U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–102 PDF 2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMUNITY 

ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES OFFICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 29, 2012 

Serial No. 112–97 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 29, 2012 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 3 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 3 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Bernard K. Melekian, Director, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................ 2 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Report from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) ......... 36 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Bernard K. 

Melekian, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. 

Department of Justice ......................................................................................... 84 

(1) 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMUNITY 

ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES OFFICE 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Adams, Conyers, Scott, Jackson 

Lee, Pierluisi, Chu, and Polis. 

Staff present: (Majority) Caroline Lynch, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Sheila Schreiber, Counsel; Harold Damelin, Counsel; 

Sarah Allen, Counsel, Arthur Radford Baker, Counsel; Lindsay 

Hamilton, Clerk; (Minority) Aaron Hiller, Counsel, Joe 

Graupenberger, Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff 

Member. 

Mr. GOWDY. Good Morning. This is the Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Welcome to an oversight hearing on the United States Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Services Office. The Subcommittee will come to 

order. 

Welcome to today’s oversight hearing. I would like to especially 

thank and welcome Director Melekian. Have I pronounced your 

name correctly? And thank you for joining us today. 

I am also joined by my distinguished colleague from Virginia, the 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Bobby Scott. 

I am also joined by the Ranking Member of the full Committee, 

former Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Top of the morning. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Pierluisi from Puerto Rico. Welcome to all. 

I am going to enter into the record, hopefully without objection, 

the opening statement of Chairman Sensenbrenner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:] 

2 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

Today’s hearing examines the grant programs administered by the Community 

Oriented Policing Services Office, known as the COPS Office, at the U.S. Department of Justice. Throughout the early 1990s, national violent crime rates skyrocketed. In response to this problem, Congress established the COPS Program in 

1994 and initially funded it with nearly $9 billion dollars between 1995 and 2000. 

DOJ also created the COPS Office to distribute and monitor these federal funds. 

The goal of the COPS hiring program was to place 100,000 additional police officers engaged in so-called ‘‘community policing’’ on the streets by the end of 2000. 

Whether this goal of an additional 100,000 officers was ever met is a matter of dispute. And, even more importantly, there is strong disagreement over whether the 

COPS hiring program has been effective in reducing violent crime. 

Despite spending billions of dollars on the program since its inception, the Government Accountability Office has estimated that the COPS hiring program is only 

responsible for a 1.3 percent decline in overall crime rates between 1993 and 2000. 

This is simply not a good return on our investment. 

During the mid-2000s, as national crime rates continued to plummet, Congress 

stopped funding the COPS hiring program entirely in 2006 and 2007 and appropriated just $20 million for the program in 2008. And the crime rates continued 

their decline. 

However, in 2009, as part of the Administration’s economic stimulus plan, Congress appropriated $1 billion for COPS hiring grants in the Recovery Act with virtually no strings attached. Congress waived any matching requirement and the 

COPS Office allowed the funds to be used to pay the salaries of existing officers 

rather than hire new ones. This wasn’t a crime fighting program—it was a jobs program. 

The bloated funding continues. For Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012, Congress appropriated an additional $700 million for COPS hiring grants. And now President 

Obama has requested a staggering $4.25 BILLION in COPS funds for Fiscal Year 

2013. This, despite the fact that crime rates are at their lowest in 30 years, despite 

concerns raised by GAO and the Inspector General about the administration of 

these grants, and despite the fact that some recipients are exploiting this program 

to supplant rather than support the hiring of new officers. 

It is clear to me that the purpose of the program has shifted from addressing violent crime nationwide to subsidizing state and local law enforcement agencies with 

budget problems. The responsibility to fund and manage routine state and local law 

enforcement efforts has been and should remain with the state and local governments. 

This program was intended to address an acute crime problem that no longer exists and has now become a program to bail out state and local governments that 

made fiscally irresponsible decisions. 

The City of San Francisco began a program in 2008 that allowed police officers 

to retire at age 55 and then be rehired by the police department. Once rehired, 

these officers were then entitled to receive—at the same time—both a full salary, 

which could be upwards of six figures, and retirement payments, which were deposited in a tax-deferred account that guaranteed a 4% return. Upon leaving the department for the second time, the officers received the so-called retirement payments that had accrued as a lump sum. 

In many cases, police officers left their second tours of duty with lump sums in 

the mid-six figures. A comptroller’s report found that this outrageous program is expected to cost the city an additional $52 million to re-hire retired officers rather 

than new recruits. And yet, the COPS Office awarded San Francisco hiring grants 

worth over $16 million in 2009 alone. 

In these difficult economic times, when the federal government must drastically 

reduce its spending, we simply cannot continue to spend money without verifying 

that funds are being used as effectively and efficiently as possible, and only for the 

purpose Congress intends. 

I welcome the Director of the COPS Office, Bernard Melekian and look forward 

to your testimony today. 

Mr. GOWDY. And with that, we will recognize the gentleman from 

Virginia for his opening statement. 

3 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for my voice, 

but it is actually getting better. 

I would like to welcome Director Melekian in here today to discuss the important role of the COPS Office in making us safer in 

this country. The COPS program awards grants to state, local, and 

tribal law enforcement agencies throughout the United States, so 

they can hire and train law enforcement officers to participate in 

community policing, purchase and deploy new crime fighting technologies, and develop and test new and innovative policing strategies. 

The COPS Office was instituted not only with the goal of hiring 

an additional 100,000 police officers, but also to promote community policing. Community policing is a model of police work involving a partnership between the police and the local residents, which 

expands the focus of the police from arrests, to intervention and 

prevention problem-solving. 

This is a shift from deploying police officers and patrol cars to 

randomly cruise the streets and to answer calls for assistance to 

deploying them on the street and encouraging them to establish ongoing relationships with residents. 

This is often described as returning to a model of cops on the 

beat, which is when officers get to know the residents on their beat 

and thereby better understand the community’s crime problems 

and broader needs. 

Of course, the better relationships that police officers have with 

the community, the more likely it is that residents will share important information with police, and obviously assist in investigations. In this model of policing, officers have more discretion and 

can go beyond making arrests, to analyzing problems and responding to them with community cooperation. In this way, local law enforcement officers are more effective in protecting citizens because 

they prevent crimes from occurring in the first place, save taxpayers money, because of all of the associated savings related to investigation, prosecution, and incarceration for crimes not committed. 

I believe that the COPS program has been a success and a model 

on how smarter, proactive strategies for fighting crime are superior 

to strategies that simply react to crime and cost more in terms of 

victimization and taxpayers’ money. 

So, I look forward to the discussion today about how the COPS 

Office is implementing this important program, and ways in which 

we may be able to better strengthen it, and make it even more capable of carrying out its important role. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I would now recognize the 

gentleman from Michigan, if he would like to take the opportunity 

for an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy, and Members of the 

Committee. We all join in welcoming Bernard Melekian, the Director of Community Oriented Police Services. 

Just two things to add to what Ranking Member Scott has already said. The first is that from my point of view, the COPS program is one of the most successful ever produced by the Judiciary 

Committee. And I would like to try to show why this program is 

4 

money well spent and what we need to do to reaffirm our commitment to providing assistance to local law enforcement in this country. 

First of all, the COPS program creates jobs. It started off under 

Clinton. It has funded more than 123,000 state and local officers 

in communities across the country. Now, some jurisdictions are actually laying off police officers, but the COPS program makes us 

safer, and I fully support it. And I think the case will be made very 

clearly here this morning. 

In fact, former Attorney General John Ashcroft said, and I quote, 

‘‘The COPS program has been one of the most successful programs 

that we have ever worked with.’’ 

Now in addition, yesterday I have introduced H.R. 4098, of which 

the director has been made aware, and called the Shield Our 

Streets Act, to provide specific funding for places that have particularly high crime areas, like, for example, Highland Park, Michigan, 

whose lighting systems have been cut off because of their financial 

distress, and the safety issues become paramount there. 

And so I welcome you to the Committee again, and we look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce today’s witness. Mr. Bernard 

Melekian was selected as the Director of the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services in October 2009. He has 36 years of 

local law enforcement experience, including serving as the chief of 

police for the City of Pasadena for 13 years. He also served with 

the Santa Monica Police Department for 23 years, where he was 

awarded the Medal of Valor in 1978 and the Medal of Courage in 

1980. 

Mr. Melekian served in the United States Army from 1967 to 

1970. As a member of the United States Coast Guard Reserve, he 

was called to active duty in 1991, during Operation Desert Storm, 

and served in Saudi Arabia. Director Melekian served a second 

tour of active duty in 2003, when he served for 8 months in the 

Pacific. He retired from the Coast Guard Reserves in 2009, after 

26 years of service. 

Director Melekian holds a bachelor’s degree in American history 

and a master’s degree in public administration, both from California State University North Ridge. He is a graduate of the 150th 

session of the FBI National Academy, and the 20th class of the 

California Command College. 

Director Melekian’s written statement will be entered into the 

record in its entirety. 

I would ask that you summarize your testimony, to the extent 

you can, in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within the time parameters there is a lighting system, which you are probably familiar with. The colors mean the same thing they mean in everyday 

life. Green means go, yellow means speed up, and hope there is not 

a police officer around, and red means stop. 

I now recognize Director Melekian. And welcome. 

5 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BERNARD K. MELEKIAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING 

SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Good Morning, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking 

Member Scott, and distinguished Members of the Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity today to discuss the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS. I would like to discuss 

with you our fiscal year 2013 budget request, our management and 

oversight of valuable Federal resources, the impact of the current 

economy on local law enforcement, and why the COPS Office is just 

as important today as when it was founded. 

The mission of the COPS Office is to advance public safety 

through community policing. Community policing is best defined as 

building partnerships to solve community problems. The community policing philosophy has served as the foundation for successful 

law enforcement practices from Houston, Texas, where police officers mentor at-risk youth, to Allentown, Pennsylvania, where community policing officers will be hired to focus on campus rape reduction, to Racine, Wisconsin, where officers buy homes in high 

crime neighborhoods, use those homes as substations to reduce 

crime, and ultimately resell the homes to needy families. 

Community policing in both practice and philosophy is an effective solution to addressing public safety. Findings from the 2005 

GAO report demonstrated that COPS funds increase community 

policing capacity, and were a contributing factor to the reduction 

of crime in the 1990’s. 

I would like briefly to discuss the President’s budget request for 

the COPS Office, and our oversight and accountability measures 

regarding taxpayer dollars appropriated to us. 

The budget requests approximately $290 million for the COPS 

Office, including $257 million for hiring programs. These funds will 

be focused on hiring military veterans as law enforcement officers, 

providing an opportunity to support those who are returning home 

from their tours of active duty. 

We are committed to operating our office in the most efficient 

way possible, while continuing to advance public safety. We have 

made it a top priority to minimize our operational costs. In 2011, 

we transferred our IT infrastructure to a consolidated DOJ system, 

saving approximately $5 million over the next 5 years. We have 

also curbed expenditures on supplies, materials, travel, training, 

awards, and overtime. 

In light of the recent OIG findings on conferences, we issued new 

instructions to grantees, and have trained our staff on the new 

guidelines. As always, we seek to minimize conference costs, and 

avoid either the fact or the appearance of extravagant spending. 

We also collaborate closely with the Office of Audit, Assessment 

and Management to improve operating efficiency and effectiveness. 

Since fiscal year 2007, we have recovered nearly $4.7 million 

through the resolution of audits. 

The COPS Office also closely monitors trends occurring in law 

enforcement, and we have found that the loss of capacity due to the 

economy is shocking. As shown in a report published by our office, 

approximately 10,000 law enforcement positions have been lost 

6 

through layoffs, and local hiring freezes will leave an additional 

30,000 positions unfilled. 

It is highly likely that the numbers that I am quoting to you are 

low. In Camden, New Jersey, the city with one of the highest crime 

rates in the country, nearly 50 percent of its police department was 

laid off. 

There are scores of other examples highlighted in this report. I 

would ask your consent to include a copy in the record of my testimony. 

American law enforcement is changing, and I believe the next 

few years will be a period of significant innovation. Moving forward, the challenge will be to balance the public’s expectations and 

demands on police with the department’s fiscal capacity to perform 

its core mission. 

Changes are likely to occur in four areas: Greater use of civilians 

as both employees and volunteers, greater use of technology, alternative delivery of non-emergency services, and consolidation and 

regionalization. 

Because of the history of our office, we have come to be seen in 

some circles as only providing funds for hiring. That is not and 

never has been our sole objective. We also provide a broad range 

of robust technical assistance resources. We have disseminated 

over 6 million training products and publications, and have trained 

nearly 700,000 policing professionals and community leaders. 

We are partnering with the Bureau of Justice Assistance on the 

Officer Safety and Wellness Group, which brings together law enforcement leaders and criminal justice practitioners to share their 

broad perspectives in this area. 

COPS is making an impact at the local level. For example, in Las 

Vegas, we are coordinating with the Civil Rights Division to help 

develop a response to address community concerns. 

I want this office to become known as supporting innovation as 

much as it is for hiring police officers. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melekian follows:] 

7 


DOJ-1.eps
8 


DOJ-2.eps
9 


DOJ-3.eps
10 


DOJ-4.eps
11 


DOJ-5.eps
12 


DOJ-6.eps
13 


DOJ-7.eps
14 


DOJ-8.eps
15 


DOJ-9.eps
16 


DOJ-10.eps
17 


DOJ-11.eps
18 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Dr. Melekian. 

I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia for his 

questioning. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Melekian, how do you guarantee that 

the localities that need it most are more likely to get funds? How 


DOJ-12.eps
19 

do you guarantee that the localities that need the money the most 

get the funds? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. The challenge for the office this year, and actually for the last several years, has been, as I mentioned previously, 

the impact of the economy has had devastating results on local 

economy. 

We use an evaluative system in our application process, focusing 

on the fiscal health of the agencies, the crime rate of the agencies, 

as well as the community policing plans, both in terms of history 

and in terms of what they propose to do. The harsh reality is that 

our funding, since 2009, has funded roughly 14 percent, 8 percent, 

and 10 percent of the applicants. In other words, 90 percent of 

those people who apply simply don’t get funded. My guess is that 

the need on the next block of applicants, if we went straight down 

the list, would be every bit as significant as those who got funded. 

But we really focus on fiscal health and crime rate in an effort 

to see that we can provide the greatest assistance possible. One of 

the goals is to make sure that we maximize the impact of those 

Federal dollars, given their limited availability. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Could you say a word about what you are 

doing for veterans? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Yes. In the 2012 hiring program, we are placing 

great emphasis on those men and women who have served at least 

180 days of active duty since 9/11 of 2001. 

The first priority for any agency that is hiring new officers, that 

is, not re-hiring someone who has lost their job, will be focused on 

those returning veterans, with an idea particularly toward catching 

those folks from Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you say a word about how community policing 

helps solve crimes? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Absolutely. I think, you know, sort of the image 

of community policing in some cases is that it is simply a feel-good 

program to build a relationship between the police and the community. 

I came to a community that was experiencing 20 to 25 homicides 

a year, and had done so for a long period of time. Through a lot 

of community policing efforts, through support from the COPS Office, through support from other Federal agencies, we actually had 

30 months of zero homicides. And we never went back to double 

digits for, I think, 7 or 8 years. 

The very definition of community policing, of building relationships and solving problems, suggests that if the officers on the beat 

know the people who live there, they are much more likely to be 

able to obtain information and solve crimes. 

I think one of the best indicators, for example, of a successful 

community policing program is any agency that has a high rate of 

homicide clearances, where those clearances are the result of investigation. It suggests that both the patrol officers and the detectives 

have solid relationships in the community to help them solve that 

crime. 

Mr. SCOTT. And finally, do you coordinate grants with other DOJ 

programs? 

20 

Mr. MELEKIAN. We absolutely do. We work very closely both with 

the Office of Justice Programs, particularly the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance and the Office on Violence Against Women. 

We are focused on making sure that we are not making awards 

to the same grantees, that we are coordinating the purposes of our 

grants. We recently began participating in the Coordinated Tribal 

Assistance effort that is designed to streamline the grant-making 

process for tribal police agencies. 

We participate in and currently chair the High-Risk Grantee 

Working Group, with an idea toward ensuring maximum efficiency 

of all of DOJ’s grant funds. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, who 

had a very distinguished career in law enforcement herself. Mrs. 

Adams? 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

You know, in the past, you have commented about how hard it 

was to measure the effectiveness of the COPS program, you know, 

the hiring program and all of that. What have done since being in 

charge of the COPS programs to be able to measure the outcomes 

and how it is working, the hiring programs? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. One of the most fundamental changes that we 

have made in the COPS hiring process is to really sort of shift the 

focus from the output measure, that is how many officers did we 

hire, and begin to measure what did those officers actually accomplish in the neighborhoods and communities where they went. 

To that end, in 2011, was the first time that grantees were required to identify specific community problems that they intended 

to address. And as part of our oversight and monitoring efforts, we 

will be reviewing: (a) what they said they were going to do to address the problem; and (b) what they have actually done to make 

sure that those two are in alignment. 

In 2011, we allowed them to identify three community problems. 

In 2012, we have actually focused that down to one community 

problem with an eye, again, that we are not going to solve their 

local budget problem, but what we can do is help to solve a local 

policing problem. 

Mrs. ADAMS. The COPS Office was established as separate from 

DOJ’s two other major grant-making components, the OVW and 

OJP. And the DOJ IG has reported areas where the distinctions 

have kind of caused some overlap and duplication in the grant and 

administration. So, in what ways might consolidation of these offices, particularly with regard to sharing systems, procedures, and 

other administrative processes, yield greater grant oversight and 

coordination to reduce cost? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. We are very conscious of making sure that we 

are proper stewards of the Federal dollar, of the taxpayer dollar. 

We view that as one of our core missions. We look very closely, and 

I mentioned earlier some of the joint grant working groups that we 

have to make sure that we are not sort of blurring the line on that. 

That same report mentions that we share a number of administrative systems with OJP. We have done that for a number of years, 

again, in the pursuit of greater efficiency, rather than standing 

alone. 

21 

Our greatest strength, I think, comes from the fact that we are 

focused directly with the local law enforcement agency, we deal directly with the local law enforcement agency, and our mission to 

that end is unique within the Justice grant-making components. 

Mrs. ADAMS. How many people, including both DOJ employees 

and contractors, currently work in the COPS Office? Like, how 

many grant managers are responsible for COPS getting the grants? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. If I understood the question, we currently have 

129 employees, Federal employees in the office. The hiring freeze 

that has been in place since, for about—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. And they work in both? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Pardon me? 

Mrs. ADAMS. They are both DOJ and contractors that work 

in—— 

Mr. MELEKIAN. And I was going to say, and 70 contractors, so a 

total of 209 persons. 

Mrs. ADAMS. How many active grants does the COPS Office currently manage? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. A little over 4,000. 

Mrs. ADAMS. What is the average number of active grants assigned to a grant manager? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Roughly, 400. 

Mrs. ADAMS. In 2009, DOJ Inspector General advised your office 

of the potential overlap in purposes between the Byrne JAG grants 

and the COPS hiring grants. Isn’t it correct that a Byrne JAG 

grant can be used for essentially any purpose allowed by a COPS 

hiring grant? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. In theory, that is true. We have very little evidence to indicate that that has happened. One of the things that 

is distinctive about Byrne JAG is that it is generally a block grant, 

whereas, again, the COPS grant goes directly to the agency in 

question for a very specific purpose. Additionally, our grants are for 

3 years, and the grantee is required to maintain that grant, at local 

expense, for an additional 12 months. Byrne JAG doesn’t carry that 

requirement. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Have you gone back to look at, over the years, these 

COPS hiring programs, how many police officers are still there that 

were hired under these programs, and how long of a tenure have 

they had? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. We have tried to look into that, and I can try to 

get back to you on that. I don’t have that number off the top of my 

head. I can tell you, from a lot of years as a police chief, that those 

positions were absorbed into the local budget after the grant expired. 

Mrs. ADAMS. And wouldn’t it be fair to say that, although, I 

agree that having more police officers is better than not having 

enough, because I was one of them that called for help from time 

to time, but also, I believe, it is the laws on the books that keep 

the bad people behind the bars for the duration of the time they 

should be behind the bars. That is a big help for law enforcement, 

wouldn’t you agree? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. I certainly agree that that is a significant factor. 

One of the focuses that we made when we were dealing with the 

violence reduction program I talked about was to identify the worst 

22 

offenders, and make sure that our enforcement efforts were focused 

at them, rather than sort of at the community as a whole. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from Florida. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. I appreciate your 

testimony, Director Melekian. 

Let’s turn to the Detroit police situation with me, would you? 

They have had to restructure, and there is a struggle to preserve 

maybe as much as 100 jobs in the police department. Because of, 

I think, your program’s existing grants, we were able to preserve 

about 75 of those jobs, and I was wondering if you happen to have 

enough information to discuss this particular situation with me 

this morning? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. I do, and at least to some degree, and if it exceeds my capacity sitting here in front of you this morning, I will 

make sure that we get whatever information you require. The challenge that Detroit is facing is playing out all over this country. 

There are agencies, large and small, that are laying off, losing positions, and struggling to figure out how do they deliver police services in this economically challenged environment. 

Mr. CONYERS. Have you or any of your people had any contact 

with Police Chief of Detroit Ralph Godbee? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Yes. I have spoken personally with Godbee on 

several occasions, and he is a very active participant in the national planning efforts that take place here in Washington under 

the COPS umbrella. 

Mr. CONYERS. Is there any description you can give me of what 

the state of affairs and your organization’s relationship to the Detroit police department are currently? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. I would describe the relationship with Chief 

Godbee and with the members of his staff as extremely positive. I 

know that he is struggling in a very creative fashion. He has obviously got significant criminal justice issues to face. The department 

is stretched in a number of ways, and the COPS Office is striving 

to help the Detroit police department in the ways that we are striving to help agencies all over the country. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, it is my understanding that you have already helped us preserve roughly 75 Detroit police officers’ positions. 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Correct. 

Mr. CONYERS. Is that correct? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. It is, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Can we stay in touch, if not with you, with somebody on your staff about this as we go along, because there is no 

better way I can be of help to them than by working with your organization to see that this gets balanced out. I am going to be talking with him either today or tomorrow. 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, finally, since this is the authorizing Subcommittee, and a part of the full Committee that deals with this 

COPS program, what friendly advice would you give us as to something you would like to see done differently, added, or deleted, as 

we move forward with the legislative end of this program? 

23 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Probably is a longer answer than the clock may 

permit, but I would hope that the Committee does review the report that I made reference to, and really grasp what is happening 

to local agencies, large and small, across the country. I have never 

seen this loss of capacity. The things that I can describe, you know, 

from my tenure as a police chief, was, quite frankly, in an environment where the economy, at worst, in bad years, meant holding 

static. 

The devastation across the country, there’s an NIJ report that 

was issued recently that talked about the need to change police 

business practices. I think we want to work much more closely 

with this Committee on how we can maximize the use of Federal 

dollars in the face of that reality. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, thank you very much. 

Could I get one additional minute, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Now, without being combative, do you have as good a relationship with the Senate side as you do with the House side in this 

program that you lead? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. I believe so. 

Mr. CONYERS. Wait a minute. You believe so? Well, that is a 

pretty political response. So, I will see you after the hearing. 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. 

Director Melekian, you mentioned, I am going to go off script 

here, which is something I have been advised repeatedly not to do, 

but you mentioned homicide clearance rates as some indicator of 

success. Do you consider a homicide cleared at the time a warrant 

is signed, at the time the true bill is handed down, or at the time 

you go to court and there is actually a resolution of the case? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Generally, it is when a suspect has been affirmatively identified and enough evidence developed to take that person 

into custody. 

Mr. GOWDY. Even if there is a dismissal or a not guilty? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. If the dismissal is around an issue of, sort of, 

technical deficiencies, either in the warrant or in the arrest process, then I think you may have a training problem or you may just 

have an evidentiary reality problem. 

If, on the other hand, it is clear that somehow that warrant was 

issued in error, and that that person was not responsible, I would 

have a different response to that. 

Mr. GOWDY. So, there is a difference between whether you have 

got the right person, and you can’t prove it, or you have got the 

wrong person. 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. We had a pretty robust discussion yesterday about the over-criminalization, in general, and then what some 

would argue is an over-federalization of crime, in general. And I 

am not going to ask you about that, but I think, if I heard you correctly, and I tried to write it down, you said, ‘‘I can’t solve budgets, 

but I can solve law enforcement issues.’’ 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Yes, sir. 

24 

Mr. GOWDY. And, first of all, I should have started by saying, 

thank you for your service in law enforcement and to our country. 

I think you are uniquely well positioned to answer this question. 

There are localities and states that have had to make some pretty dramatic changes in the way that they fund other programs, so 

they can meet what they consider to be the core functions of state 

and local government, which in my judgment would be public safety and education. So, are we postponing the day of reckoning for 

those municipalities who are relying on Federal funding? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. I don’t believe so, and I say that because most 

agencies, especially in this day and age, for example, the COPS legislation, the agencies are not permitted to supplant their local 

budgets. And we pay very close attention to that, to make sure that 

that doesn’t occur. 

Mr. GOWDY. Have there been instances where you found that it 

did occur? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Very rarely. Over the last 16 years, I can think 

of a handful of occasions, and those were dealt with. But, the fact 

of the matter is that the agencies are reaching out to the Federal 

Government. And when I first got here, in 2009, it was very clear 

that chiefs and sheriffs were struggling to figure out what this new 

economic reality meant. I think people have come to terms with 

that. They recognize that neither the COPS Office nor any other 

Federal agency is going to fix the challenges that they have. 

But what they can do, if they are addressing a particular problem, whether it is a school security issue, or traffic management, 

or a specific type of crime problem, or whatever their local problem 

is, we have tried to position ourselves to where we can help them 

solve that problem, not necessarily solve the totality of what they 

are doing. And I think in that spirit it is unlikely that they are 

going to become dependent on Federal dollars. 

Mr. GOWDY. I am going to read you a quote from someone who 

had a very distinguished career in local law enforcement. Tell me 

if you recognize it. ‘‘The COPS Office and the Federal Government 

have poured billions of dollars into the advancement of community 

policing. I believe as a practitioner that it has made a difference,’’ 

ellipsis, ‘‘in quality of life, but if you ask me to prove it, I am not 

sure I could.’’ 

Do you know who said that? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. I don’t, but I don’t disagree with it. 

Mr. GOWDY. It is a quote attributed to you. 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Okay. It sounds like something I would say. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GOWDY. I am going to allow you to use the lowest standard 

of proof that we have, preponderance. Can you prove it now? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. I can prove it in the city that I worked in. I can 

prove it in the sense of talking to individual chiefs and sheriffs, as 

they tell me their stories about what they did. And I can sort of 

prove it in a parable form, when I look back at where this profession was 36 years ago when I came into it, and where it is today. 

In terms of proving it, when I said that, it was in terms of proving it in an academic sense. And it was in the context of a program 

that the COPS Office implemented, called CP-SAT, with our 2011 

budget, which was our first attempt, as far as I know, the first atVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:41 May 15, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\022912\73102.000 HJUD1 PsN: 73102
25 

tempt, to really try to measure the impact of community policing 

on grantees. And they are required to do an assessment, a self-assessment, that is a community self-assessment, at the beginning of 

the grant period, and then again at the end of the grant period, 

which in most cases is going to be around 2013, 2014. 

And our hope is that for the first time we will actually have an 

academically rigorous measure. The GAO report in 2005 suggested 

that the COPS Office was making a difference, and was, in fact, 

advancing community policing. 

I don’t know if I have answered your question. 

Mr. GOWDY. I am out of time, but if Mr. Scott would allow me 

one more question. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection. 

Mr. GOWDY. If you and I were working together and somebody 

were described as high risk, that would send off certain signals in 

our mind. Help me explain to the folks I work for back home how 

high-risk grantees can continue in the program, or can apply for 

additional grants. What does high risk mean to you, and do they 

have a higher burden to overcome when it comes to seeking new 

grants? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. The second part of your question is much easier 

to answer. They do have a higher burden to overcome. It means 

that in some process, and I think the term, the way you started 

out, if you and I are working a radio car together, and we say a 

person is high risk or a neighborhood is high risk, that sort of is 

one context. The idea of a high-risk grantee means that through 

any 1 of 19 identified factors, they have demonstrated that they 

may be challenged with regards to how they have implemented the 

grant. 

And so, the result that I mentioned in my remarks about the 

high-risk grant challenges group, it is a joint DOJ team effort between all the DOJ grant-making efforts that look at each component’s listing of people that are on that list, why they are on that 

list, and we make decisions about who gets evaluated, who is going 

to get a site visit. But, in any event, we are paying much closer 

attention to them than we would a grantee who is not on that list. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico, 

Mr. Pierluisi. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Director 

Melekian, for your service and your testimony this morning. 

I will use the bulk of my time to defend the program that you 

administer, and then I will have a couple of specific comments and 

questions. 

As you know, the COPS Office was created as a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. I was attorney general of Puerto Rico at the time, and I lobbied hard for this 

law. From where I stood, the need for this legislation could not 

have been more evident. In the early 1990’s, Puerto Rico, like so 

many other U.S. jurisdictions, was suffering from a wave of violent 

crime. In the 5-year period between 1989 and 1993, the number of 

homicides on the island more than doubled, from about 460, to over 

950. In 1994, there were nearly 1,000 homicides in Puerto Rico. Indeed, my own family was touched by this violence. 

26 

Director, in your testimony you noted that as police chief in 

Pasadena, you had to tell many parents that their child was not 

coming home. For me, as for you, violent crime is not an abstract 

problem. To the contrary, it is profoundly, intensely, and undeniably personal. I believe that the most solemn duty of our government, whether it be Federal, state or local, is to safeguard its citizens. The COPS program is rooted in that simple but powerful 

premise. 

Thus, while this Subcommittee should ensure that the COPS Office is effectively performing its mission to advance public safety, 

it should not question the overriding importance of the mission 

itself. 

After the Crime Act was enacted, violent crime in Puerto Rico 

began to fall. Between 1994 and 1999, the number of homicides on 

the island was cut almost in half, to well under 600. Of course, the 

programs created by the Crime Act were not the only factor behind 

this reduction in violence, but I do believe that they were a major 

contributing factor. Since the program’s inception, over $160 million in COPS grants have been awarded to law enforcement agencies in Puerto Rico. These grants have put more than 3,500 new 

police officers on Puerto Rico streets. 

Nearly every one of our municipalities has benefited from the 

grants. These statistics are heartening, but they do not tell the 

whole story. The number of lives saved, the number of crimes prevented, and the number of families spared the pain of losing a 

loved one are beyond calculation. 

However, as you, Director, and the Members of this Subcommittee are well aware, violent crime in Puerto Rico, as well as 

in the neighboring U.S. Virgin Islands, has been on the rise again 

since year 2000, even as violent crime nationwide has decreased 

substantially. In fact, the murder rate in both Puerto Rico and the 

USVI is approximately six times the national average, and nearly 

three times higher than any State. 

There are a number of factors that have contributed to this spike 

in violence, but perhaps the most important is geopolitics. As the 

U.S. Government has increased resources along the southwest border and provided substantial funding to Mexico and Central American nations with the M?rida Initiative, drug trafficking organizations have returned to familiar routes through the Caribbean to get 

their products to market. And according to some estimates, threequarters of the murders in Puerto Rico and the USVI are linked 

to the drug trade. 

So, this leads me to a couple of comments and questions. First, 

I appreciate that in determining the grants you are providing, that 

you are taking into account crime rate in the jurisdictions involved. 

That is very important. It has got to be need-based. At the same 

time that you are also taking into account the fiscal effort by the 

proponents or the grantees. That is important. 

Now, you mentioned that you not only hire cops, but also you 

provide technical support. So in the little time remaining, could you 

please expand on the kind of technical support you could be giving 

to local jurisdictions, and then also the kind of resources you have, 

how many people you have trained to give this technical support, 

and how you go about it? 

27 

Mr. MELEKIAN. In the life of the COPS Office, we have been focused very significantly on the Island of Puerto Rico. Nearly $170 

million in COPS funding has gone directly to the Island. We also 

participated in the Department of Justice working group, which is 

a subcommittee of a White House working group. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, would you give the witness two 

additional minutes just to finish explaining what I asked him to 

do? 

Mr. GOWDY. The witness may finish answering Mr. Pierluisi’s 

question. 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you so much. 

Mr. MELEKIAN. We work with the DOJ working group in Puerto 

Rico, which is a subset of the White House working group on the 

Island, and we are working with a number of Federal agencies on 

dealing with the issues that you pointed out. 

We also, through our community policing development, fund a 

number of projects that may well be relevant to the issues that you 

raise, not the least of which is the National Network of Safe Communities, out of John Jay College, which right now is about 51 jurisdictions that are attempting to sort of share information on how 

they have addressed specific crime problems, and what are best 

practices in policing. 

We also have a separate project that is outsourced, in effect, that 

evaluates the impact of significant policing events. And I would be 

happy to work with your office and your staff to see what other 

programs we have from the COPS Office that is directly related to 

the issues you have raised. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Director Melekian, it is such a pleasure to have you here today. 

I represent the San Gabriel Valley, which is east of Los Angeles, 

in California. Of course, it has Pasadena in it. Your dedicated service to the City of Pasadena as the police chief, acting fire chief, and 

acting city manager is well noted. But more specifically, your 36 

years serving in local law enforcement makes you so well suited to 

your current role. And I so, again, appreciate your being here 

today. 

You are also well known for the No More Dead Children initiative. At one point, Pasadena had multiple years of 20 to 25 homicides per year, however, through the No More Dead Children initiative, you reduced this dramatically, and you had 30 consecutive 

months of zero homicides. 

Can you take a moment to tell the Committee about that initiative, and what help, if any, the COPS Office provided you to ensure 

that the program was a success? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Yes, I am privileged to do that. That problem was 

one of those seemingly intractable problems that we were assured 

by everyone that knew anything that there was nothing that you 

could do about it. But we sat down and with some assistance from 

the COPS Office, with a commitment from the community, with a 

28 

commitment to community policing in a way that ensured that individual officers had relationships with individual people in the 

community, we embarked on a three-track program of prevention, 

intervention and enforcement. And because of the resources that 

we had, both locally and with the assistance from the Federal Government, we didn’t have to do what a lot of jurisdictions end up 

doing. They know that prevention is important. They know that 

intervention is important. They know that enforcement is important. But a lot of times they end up feeling like they have to make 

a choice. 

For a whole variety of reasons, we didn’t have to make that 

choice. We focused on each of those aspects of dealing with that 

particular problem. The enforcement effort was not ever directed at 

a community as a whole. It was directed at specific individuals. 

The intervention program was highlighted by the creation of a 

first-offender program. 

There is an enormous number of studies that point out that if 

you can deal with kids who get arrested for the first time, if you 

can deal with them in some positive and proactive way, you can 

significantly impact crime with a very quick turnaround. 

And the prevention piece, quite frankly, was focused on after 

school programs and on relationships with individual officers. Because of the COPS Office funding, and some additional resources 

that we had, because of some assistance from other Federal law enforcement agencies, and because of partnering with the community 

and with the school district, we did in fact achieve the results that 

you described. I calculated that, you know, over the life of the 10 

years after we implemented that program, that there was somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 to 70 young people, mostly young 

people of color, who had not been killed. You know, it is difficult 

to measure that. It is almost impossible to measure that, but the 

reality is that their lives count, and I think that that program and 

the COPS program helped us do that. 

Ms. CHU. Well, I truly want to commend you on that. 

Switching gears, I want to talk for a moment about officer safety, 

and the issue of gun violence and how it is affecting them. It is of 

particular concern, when, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, that last year for the first time in 

14 years, more officers died from firearm-related incidents than 

traffic related incidents. And it was 173 officers that lost their lives 

last year. And the number of officers killed by firearms has now 

risen during each of the past 3 years. 

So, how is your office addressing officer deaths, and working with 

local police departments in implementing strategies to reverse this? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. The issue of officer safety and officer wellness is 

one of the attorney general’s priorities, and to that end, the COPS 

Office and our sister agency, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, operate a working group, the Officer Safety and Wellness Working 

Group. We meet with practitioners from the field, with academics, 

and psychologists to really try to get a handle on: (a) what the nature of the problem is; and (b) how can we look at issues of training 

and technical assistance, how can we do better at teaching tactics 

to try to address this issue. It is a huge issue of concern obviously 

29 

to me, and certainly, it is a huge issue of concern to the attorney 

general. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from California. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 

Polis. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I assume, as part of your position, you 

track nationally community policing programs. Is that correct? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POLIS. And I wanted to ask specifically about, it is my understanding that building the trust of the community is an important 

part of community policing programs. Is that correct? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Yes. 

Mr. POLIS. What impact have you seen from some of the statebased efforts that have reduced the trust among our immigrant 

community? Particularly, I would ask you about the impact on community policing in Arizona and Alabama. 

Mr. MELEKIAN. One of the realities of community policing is that, 

like everything else to do with policing, it is very local. And so 

while very often the State issues, and particularly around some of 

the immigration issues, certainly impact that, the real challenge, 

the real test is the relationship between the individual department 

and the people in the individual community, as to whether or not 

that sort of a broader issue is going to have a negative impact. 

There is no question that those kind of discussions sort of percolate right down to the local level, but a great many chiefs and 

sheriffs have spent a lot of energy trying to offset that. 

I went to a lot of trouble, as the police chief, for example, to 

make it clear—the city that I was in was over one-third Hispanic. 

Concerns about immigration issues were significant to them. We 

made it very clear what the police department’s policy was and 

that it wasn’t going to change. There are a number of ways that 

this operationalizes itself. For example, drivers license checks, 

those kind of things. I think it is a matter, really, of what is local 

policy and what’s being done on the local level. 

Mr. POLIS. And what about the impact of 287(g) programs that 

empower the very same local officers and/or their colleagues, who 

are trying to establish relationships in the community, with the 

power to initiate deportation proceedings and communications with 

ICE? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Most of those, at least the ones I am familiar 

with, occur at the county level in custodial settings. I know that 

there are some agencies who have taken that on, you know, taken 

a more proactive role than that. That’s not, certainly, part of a 

COPS Office program. It is not anything that we’re involved with, 

in terms of our funding. You know, it is a hugely significant issue. 

And one of the first trips that I made, when I became the COPS 

director, was to the Southwest border, to meet with the Southwest 

border sheriffs, and take a look at the issues that they are dealing 

with. And each of them is responding to it, really, kind of in response to what their local community wants. But the programs 

that you’re talking about are not supported by the COPS Office. 

Mr. POLIS. And again, given that building trust in the community is a critical part of community policing, would you say that it 

30 

might, in fact, cause a reason for distrust, if, in fact, members of 

the community who are undocumented feel that they might be deported by police officers? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. I certainly think it can have that effect, if there’s 

nothing going on to sort of offset it. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. 

The gentleman from Michigan asked to be recognized out of 

order, and is. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

We have here a former attorney general, a former Federal prosecutor, a former sheriff, and yourself. This is a concentration of law 

enforcement experience that we don’t always get at these hearings. 

And I wanted to ask you about a question that the Chairman mentioned in terms of his comments. And that is the question of overincarceration. We in this country put more people in prisons for 

longer periods of time than any other country on earth. Are you 

prepared to give me your opinion about that now? Let me ask you 

to respond to that, because it is a subject matter that is drawing 

increasing attention on the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. MELEKIAN. I think it is important topic for a number of reasons. Not only the almost philosophical question of whether too 

many people are being incarcerated, but what you are seeing across 

the country now is an economic impact, requiring States to reduce 

their prison populations, and sending those released prisoners back 

to local communities, which may or may not be prepared to absorb 

them. 

One of the jurisdictions, for example, that we funded with hiring 

funds last year was specifically one of the community problems 

that they took on, was this issue of reentry, and how to deal with 

those folks that are coming back and try to ensure their success. 

The recidivism rate in California, and I don’t think California is 

unique from across the country, was roughly 70 percent, which 

means that whatever savings that were being generated by releasing people from prison are, in effect, negated, unless we can find 

some way to effectively deal with them. So I think it is an important issue, and it is one the COPS Office is very focused on. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Michigan. 

Just as a point of clarification, I think I asked about over-criminalization and over-federalization of crime. I don’t want any of my 

former colleagues to think that I am being disingenuous in now 

being concerned with over-incarceration since I have dedicated part 

of my life to making sure that happens. 

With that, on behalf of all of us we want to thank you for your 

service in law enforcement. 

Yes. The gentlelady from Florida would like to be recognized out 

of order. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a couple of quick things. I know that you said local governments are struggling with their agencies, because of the cost of 

what has been happening in the economy. Has it been brought to 

your attention that some of the regulations that are being passed 

on by the Federal Government to these cities and counties, the 

31 

costs of those regulations are causing them to have to reduce in 

other areas, and that reduction is within the public safety arena? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. I have not heard that directly, but I know that 

there are concerns sort of in the aggregate about various mandated 

costs of local government, which clearly spill over to funding public 

safety. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Would it surprise you that I was told by one city 

that if they had to comply, the costs would cause them to have to 

basically shut down their whole law enforcement agency? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. No, it wouldn’t, because one of the phenomena 

we are seeing from around the country is this issue of agencies 

closing for a variety of reasons. In meetings with the National 

Sheriffs Association, for example, they are very concerned about 

the fact about the number of cities, particularly in the western 

United States, that are simply closing their doors and turning law 

enforcement responsibility back to the sheriff. In other places we’re 

dealing with, we’re dealing with contracting and other issues. So, 

that issue of police departments going out of business for a variety 

of reasons is significant. 

Mrs. ADAMS. And the regulation cost is one of those that you 

have heard of, also. 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Not directly, but I am aware that that is a concern. 

Mrs. ADAMS. And the other thing you mentioned, real quickly, 

you mentioned reentry programs. And since I was sent to look at 

some reentry programs, because of my law enforcement background, are you monitoring these programs, and how they are conducted? Because one of the things that I saw at one of these programs was the fact that the person who was out and going through 

this reentry program had no job, but had a cell phone, a new car, 

and lots of gold around his neck, and was receiving lots of phone 

calls and text messages while he was being spoken to during this 

meeting with the people who were overseeing his reentry. Yet, he 

made one comment, which I thought was interesting, about the 

fight in line wasn’t his fault and because he smacked that woman, 

really it was her fault. And yet, they let him walk back out the 

door instead of maybe having him reevaluated. Who has responsibility to oversee these programs and ensure that the public is safe? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. We monitor the programs where we have provided funding for, which, as I mentioned, at least, last year, although I really expect that number to go up this year, there was 

only one agency that selected reentry as a problem. So we do monitor what they’re doing, because we hear the same stories that you 

do about that kind of thing. 

Quite honestly, I think that the nature of reentry and how it is 

being handled is casting a very wide net, and I think it gets handled in different ways in different places. The impact, particularly 

in California, is going to be significant, and it will be interesting 

to see what the 2012 grant applications look like this year, to see 

whether the number of agencies requesting funding for reentry programs increases. 

Mrs. ADAMS. And when you are looking at all the numbers as 

you evaluate these programs, and where the funding is going for 

these programs, are you also evaluating the reoffending numbers 

32 

and the crime rates as they appear, once these programs are in 

place? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. We certainly try to coordinate with the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance who tracks that. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Could you let us know whether or not someone is 

tracking that information and keeping it accurate? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. I will get back to you on that. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentlelady from Florida. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chair and the Ranking Member. 

I thank the witness for his presence, and also for his service as a 

law enforcement officer. You may have come across, in your experience, Chief Lee P. Brown, who served as head of the Chiefs Association, serves as the police chief commissioner in New York, Atlanta, and then we were fortunate to get him both as a chief of police, but also as a mayor of the City of Houston. 

And he utilized something that I think is a vital tool, and that 

is the community-oriented policing, which I, frankly, believe the 

COPS program sort of modifies. It helps ensure that there are law 

enforcement officers available. 

So my first question is, probably you’ve answered it, but I am a 

supporter of the COPS program, and my question to you is the 

ability to truly work the COPS program within the budget framework, or with additional cuts that may come to the program, what 

dilemma would you be placed in? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. The dilemma, if that is what it is, is really a recognizing of how do we help the police departments and the sheriffs’ 

departments across the country to sort of adjust to this new reality 

that they are in, and that because, as I mentioned earlier, under 

the current funding levels, 90 percent of the agencies that apply for 

COPS grants are not getting funded. And however we slice that pie 

up, 90 percent of those agencies are not getting funded. 

So, we have to look to our community policing development program, and we have to look to our training and technical assistance 

programs, to see if we can provide them assistance other than the 

hiring of personnel. 

I mentioned a couple of programs like the National Network of 

Safe Cities. There are a number of these kind of efforts, where different agencies are beginning the process of trying to share information, share best practices about how they are accommodating 

themselves to the new reality. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The COPS programs that are funded, I’ll say 

Houston, for example, that really wants this funding, we are a big 

city, people call 911 in the middle of the night, how does the COPS 

program help to ensure that emergency services are continued, that 

those emergency responses are answered? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. We try to ensure that, particularly those agencies, and Houston has been a grant recipient for 2 of the last 3 

years, because of the issues that you identified, our focus is making 

sure that those officers, whatever the problem was, whatever the 

community problem was that the jurisdiction said it wanted to do, 

that we make sure that that is what they are doing. 

33 

Our belief is, and there is a lot of research out there to suggest, 

and I think it is going to get more interesting over the next couple 

of years, that crime is actually very narrowly focused to individuals 

and narrowly focused to place. And if we can work with jurisdictions to help them utilize those COPS resources, to sort of focus on 

both of those things, our hope is that it will bring the crime rate 

down, and it will bring the demand down on the 911 system. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you think that we should encourage more 

partnerships in theory and practice with the COPS program, and 

a focus on community-oriented policing? 

Mr. MELEKIAN. I think community policing, particularly in this 

environment, is going to become more critical and not less critical. 

It was a different reality when, if you wanted to have a school outreach program, if you wanted to do a foot patrol, you simply added 

personnel, and whether those personnel were funded by the Federal Government for some limited period of time, or whether they 

were locally funded, you could do that. In today’s environment, you 

can’t. You have to have a stronger relationship with the business 

owners in the neighborhood, with the residents in the neighborhood, with the community groups in the neighborhood, and there 

has to be an individual relationship about between the police and 

the members of the community. That is community policing in its 

essence, and that is what we are trying to drive. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can I follow up with this question? I introduced legislation dealing with bullying prevention, the reauthorization of Juvenile Accountability Block Grant. It is not under your jurisdiction, but here is the question that I have. 

Many times parents in this tragic incident that happened in the 

last 2 days will be baffled. Where were the police? Why didn’t we 

have someone there? Can you just, from policing perspectives, 

speak to this idea that intervention, whether it is community oriented policing, whether it is intervention, or best practices, or preventing bullying, really helps in a holistic idea of safety for the 

community? 

Mr. GOWDY. You may answer the question, Director Melekian. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MELEKIAN. Thank you, sir. 

As I mentioned earlier, when I was describing my experiences, 

I think there are the three parts, there are three tracks of things 

that have to occur to have a successful violence reduction program, 

and each one of them is tied to community policing. 

There needs to be an after-school program, so that kids have 

something to do. It isn’t just something to do. It is also about forming a relationship and an impression of what a local law enforcement officer is. 

The intervention piece is the kid that gets in trouble for the first 

time, but there are all kinds of studies that suggest that there’s 

only a small percentage of those kids that are going to go on to 

cause a lot of trouble, if you can identify them, and work with 

them. Places that have done them have had great success. 

And if your enforcement efforts can focus on individuals, rather 

than broad neighborhoods, so that you don’t fall into the trap of 

widening the gap between local police and the communities they 

serve, if you can manage to keep it on an individual level, each one 

34 

of those pieces is a critical community policing piece that can contribute to violence reduction. And I specifically include the issue of 

school police in a positive constructive way in that discussion. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from Texas. 

Director Melekian, again on behalf of all of us, we want to thank 

you for your service to our country, for your service to law enforcement, and your service in your current capacity. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witness, 

which we will forward and ask the witness to respond as promptly 

as he can, so his answers may be made a part of the record. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

36 

Report from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 


73102A-1.eps
37 


73102A-2.eps
38 


73102A-3.eps
39 


73102A-4.eps
40 


73102A-5.eps
41 


73102A-6.eps
42 


73102A-7.eps
43 


73102A-8.eps
44 


73102A-9.eps
45 


73102A-10.eps
46 


73102A-11.eps
47 


73102A-12.eps
48 


73102A-13.eps
49 


73102A-14.eps
50 


73102A-15.eps
51 


73102A-16.eps
52 


73102A-17.eps
53 


73102A-18.eps
54 


73102A-19.eps
55 


73102A-20.eps
56 


73102A-21.eps
57 


73102A-22.eps
58 


73102A-23.eps
59 


73102A-24.eps
60 


73102A-25.eps
61 


73102A-26.eps
62 


73102A-27.eps
63 


73102A-28.eps
64 


73102A-29.eps
65 


73102A-30.eps
66 


73102A-31.eps
67 


73102A-32.eps
68 


73102A-33.eps
69 


73102A-34.eps
70 


73102A-35.eps
71 


73102A-36.eps
72 


73102A-37.eps
73 


73102A-38.eps
74 


73102A-39.eps
75 


73102A-40.eps
76 


73102A-41.eps
77 


73102A-42.eps
78 


73102A-43.eps
79 


73102A-44.eps
80 


73102A-45.eps
81 


73102A-46.eps
82 


73102A-47.eps
83 

f 


73102A-48.eps
84 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Bernard K. 

Melekian, Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. 

Department of Justice 


73102B-2.eps
85 


73102B-3.eps
86 


73102B-4.eps
87 


73102B-5.eps
88 


73102B-6.eps
89 


73102B-7.eps
90 


73102B-8.eps
91 


73102B-9.eps
92 


73102B-10.eps
93 


73102B-11.eps
94 


73102B-12.eps
95 

Æ 


73102B-13.eps