. Many do not monitor the transfer of equipment 

obtained with federal funds between LEAs. As a result, there may be no single entity in the 

federal government able to track particular pieces of equipment at any one time. This lack of 

coordination hinders attempts to hold LEAs accountable. Although some federal agencies have 

terminated or suspended LEAs found to be misusing funds or equipment or violating the 

Constitution, the impact of these penalties is likely weakened by the fact that the offending LEAs 

are easily able to draw from multiple other federal government sources. 

C. Training Requirements

Federal programs supporting the acquisition of equipment by LEAs do not include

standard training requirements for operation and deployment of equipment. Members of law 

enforcement cited the specific concern that police chiefs and those responsible for authorizing 

the deployment of military-style equipment often lack proper training to understand when and 

how controlled equipment is most appropriately deployed. It is possible that an increase in 

technology sharing, cross-training and increased operational relationships between LEAs and the 

military can foster an environment at the local level in which it is difficult to distinguish between 

the appropriate military use and the appropriate LEA use of the same equipment. Moreover, 

stakeholders expressed concern that some training programs may unintentionally incentivize the 

use of military-like tactics and equipment when unnecessary, and therefore, would benefit from 

appropriate training requirements attached to both the operation and the deployment of federal or 

federally-funded equipment that encourage improved policing practices. 

D. The Community Policing Model
 5 

Some stakeholders who contributed to this review expressed concerns about an 

increasing trend toward militarism and militarization in United States policing, which can affect 

law enforcement culture, organization and operations. Some stakeholders felt that the “show of 

force” typically associated with military operations, when employed by civilian police, can 

weaken community trust—especially in communities with a history of strained relationships

between the community and local law enforcement. Public safety and civil rights/civil liberties 

training may prove especially useful to strengthen community policing approaches that position 

law enforcement officials as trusted guardians of public safety.
 6 

Recommendations

Federal equipment programs provide for the reuse of valuable equipment and have 

contributed to the protection of the public and to reduced operational risk to peace officers, who 

put their lives on the line every day to keep the American people safe. At the same time, when 

police lack adequate training, make poor operational choices, or improperly use equipment, these 

programs can facilitate excessive uses of force and serve as a highly visible barrier between 

police and the communities they secure. When officers misuse equipment, the partnership, 

problem-solving and crime prevention collaboration with citizens that is at the heart of effective 

policing can be eroded. With significantly improved coordination and oversight, these programs 

can provide more effective and efficient contributions to public safety. 

In light of these initial findings, the President should consider issuing an Executive Order 

directing relevant agencies to address the issues related to equipment acquisition. Such an order 

could require a policy process to further develop appropriate actions and direct agencies to 

develop any directed programmatic reforms. Such an order could also direct all federal agencies 

to work together with law enforcement and civil rights/civil liberties organizations to develop 

specific recommendations within 120 days. Some broad examples of what process 

improvements agencies might implement as a result of further collaborative review include:

 Develop a consistent list of controlled property allowable for acquisition by LEAs.

 Require local civilian (non-police) review of and authorization for LEAs to request or 

acquire controlled equipment.

 Mandate that LEAs which participate in federal equipment programs receive necessary 

training and have policies in place that address appropriate use and employment of 

controlled equipment, as well as protection of civil rights and civil liberties. Agencies should 

identify existing training opportunities and help LEAs avail themselves of those 

opportunities, including those offered by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC) and the International Association of Law Enforcement Standards and Training.

 Require after-action analysis reports for significant incidents involving federally provided or 

federally-funded equipment. 

 Harmonize Federal programs so that they have consistent and transparent policies.

 Develop a database that includes information about controlled equipment purchased or 

acquired through Federal programs.
 7 

Program Specifications

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

The Department of Defense has two programs that provide equipment to LEAs; the 1033 

Program and the 1122 Program. 

1033 Program

The 1033 Program is authorized by Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act of 1997. It permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer, without charge, excess DOD 

property (supplies and equipment) to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) has transferred excess military equipment to approximately

8,000 federal and state law enforcement agencies and has provided $5.1B (ACQ value) in total 

property since 1990, including $2.7B within last 5 years.

ADMINISTRATION

To obtain property from the 1033 Program, LEAs submit automated requests through 

state coordinators designated by their Governor. The request includes a description of the 

intended use for each requested item. The State Coordinator screens the request and submits 

approved requests to DLA through DLA’s Reutilization, Transfer and Donation web-site. 

Controlled property–such as weapons and armored vehicles—are provided to LEAs as a 

conditional loan—DLA retains title to the controlled property, and recipients must return 

controlled property to DOD at the end of its useful life. Because DOD does not have expertise in

civilian law enforcement operations and cannot assess how equipment is used in the mission of 

an individual LEA, DOD relies upon State Coordinators, appointed by State Governors, to 

review and approve the particular types of equipment requested by LEAs, and upon the LEAs to 

determine the appropriate use for that equipment. Property obtained through the 1033 Program 

must be placed into use within one year of receipt, unless the condition of the property renders it 

unusable, in which case, controlled property must be returned to the DOD/DLA Disposition 

Services Site. DOD has the right to recall any and all property it has issued. 

TYPES OF EQUIPMENT 

Excess property transferred to LEAs is designated in two ways, as either controlled or 

non-controlled. During the 12-month period ending August 2014, approximately 96% of the 

property (1.8 million pieces) provided to LEAs was non-controlled property. This is property 

without military attributes, such as commercial vehicles, office furniture and supplies, 

generators, tents, tarps, tool kits, first aid kits, blankets, safety glasses, hand-tools, vehicle 

maintenance equipment, storage containers, lockers, shelving and forklifts. Approximately 4% 

(78,000 pieces) of the property provided was controlled property, i.e., military designed 

equipment on the Department of State Munitions Control List or Department of Commerce 

Control List, such as small arms, night vision devices, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled 
 8 

Vehicles (HMMWVs or Humvees), Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs), 

aircraft and watercraft.

Controlled property is conditionally loaned to ensure recipients return the property to 

DOD at the end of its useful life. The 1033 Program prohibits the transfer of property whose 

predominant purpose is combat operations (e.g. tanks, fighter aircraft, Strykers, tracked vehicles, 

weapons greater than 7.62mm, grenade launchers, sniper rifles and crew-served weapons). 

To date, approximately 460,000 pieces of controlled property are currently in the 

possession of LEAs. Examples of controlled property provided include: 92,442 small arms, 

44,275 night vision devices, 5,235 high mobility, multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs), 

617 mine resistant ambush protected vehicles and 616 aircraft. 

OVERSIGHT 

Annually, DLA requires a 100% physical inventory of controlled property that has been 

obtained through the 1033 Program. DLA does not review how equipment is being used. LEAs 

must document actual on-hand quantities, discrepancies, or other issues with their inventory. 

Agencies must also submit photos of all on-hand aircraft, watercraft, tactical vehicles and 

weapons. 

State Coordinators must certify the inventories for his/her State to DLA by January 31st 

of each year and failure to submit the annual inventory certification and photos may result in an 

LEA and/or State suspension. The inventory contains the type and quantity of property issued to 

each LEA within the State. 

Every two years, DLA conducts a Program Compliance Review (PCR) for each state or 

territory enrolled in the 1033 Program. The PCR is an in-person meeting with the State 

Coordinator, and selected LEAs. During the PCR, the DLA Law Enforcement Support Office 

(LESO) ensures compliance with all terms and conditions of the memorandum of agreement 

signed by DLA and the State Coordinator by reviewing the State Coordinator’s Plan of 

Operations, the application of every LEA participating in the State program, and documentation 

for all inventory currently on hand and all property returned to DLA. Additionally, during the 

PCR, DLA physically reviews at least 20% of the entire State’s 1033 Program weapons and 

randomly selects for review individual LEAs who are then subject to inventory of 100% of 1033 

Program weapons, aircraft, watercraft and tactical vehicles and a minimum of 10% of all other 

controlled property. If discrepancies are found and the state and/or LEA fails to rectify the 

discrepancies by the assigned suspension date, the state and/or LEA may be subject to 

suspension or termination. Suspensions typically last a minimum of 30 days. Terminations 

typically last a minimum of one year. Currently, two states (NC, AL) and 134 additional LEAs 

are suspended from participation in the Program. During the past five years, eleven LEAs have 

had their participation terminated, including: 1) five requested by the State Coordinator (AZ), 2) 

four as the result of missing weapons (AZ, GA, WV and MN), and 3) two agencies disbanded 
 9 

(AZ/OH). Neither civil rights/civil liberties nor any other training is required for LEAs to 

participate.3 

The 1122 Program

Section 1122 of the National Defense Authorization Act permits state and local 

governments to purchase new law enforcement equipment for counter-drug activities through the 

federal government, effectively passing on the discounts enjoyed by the federal government 

because of its large-volume purchases. These discounts may be particularly attractive when 

dealing with high-tech equipment and newer technologies. 

ADMINISTRATION

The 1122 Program operates with similar features to the 1033 program. The Governor of 

each state appoints a State Point of Contact (SPOC) who is responsible for vetting LEAs for 

participation in the program and reviewing all orders placed by customers within that state. The 

SPOC ensures that items ordered pursuant to the 1122 Program are suitable for counter-drug, 

homeland defense or emergency response functions. 

TYPES OF EQUPIMENT 

LEAs may purchase selected items included on the 1122 program catalog maintained by 

the General Services Administration (GSA). The catalog lists items available for purchase from 

DLA, the Department of the Army, or GSA. For example, the 1122 Program allows GSA to 

coordinate the purchase of vehicles for law enforcement agencies.

While DLA does not sell any Controlled Property through the 1122 program, the Army 

does allow LEAs to purchase Controlled Property, via existing DOD contracts. These items 

include weapons, ammunition and commercial grade night vision devices. For all property 

except weapons, title is transferred to the receiving LEA. Weapons, which are tracked by the 

Army, are required to be returned to DOD.

OVERSIGHT 

1122 is not a grant or transfer program, so there is no compliance to monitor. 

 

3 During its participation in the White House review, DOD decided to implement new strategies to improve 

operation of the 1033 Program. They are working to increase coordination with DOJ by ensuring that there are no 

open investigations concerning an LEA before transferring equipment to that LEA. DOD has also invited DOJ to 

participate in its semi-annual review of the Restricted Property List (103 FSCs) to verify and validate those classes 

of equipment not particularly suited for law enforcement operations. DOD has further endeavored to improve 

information sharing with DHS by notifying DHS of LEA suspensions and terminations from the 1033 Program. 

Finally, DOD is implementing stronger standards for the states participating in the 1033 program by requiring that 

states attach a certified training plan, including use of force training, with any request for armored vehicles or assets 

which require specialized training. DOD began implementing these improvements during annual training with the 

state coordinators, during the week of November 3, 2014, in which DHS also participated as a step toward 

improving interagency coordination. 
 10 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program

The Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, administered by the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA), was established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, when the 

discretionary Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program merged with the formula-based Local 

Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) program. The JAG Program provides states, tribes and 

local governments with funding to support a range of program areas, including law enforcement 

operations. Per the statute, formula allocations are made to both state governments and units of 

local government. In FY2014, the JAG program was appropriated at $376M, with roughly 

$290M available for grants. Remaining JAG funds are used to fund specific programs, i.e. 

“carve-outs4” and administrative costs. 

ADMINISTRATION

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) calculates, for each state and territory, a minimum 

base allocation which, based on the statutory JAG formula, can be enhanced by (1) the state’s 

share of the national population and (2) the state’s share of the country’s Uniform Crime 

Reporting Program (UCR) Part 1 violent crime statistics. Once the state funding is calculated, 

60 percent of the allocation is awarded to the state and 40 percent to eligible units of local 

government.

States also have a variable percentage of the allocation that is required to “pass-through” 

to units of local government. This amount, also calculated by BJS, is based on each state’s crime 

expenditures. In addition, the formula calculates direct allocations for local governments within 

each state, based on their share of the total violent crime reported within the state. Local 

governments that are entitled to at least $10,000 awards may apply directly to BJA for local JAG 

funds.

In addition to other requirements, applicants for a JAG award must make the grant 

application available for review by the governing body of the state or unit of local government, 

or an organization designated by that governing body, not fewer than 30 days before the 

application is submitted to BJA. Governing body approval is not required, nor is any type of 

public hearing unless state/local law requires one.

EQUIPMENT 

Current reporting shows that roughly 40% of law enforcement JAG funding is spent on 

equipment, within 18 specific categories. JAG funding can be used for computers, camera 

systems, radios, license plate readers, weapons, explosive devices and delivery systems. JAG 

funds may not be used directly or indirectly to pay for vehicles (excluding police cars), vessels, 

aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles/unmanned aircraft, aircraft system or aerial vehicles unless a 

 

4 For example, in FY12, there was a $100M carve-out for the two Presidential Nominating Conventions. 
 11 

waiver is requested and the Director of BJA certifies that extraordinary and exigent 

circumstances exist, making them essential to the maintenance of public safety and good order.5 

Firearms were purchased by 3.1% of grantees and less-lethal weapons (i.e. TASERs) were 

purchased by 4.6% of grantees. JAG grantees are allowed to purchase SWAT-related items, 

with current reporting showing fewer than 2% of all grantees reporting any SWAT purchases. 

To date, BJA has approved seven armored vehicles through the JAG program from 2005-2014. 

OVERSIGHT

OJP/BJA provides some form of oversight for all open and active grants awarded by the 

agency, including JAG grants. BJA monitors, on an annual basis, a minimum of 10 percent of 

the total number of active grants awards, as well as 10 percent of the total dollar value of its 

active awards. For each active award, approximately 3,700 for FY2015, BJA also completes an 

annual desk-side compliance review of grant activities throughout the grant award period using 

BJA’s Desk Review Tool. The Desk Review Tool enables program officers to conduct an 

extensive review of materials available in the grant file to determine administrative, financial and 

programmatic compliance and monitor recipient performance. Additionally, all open and active 

grants undergo an annual automated grant risk assessment to set monitoring priorities. OJP 

assesses each grant to determine the degree of risk an award presents using the OJP Grant 

Assessment Tool and employs a risk-based strategy for determining which grants require an onsite review or an enhanced programmatic desk review (EPDR), which employs the same process 

as the on-site review, but takes place remotely, either by video or teleconference. Both types of 

monitoring include extensive contact with the grantee; reviews of key financial, programmatic 

and administrative aspects of the grant program; and identification of issues for resolution. Ten 

percent of all open grants receive on-site monitoring or EPDR monitoring. While OJP does 

require financial grant training for selected grantees, civil rights/civil liberties training is limited 

to members of multi-jurisdictional task forces who are funded by the JAG program. This 

training addresses task force effectiveness as well as other key issues including privacy and civil 

liberties/rights, task force participation measurement, personnel selection, and task force 

oversight and accountability. Since FY2009, OJP/BJA has not suspended or terminated any JAG 

grant recipient even though the regulations permit such actions.

While BJA is responsible for monitoring the recipients of direct BJA awards, BJA 

grantees are required to monitor their sub-recipients. BJA grantees are required to have written 

sub-recipient monitoring policies and procedures to ensure that sub-recipient activities are 

conducted in accordance with federal program and grant requirements, laws and regulations. 

These policies and procedures are supposed to include a process for verifying the purchase and 

inventory of equipment. 

The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office 

 

5 Police cruisers, police boats and police helicopters are allowable vehicles under JAG and do not require BJA 

certification.
 12 

COPS currently operates two programs that fund law enforcement equipment: the Tribal 

Resources Grant Program (TRGP) – which is part of the DOJ Consolidated Tribal Assistance 

Solicitation (CTAS) and the COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program (CAMP). 

Under the CTAS Program, which provided $27 million to federally recognized tribes and 

tribal consortia in FY2014, COPS has funded the purchase of weapons, including rifles and basic 

issue handguns. Patrol rifles are specifically prohibited by the CTAS Program, though DOJ has 

funded AR15 rifles when agencies indicate that these are standard issue weapons for their 

officers. During FY2014, the inaugural year for the CAMP Program, COPS provided $6 million 

for the investigation of illicit activities related to the manufacture and distribution of 

methamphetamine, including equipment. To date, CAMP grantees have primarily requested

protective equipment, computer hardware and supplies. Within the last three years, all COPS 

programs have disallowed funding requests for tactical vehicles, non-standard issue weapons, 

explosive devices and delivery systems, and major end items such as armored vehicles, rotary 

wing aircraft and fixed wing aircraft.

COPS grant awards are subject to the same monitoring and compliance procedures as 

OJP grant awards, as described above.

Department of Justice Equitable Sharing Program (the “Assets Forfeiture Fund”)

The Assets Forfeiture Fund (“AFF”) was established in 1984 by the Comprehensive 

Crime Control Act, to receive the proceeds of forfeiture and to pay the costs associated with the 

seizure and forfeiture of assets. The Attorney General is authorized by statute to use the AFF to 

pay necessary expenses associated with forfeiture operations. Under this authority, the Attorney 

General may transfer property to any federal agency, or to any state or local LEA which 

participated directly in the seizure or forfeiture of the property. Since the inception of the Asset 

Forfeiture Program and the creation of the AFF, the Attorney General has promulgated 

guidelines on the seizure and forfeiture of assets. The Equitable Sharing Program (“ESP”) was 

created within the Asset Forfeiture Program to oversee the transfer and use of forfeited funds by 

state or local LEAs. Over 7,500 LEAs participate in the ESP, and over $2.7 billion has been 

shared with those agencies since 2009. 

ADMINISTRATION 

To participate in the ESP, LEAs must annually file the Equitable Sharing Agreement and 

Certification (ESAC) form. After the seizure of property or cash in a joint investigation or 

adoption in an adoptive case (where the federal government “adopts” a state seizure), a 

participating state or local LEA may request a share of the property or cash by submitting a Form 

DAG-71, Application for Transfer of Federally Forfeited Property, to the lead federal seizing 

agency. Seizures must be valued at $5,000 or more, unless the person from whom it was seized 

is being criminally prosecuted, in which case, the seizure may be valued at $1,000 or more.6 

 

6 The Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual (2013), Chapter 1, Section I.D.1 lists the minimum net equity levels that 

generally must be met, before federal forfeiture actions are instituted. Real and commercial property, which may be 

sold, must provide a net equity of 20% of the appraised value for properties valued over $100,000 and at least 
 13 

Depending on the value and type of forfeiture, the lead federal seizing agency, the United States 

Attorney, or the Deputy Attorney General serves as the equitable sharing deciding authority. 

Disbursements of forfeiture proceeds from the AFF to LEAs are made via the ESP at the 

discretion of the Attorney General and are not subject to appropriation. In 2013, DOJ released 

the first phase of the eShare Portal, which allows agencies to view and track sharing requests 

submitted to DOJ. Phase II of the eShare Portal permits electronic submission of the DAG-71 

directly to the lead federal seizing agency. It is estimated that use of the eShare Portal will 

become mandatory in mid-2015.

LEAs participating in the ESP must comply with three basic requirements: 1) Funds 

must be maintained in a separate revenue account, 2) Participants must maintain a log of all 

tangible property purchased with equitable sharing funds or received from DOJ, and 3) 

Participants must maintain records of all expenditures made from equitably shared funds. In 

addition, LEAs must comply with the rules and permissible uses of shared funds outlined in 

DOJ’s Guide to Equitable Sharing for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (2009) 

(“2009 Guide”). 

EQUIPMENT

LEAs are permitted to spend the funding for law enforcement purposes, including the 

purchase of equipment and vehicles subject to the appropriations and procurement rules and 

regulations of the state and local jurisdiction. 

OVERSIGHT

Oversight and compliance of the ESP is accomplished in many different ways. A LEA 

must annually file the ESAC form to the Department within 60 days of the end of the agency’s 

fiscal year. Each annual ESAC submission is reviewed for fiscal discrepancies and to ensure the 

funds are properly recorded and spent. If there is a discrepancy or a question, the agency is 

contacted to resolve the concern. Depending on the nature of the discrepancy, LEAs may be 

marked non-compliant until the discrepancy is resolved. 

In addition to the ESAC reviews, a team of auditors conducts compliance reviews of 

LEAs based on a risk assessment model that was developed specifically for the ESP to identify 

state and local LEAs that are at risk of misusing or mishandling ESP funds. Since 2010, the 

Department has conducted 122 reviews. The Department’s OIG also conducts independent 

audits of ESP participants. If a jurisdiction expends more than $500,000 in federal funds, it is 

required to submit an A-133 audit, or Single Audit, to the Office of Management and Budget. 

These audits are conducted by independent third parties hired by state or local jurisdictions. The 

DOJ Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is also responsible for reviewing findings related to 

 

$20,000 for properties valued at less than $100,000. Vehicles must provide a net equity of $5,000. Aircraft and 

vessels must provide a net equity of $10,000 and all other personal property must provide a net equity of at least 

$1,000 or $5,000 in the aggregate. The 2015 edition of the Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual, to be published in 

January 2015, will include increased net equity thresholds for real and commercial property, vehicles, aircraft 

and vessels.
 14 

equitable sharing if included in a jurisdiction’s annual A-133 audit. Since 2008, OJP has 

coordinated 49 reviews of A-133 findings related to equitable sharing. 

If an LEA receives equitable sharing funds that result in a significant windfall to the 

agency, the LEA must submit a detailed spending plan for approval by the Department’s Asset 

Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS). Once approved, all expenditures must be 

approved in advance by AFMLS, and the LEA’s expenditures are carefully monitored and 

reviewed by the compliance review team. 

There is extensive training nationwide on the ESP to federal, state, and local LEAs. 

Training is conducted at the local, regional, and national levels by AFMLS personnel and by 

personnel in the U.S. Attorneys’ offices and federal law enforcement agencies. Specialized 

equitable sharing training has been developed and implemented for city, county, and state 

finance and government staff. The training does not include instruction on civil rights/civil 

liberties.

Failure to comply with DOJ’s 2009 Guide may result in denied sharing requests, 

temporary or permanent exclusion from further participation in the ESP, repayment of 

impermissibly used funds, and offsets from future sharing in amounts equal to impermissible 

uses. During the last five years, five LEAs have been made ineligible or non-compliant from 

participation in the ESP for significant program violations. Three of the LEAs were made 

ineligible or non-compliant after DOJ’s Civil Rights Division issued a written determination that 

the LEA had committed civil rights violations. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)

Since 2003, DHS has made funding available for LEAs chiefly through FEMA’s 

Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), pursuant to the authorities currently provided at 6 

U.S.C. §§ 603-609. The HSGP is comprised of three, interconnected grant programs; the State 

Homeland Security Program (SHSP), the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) and Operation 

Stonegarden (OPSG). SHSP and UASI are designed to build capabilities to prevent, protect 

against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, disasters, and other incidents in 

support of the National Preparedness Goal. States are required by law to pass-through (i.e., subaward) at least 80 percent of funding to local or tribal jurisdictions. The UASI program provides 

funding for high-threat, high-density urban areas. States are required to pass-through at least 80 

percent of UASI funds directly to those local jurisdictions situated in urban areas. These funds 

are then administered by an Urban Area Working Group. States and urban areas allocate grant 

funds at their own discretion as long as those allocations conform to applicable governing laws, 

regulations and guidelines. Operation Stonegarden provides funding to enhance cooperation and 

coordination among local, tribal, territorial, state and federal law enforcement agencies to secure 

the United States’ borders. OPSG funds are allocated based on a sector-specific DHS border risk 

methodology. In FY2014, HSGP provided over $1 billion in grant funding to all U.S. States and 

Territories and to 39 Urban Areas across the country.

ADMINISTRATION
 15 

Within each state or territory participating in the HSGP, State Administrative Agencies 

(SAAs) are designated by the Governor to act as the recipient agency responsible for 

administering SHSP, UASI and OPSG grant funds. Prior to FY2014, HSGP applicants were

required to provide broad narratives laying out how proposed expenditures addressed unmet 

capability gaps. Beginning in FY2014, project-based requirements were incorporated into the 

HSGP. Applicants are now required to provide project-level information in the application that 

is more extensive than in the past. When submitting their applications for SHSP and UASI 

funds, LEAs must develop a formal Investment Justification (IJ) that addresses each investment 

being proposed for funding. The IJ demonstrates how proposed projects support sustainment of 

existing core capabilities or address capability gaps and deficiencies in one or more core 

capabilities outlined in the National Preparedness Goal and as identified in their most recent 

State Preparedness Report. The IJ also demonstrates alignment to the urban area, state, and/or 

regional Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments (THIRAs), national priorities, 

and applicable guidance provided by FEMA. The IJ also describes engagement with and/or 

impacts on the general and vulnerable populations, to include children, the elderly, pregnant 

women, and individuals with disabilities. Furthermore, the IJ must clearly identify and explain 

the investment’s nexus to terrorism preparedness.

TYPES OF EQUIPMENT

HSGP funds can be used for equipment (including tactical vehicles, helicopters and 

personal protective gear), planning and organizational costs, training and exercises. HSGP is the 

primary DHS funding stream through which LEAs purchase items such as BearCat tactical 

vehicles, helicopters and personal protective equipment. Per FEMA policy, the purchase of 

weapons and weapons accessories is prohibited within the HSGP. HSGP funds may be used to 

facilitate the transport, receipt and storage of equipment from DOD’s 1033 programs, provided 

that equipment is otherwise eligible under the HSGP. 

 

OVERSIGHT

DHS monitors grantee compliance with program standards through either a desk-based 

review or on-site visits, or both. DHS reviews and analyzes the financial, programmatic, 

performance, compliance and administrative processes, policies, activities, and other attributes of 

each federal assistance award and identifies areas where technical assistance, corrective actions 

and other support may be needed. Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, DHS 

is required to conduct programmatic and financial monitoring of HSGP grantees every two years. 

However, DHS conducts a first-line programmatic review on all HSGP grantees annually and, 

based on a risk based monitoring assessment, selects additional grantees for desk reviews or site 

visits.

DHS mandates that grantees must maintain property records for equipment purchased 

with DHS grant funds. The records must include a description of the property; a serial number 

or other identification number; the source of property; who holds title, the acquisition date and 

cost of the property; percentage of federal participation in the cost of the property; the location, 

use and condition of the property; and any ultimate disposition data, including the date of 
 16 

disposal and sale price of the property. LEAs must develop an inventory control system to 

ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage or theft of the property.

As a term and condition of all grant awards, DHS requires that grant recipients and subrecipients comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 

§2000d et seq.), which provides that no person in the United States will, on the grounds of race, 

color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 

DHS also requires that all grant recipients comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968

(42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.).

 

SAAs are responsible for providing oversight of sub-grantees and ensuring sub-grantee 

compliance with DHS equipment tracking and reporting requirements through applicable 

financial and programmatic monitoring activities, and DHS maintains the ability to review and 

audit compliance. As sub-grantees, LEAs have wide discretion in how they use this funding 

(though they can only purchase items that are allowable per HSGP’s authorizing statute and 

Funding Opportunity Announcement), and report only broad categories of expenditures. 

During FY2014, DHS monitored 24 awards via programmatic site visit and 11 awards via 

programmatic desk audit. In addition, grants staff in the FEMA Regions conduct at minimum a 

cash analysis for all grantees and, based on a monitoring assessment, select additional grantees 

for desk reviews or site visits. In FY2014, 186 awards were monitored via desk review, and 543 

awards were monitored via site visit. The DHS Office of the Inspector General provides another 

layer of grant oversight. Pursuant to Public Law 110−53, Implementing Recommendations of 

the 9/11 Commission Act, the DHS OIG has audited all 56 Homeland Security Grant Program 

grantees.

To date, no HSGP grantee has ever been suspended or debarred from future participation 

in Federal financial assistance programs as a result of their actions under their HSGP award.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund’s Equitable Sharing Program (TFF) was authorized in 1993 

and is governed by 31 U.S.C. § 9703. The TFF is available to the Secretary of Treasury without 

fiscal year limitation and is the depository account for seizures and forfeitures pursuant to any 

law enforced or administered by the Department of the Treasury or Department of Homeland 

Security law enforcement agencies. Additionally, the Secretary’s Enforcement Fund (SEF) is 

derived from equitable sharing received from DOJ’s AFF for work done by Treasury and DHS 

law enforcement bureaus leading to Justice Department forfeitures. SEF revenue is available for 

federal law enforcement related purposes of any Treasury or DHS law enforcement organization. 

In FY2013, the TFF received more than $1.7 billion in total net deposits and disbursed equitable 

sharing payments of nearly $123 million to state and local LEAs participating in investigations 

resulting in forfeiture performed by a Treasury Forfeiture Fund member agency (IRS Criminal 
 17 

Investigation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secret Service, Customs and Border 

Protection).7

ADMINSTRATION

The Department of the Treasury Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) Policy Directive 

No. 20 establishes minimum net equity requirements for different types of federal agencies’ 

seizures (such as currency/financial accounts, real property, vehicles, aircraft, vessels and other 

general properties), as well as exceptions from these requirements if they would compromise a 

law enforcement operation. Seizures must meet the same minimum values as with DOJ’s 

Equitable Sharing Program. After a seizure in a joint investigation or an adoption, the 

participating LEA may request a share of the forfeited assets by submitting a request to the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund member agency completing the forfeiture. The request must be 

submitted within 60 days after the seizure or within 60 days after the federal adoption of a state 

or local seizure. 

EQUIPMENT 

TFF funds may be used for any law enforcement purpose consistent with Treasury’s 

Guide to Equitable Sharing for Foreign Countries and Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement 

Agencies and with the applicable laws, rules, regulations, and orders of the state or local 

jurisdiction governing the use of public funds for law enforcement purposes, including the 

purchase or lease of body armor, firearms and vehicles. These disbursements are discretionary 

and not subject to appropriation. Currently, a state or local LEA may transfer a portion of its 

shared cash or shared property to another state or LEA, to be used for law enforcement purposes, 

so long as the receiving agency has a current and valid federal sharing agreement and 

certification on file. 

OVERSIGHT

To ensure compliance with standards for use of, and accounting for, shared funds and 

property by state and local LEAs, TEOAF conducts “compliance reviews” as needed. The 

compliance reviews are conducted periodically throughout the year and target the largest (>$1 

million) and most frequent recipients of the selected fiscal year’s equitable sharing funds. In 

FY2015, 41 (out of close to 1000) agencies have been selected to be reviewed. In a “windfall” 

situation (equitable sharing over 25% of the recipient agency’s annual budget) the recipient 

agency is required to submit to TEOAF a detailed spending proposal, and involves follow-up 

reviews and an audit. TEOAF coordinates with DOJ on compliance review findings pertaining 

to violations of equitable sharing guidelines. 

LEAs must submit the Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification Form (ESAC) 

annually based on the LEA’s fiscal year. The ESAC collects equitable sharing activity, 

including a summary of Federal Annual Sharing Funds Received in addition to a summary of 

shared funds spent. To determine whether a compliance review, or OIG referral, or other action 

 

7 Equitable sharing funds can also be provided to the foreign governments contributing to forfeiture cases and to the 

Justice Asset Forfeiture Fund, as a share of its member agencies’ contribution to TFF forfeiture.
 18 

is necessary, TEOAF often receives information from DOJ or other sources. TEOAF currently 

employs contractors to perform state and local reviews, including onsite reviews, as well as 

paperwork oversight reviews. Final determination of an agency’s eligibility is within the 

discretion of TEOAF and/or DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section. Since 

FY2009, thirteen agencies have been suspended from participation in TEOAF’s Equitable 

Sharing Program for various program violations, including impermissible use of funds, ongoing 

civil rights investigations and other federal charges.

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY (ONDCP)

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program

Created by Congress in 1988, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) 

Program coordinates federal, state, local and tribal LEAs operating in areas determined to be 

critical drug trafficking regions of the United States. There are currently 28 HIDTAs affiliated 

with 200 grantees located in 47 states. HIDTA funds are not used to acquire military style 

equipment. However, federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations participating in a 

regional HIDTA may deploy such equipment. 

ADMINSTRATION

ONDCP operates the HIDTA program, pursuant to the “Office of National Drug Control 

Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006.” Through non-competitive grants, HIDTA provides 

resources to assist federal, state, local and tribal agencies in coordinating activities that address 

multi-jurisdictional drug trafficking and supports task forces to conduct drug enforcement related 

operations. 

Each designated HIDTA region has an Executive Board composed of federal, state, local 

and tribal law enforcement leaders that submit an annual Threat Assessment, Strategy, and 

budget request to fund activities that fall within any of four categories: 1) Enforcement, 2) 

Intelligence and Information Sharing, 3) Support, and 4) Management and Coordination. 

Specific activities include enforcement such as multi-agency investigations, interdiction, and 

prosecution activities targeting drug trafficking and money laundering organizations, drug 

production organizations, drug gangs, drug fugitives, and other serious crimes with a drug nexus. 

The annual budget submissions are reviewed by ONDCP to ensure compliance with grant law 

and HIDTA program policy. 

TYPES OF EQUIPMENT 

HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance specifically prohibits the purchase of 

weapons, ammunition and standard issue departmental-type raid/tactical gear with HIDTA grant 

funds. HIDTA funds may be spent on such items as computers and cell phones; services, 

including telephone company wires for telephone taps; overtime for law enforcement officers; 

and office space and supplies. Funds may also be used to acquire vehicles including special 

purpose vehicles, such as surveillance vans, for a participating agency.
 19 

OVERSIGHT 

Each HIDTA grantee or resource recipient that acquires or holds HIDTA-purchased 

equipment must maintain a tracking system to account for all HIDTA-purchased equipment, 

vehicles and other items valued at $5,000 or more at the time of purchase. Oversight and 

compliance of HIDTA grants is accomplished by audits, reviews conducted by HIDTA 

Executive Board and ONDCP On-Site Program Reviews. A-133 audits are conducted annually 

by grantees and are necessary for compliance with OMB Circular A-133 concerning federal 

assistance and grants in amounts of $500,000 or more. ONDCP audits smaller grants as needed 

and each year, contracts with an independent accounting firm to conduct financial audits of 7 of 

the 200 HIDTA grantees. HIDTA Executive Boards are required to review initiatives annually 

and ONDCP leads On-Site Reviews to ensure compliance with program policy annually. 

Approximately eight regional HIDTAs are reviewed each year. As an additional oversight, each 

request for reimbursement submitted by a grantee receives an ONDCP funded desk audit to 

ensure compliance with guidance. To date, no LEA has ever been suspended from the HIDTA 

program or had their participation in the program terminated.