Community Policing: Information on the 'COPS on the Beat' Grant Programs
Published: 1995-10-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed various aspects of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program, focusing on the reasons some jurisdictions did not apply for federal community policing grants.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found that: (1) jurisdictions with higher crime rates were more likely to apply for COPS grants; (2) nearly 92 percent of the jurisdictions applying for grants received initial approval; (3) some jurisdictions were uncertain about being able to continue officer funding after their grant expired and about their ability to provide the required 25 percent match; (4) the jurisdictions that did not apply for COPS grants cited cost-related factors as their major concern; and (5) the most frequent crimes reported by COPS Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns (FAST) applicants were property crime and domestic violence.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: This report responds to your April 3, 1995, request that we review various aspects of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program, “Cops on the Beat.” As agreed with the Committee and Subcommittee, we are providing a description of the grant application, selection, and monitoring processes for the COPS: Phase I, COPS Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns (FAST), and COPS Accelerated Hiring, Education, and Deployment (AHEAD) programs. We are also providing for the COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD programs a comparison of the crime rates in applicant and nonapplicant jurisdictions, the reasons some jurisdictions chose not to apply for COPS program grants, and the public safety issues identified by a sample of jurisdictions applying for COPS FAST grants.
At the Committee’s request, we conducted telephone interviews of a random sample of 289 nonapplicant jurisdictions to find out why they did not apply for a grant. In addition, we reviewed a random sample of 207 COPS FAST approved applications to determine public safety issues identified by applicant jurisdictions. Appendix I contains the details of our objectives, scope, and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Community policing is generally defined as a shift in police efforts from a solely reactive response to crime to also proactively working with residents to prevent crime. Citizens, police departments, and other agencies are to work together to identify problems and apply appropriate problem-solving strategies. The practice of community policing began to emerge in the late 1970s. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has supported community policing efforts through various implementation and research grants for about the last 15 years.
The Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994 (Community Policing Act)—Title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994—authorizes DOJ to make grants for the hiring or rehiring of law enforcement officers to participate in community policing. In addition, the Community Policing Act authorizes DOJ to award grants for the purchase of equipment, technology, and support systems if the expenditures would result in an increase in the number of officers deployed in community-oriented policing. It also authorizes grants for other programs such as providing specialized training to enhance skills needed to work in partnership with members of the community. The purposes of the grants are to increase police presence, expand and improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies and members of the community to address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise enhance public safety.
The Community Policing Act authorizes $8.8 billion in grants over a 6-year period to states, local governments, Indian tribal governments, other public and private entities, and multijurisdictional or regional consortia. Fiscal year 1995 appropriated funds for the Community Policing Act totaled $1.3 billion. The President’s fiscal year 1996 budget requests about $1.9 billion for public safety and community policing grants.
DOJ has used three programs to date—COPS: Phase I, COPS FAST, and COPS AHEAD—as part of its efforts to increase by 100,000 the number of sworn law enforcement officers over current levels by providing community policing grants. COPS: Phase I was open only to jurisdictions not funded due to a scarcity of funds under DOJ’s 1993-1994 Police Hiring Supplement Program (PHSP). COPS FAST is open to state, local, and other public enforcement agencies, Indian tribal governments, other public and private entities, and multijurisdictional or regional consortia that employ sworn law enforcement officers and that serve populations under 50,000. COPS AHEAD is open to those agencies serving populations of 50,000 or more.
DOJ community policing guidelines provide that jurisdictions that had received COPS: Phase I funding were also eligible to receive additional funding under COPS AHEAD if the combined hiring under both programs did not exceed 3 percent of the actual October 1, 1994, total police force level.In addition, an agency that received funding under COPS: Phase I is eligible to receive additional funding under COPS FAST. DOJ has also announced additional programs.
The guidelines also stipulate that federal grant funds awarded under the COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD programs cannot exceed 75 percent of the total salary and benefits of each officer up to a maximum of $75,000 per officer for a 3-year period. Grantees are required to provide at least 25 percent of officer costs and commit to retaining new officers after the grant expires.
section_title: Grant Award and Oversight Process for COPS: Phase I, COPS FAST, and COPS AHEAD
paragraphs: The application and selection processes varied somewhat between the COPS: Phase I program and the COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD programs because they were administered differently by separate offices within DOJ. BJA administered the application and selection of COPS: Phase I awards. The Attorney General created a separate office, the COPS Office, to administer the Community Policing Act grants. This office designed the application and selection processes for the COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD grants. The COPS Office is to monitor the grants awarded under all three programs.
The Community Policing Act requires that each application (1) include, among other things, a long-term community policing strategy and a detailed implementation plan; (2) demonstrate a specific public safety need; and (3) explain the applicant’s inability to meet its public safety needs without federal assistance. The act makes special provisions for applications of local government or law enforcement agencies in jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 and for nonpolice hiring grants of less than $1 million by allowing the Attorney General to waive one or more of the grant application requirements and to facilitate the submission, processing, and approval of these applications.
subsections: section_title: Application Process for COPS: Phase I Differed From the Process for COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD Grants
paragraphs: The difference in the application process between COPS: Phase I and COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD grants is the stage at which jurisdictions could begin recruiting and hiring additional officers. In the traditional grant process used for COPS: Phase I, jurisdictions submitted a detailed application to BJA for review and waited for final grant approval and award before beginning officer recruitment, hiring, and training. For the COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD grant programs, the COPS Office implemented a two-step application process that allowed jurisdictions to recruit, hire, and train officers while final grant applications were being reviewed.
In response to a suggestion from the U.S. Conference of Mayors to expedite the grant application process for the COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD programs, the COPS Office designed a two-step application process to try to get new officers on the street months earlier than they would be under traditional grant award processes. First, for COPS AHEAD, the COPS Office used a one-page initial application to determine the number of officers jurisdictions could recruit and train. Approved jurisdictions were notified of proposed funding levels, cautioned that the funding was tentative, and warned that if the subsequent application was not approved, the COPS Office would not be held liable for officers hired. In COPS FAST, grant decisions were made based upon one-page applications. Second, the selected jurisdictions in both programs were to submit additional information to the COPS Office prior to issuance of formal awards. COPS AHEAD agencies were asked to submit detailed applications, while COPS FAST supplied brief budget and community policing information.
The type of information and amount of detail required in this second application differed between COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD programs. COPS FAST applicants were allowed to provide less detailed information because the Attorney General waived certain requirements for communities serving under 50,000 residents.
section_title: Selection Process for COPS: Phase I Differed From Process for COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD Grants
paragraphs: BJA awarded the COPS: Phase I grants based primarily on public safety need, while the COPS Office used commitment to community policing as the primary eligibility criterion for the COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD grants. COPS: Phase I grantees were competitively selected on the basis of the following five criteria used for PHSP applicants: (1) public safety need (40 percent), (2) community policing strategy (30 percent), (3) implementation plan (10 percent), (4) continuation and retention plan (10 percent), and (5) additional resource commitments (10 percent).
The eligible jurisdictions for COPS: Phase I were those 2,507 jurisdictions that applied for the 1993-1994 PHSP but did not receive funding. BJA considered applications from both traditional law enforcement jurisdictions—such as municipal, county, and state police—and special law enforcement jurisdictions—such as airports, parks, and transit authorities. A BJA official said that most of the COPS: Phase I applicants demonstrating a high or moderate need based on the above five factors received funding. In addition, 16 jurisdictions received waivers of the local match requirement after demonstrating extraordinary economic hardships.
The Assistant Director for Grants Administration said the intent of the COPS Office was to award COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD grants to as many applicant jurisdictions as funds allowed. However, after receiving more applications than it had expected—about 8,000 of the approximately 15,000 law enforcement jurisdictions applied—the COPS Office decided to consider in COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD only applications from traditional law enforcement jurisdictions.
Jurisdictions with satisfactory COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD applications were approved for funds based on the number of officers on board on October 1, 1994. About 92 percent of jurisdictions that applied for a COPS grant received initial award approval. COPS Office staff said that if an application was incomplete, a COPS Office grant adviser contacted a local official for further information. In some cases, jurisdictions were referred for technical assistance to help them plan and implement a community policing strategy. On July 1, 1995, the COPS Office and the Community Policing Consortium entered into a cooperative agreement for the provision of certain training and technical assistance services.
Table 1 shows the authorized hiring scale for approved jurisdictions.
Table 2 summarizes information about the grant application and selection process for the three COPS programs.
section_title: The COPS Office Is to Monitor and Evaluate the Three Grant Programs
paragraphs: The Attorney General established the COPS Office to administer all Community Policing Act grants, including monitoring and evaluation to assess the financial and programmatic impact of the grants. Grantees are required to submit progress and accounting reports and are to be contacted periodically by telephone. Some of the financial monitoring is to be done by DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP). An intra-agency agreement between the COPS Office and OJP allows OJP to provide certain accounting and financial monitoring to track grantee compliance with audit requirements, as well as prepare financial status reports.
According to the Assistant Director for Grants Administration, the frequency and extent of evaluation to assess a jurisdiction’s grant implementation process will depend on the amount of the grant award, with the level of scrutiny increasing for larger awards. A COPS FAST jurisdiction, for example, which received a grant award for only one law enforcement officer—about 6,200 jurisdictions—is to receive a minimum of telephone contacts and have its periodic progress reports reviewed. A COPS AHEAD jurisdiction, however, which may have received funding for a large number of officers, should expect site visits, frequent telephone contacts, and close review of its community policing efforts through its periodic progress reports. COPS Office staff said that each jurisdiction is to complete periodic progress reports that will outline information on each officer hired and the specific activities and achievements of its community policing program. The COPS Office is to conduct evaluations to review how the jurisdiction interacts with the community, what kind of training is provided to officers and residents, and what specific strategies are used to prevent crime.
The COPS Office is to select a sample of jurisdictions for continuous impact evaluations. The Policy Support and Evaluation Unit within the COPS Office is to conduct these evaluations. DOJ’s National Institute of Justice is also expected to conduct impact evaluations. Impact evaluations are to be conducted on fewer sites than the process evaluations and are to assess how the quality of life in the community has been affected by community policing efforts. The COPS Office is to examine, for example, crime and arrest data, victimization surveys, and citizen surveys to evaluate the impact of the grants. The periodic progress reports are also to be used to evaluate the impact of the grants.
section_title: The Higher the Crime Rate, the More Likely a Jurisdiction Was to Apply for a COPS Grant
paragraphs: We estimated that about 42 percent of all law enforcement jurisdictions applied for a COPS FAST or COPS AHEAD grant. Jurisdictions eligible for a COPS AHEAD grant were much more likely to apply than were jurisdictions eligible for a COPS FAST grant. About 81 percent of the jurisdictions eligible for the COPS AHEAD program applied; about 49 percent of those eligible for a COPS FAST grant applied. However, regardless of the program, generally, the higher the crime rate, the more likely a jurisdiction was to apply for a grant. Table 3 shows the application rates for law enforcement jurisdictions by program eligibility and number of crimes reported per 1,000 population served. Crimes reported in the 1993 UCR included violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault and the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.
As previously mentioned, an estimated 92 percent of all jurisdictions that applied for a COPS FAST or COPS AHEAD grant received one. The eligibility criteria for these grant programs included the jurisdiction’s commitment to community policing, the type of law enforcement jurisdiction, population, and number of sworn officers on the force. Overall, jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 were more likely to receive a COPS grant than were larger jurisdictions. Approximately 93 percent of COPS FAST applicants were accepted, while about 74 percent of the jurisdictions applying for a COPS AHEAD grant were accepted (see table 4). We found no relation between crime rates and whether an applicant jurisdiction was awarded the grant. Table 4 shows the disposition of applications for jurisdictions by program and crime rate.
section_title: Cost Factors Were the Primary Reason Jurisdictions Chose Not to Apply
paragraphs: At the Committee’s request, we conducted telephone interviews with a random sample of 289 nonapplicant jurisdictions to find out why they did not apply for a grant. From our telephone survey, we estimated that 62 percent (plus or minus 11 percent) of the nonapplicant jurisdictions did not apply for a COPS FAST or COPS AHEAD grant due to cost-related factors. For the following question: “How important was each of the following reasons in your agency’s decision to not apply for a COPS program grant?”, we asked respondents to assign one of five levels of importance to each of five reasons. Next, we asked respondents to indicate the most important reason for not applying. We also allowed respondents to identify any other reasons that affected their jurisdiction’s decision.
The estimated 62 percent included about 40 percent (plus or minus 12 percent) of nonapplicants who said uncertainty about the jurisdiction’s ability to meet the requirement for continued officer funding after the 3-year grant period was the most important reason for not applying. An additional 18 percent cited the 25-percent local match requirement as the most important reason in their decision; 4 percent cited other financial reasons. An additional 8 percent said the jurisdiction did not apply either because of a lack of information on the grants or because of problems meeting the application deadlines, 3 percent mentioned local political or management decisions, and 4 percent cited various other reasons. In addition, some respondents cited the inadequacy of the $25,000 per year per officer grant to cover the full cost of new officers. According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, average starting salaries for entry level officers range from $18,710 to $26,560, with average operating expenditures per officer ranging from $31,500 to $63,400. Table 5 summarizes the results of the importance ratings.
section_title: Approved COPS FAST Applicants Cited Property Crimes as Their Top Public Safety Issue
paragraphs: We reviewed a random sample of 207 COPS FAST approved applications and found that approximately 84 percent (plus or minus 5 percent) of these jurisdictions—serving populations of less than 50,000—cited property crimes most frequently among their top five ranked public safety issues (from the categories listed on the application form), with almost half of the jurisdictions ranking it as their first or second most important concern. In addition, we estimated that at least half the jurisdictions ranked the following public safety issues among their top five: domestic violence, alcohol-related crimes, drug crimes, vandalism, and violent crimes against persons. Table 6 shows the rank order of the public safety issues.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: On September 13, 1995, we received written comments from the Director of DOJ’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services on a draft of this report. He said that the popularity of the COPS grant programs continues to expand and provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated where appropriate. He also provided some updated information on the progress of the programs since our audit work was completed. The Director’s written comments are reproduced in full in appendix II.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional committees and Members and to the Attorney General. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.
The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Please call me on (202) 512-8777 if you have any questions concerning this report.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: As agreed with the Committee and Subcommittee, our objectives were to review various aspects of the COPS programs and describe the grant application, selection, and monitoring processes for COPS: Phase I, COPS FAST, and COPS AHEAD. In addition, for COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD we were to compare the crime rates for applicant and nonapplicant jurisdictions, determine why some jurisdictions chose not to apply for the grants, and determine the public safety issues of applicant jurisdictions.
To describe the application, selection, and monitoring processes for the COPS programs, we interviewed officials from BJA and the COPS Office, including the Assistant Director for Grants Administration and the co-chiefs of the Grant Monitoring sections. In addition, we reviewed documents used in the grants process, including application forms, selection review forms, and draft monitoring guidelines.
To determine and compare crime rates for COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD applicant and nonapplicant jurisdictions, we used application data provided by the COPS Office and UCR data for 1993, which lists all law enforcement jurisdictions that report crimes to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. UCR data contained information on population and numbers of reported crimes for jurisdictions. We merged the COPS Office’s listing of applicant jurisdictions with UCR data to identify nonapplicant jurisdictions. Next, we used UCR data to assign jurisdictions to population categories (less than 50,000 and 50,000 and over) and calculated the number of crimes reported per 1,000 population served. We grouped jurisdictions into COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD grant applicants and nonapplicants, and applicants into those approved and those not approved.
To determine why jurisdictions chose not to apply for COPS grants, we surveyed a stratified, random sample of nonapplicants by telephone. We limited our survey population to city, local, county, and tribal police. These types of law enforcement agencies account for 91 percent of all jurisdictions. Using UCR population data, we stratified the population into three size groups and selected random samples from each: 0 - <10,000 population (71 from 6,094 jurisdictions); 10,000 - <50,000 (143 from 1,375 jurisdictions); and 50,000 and over (all 170 jurisdictions). We completed 334, or 87 percent, of our planned contacts with the sample of 384 jurisdictions. Fifty contacts were not completed for various reasons, including difficulty in reaching the appropriate respondent and unwillingness of some jurisdictions to respond. Of the 334 contacts made, we completed interviews with respondents in 289 jurisdictions. We found that 45 did not belong in our study population because they had applied for a COPS grant. Mostly, these jurisdictions were either covered under another jurisdiction’s application (and the application was identified by the other jurisdiction) or not listed on the COPS program’s applicant file as an individual applicant. All survey results have been weighted to represent the total population.
To determine the public safety issues of applicant jurisdictions, we reviewed a random sample of 207 of the 3,258 COPS FAST applications that had been received and graded or approved for funding as of April 25, 1995. According to the Assistant Director for Grants Administration, this represents about half of the 6,656 jurisdictions that were given preliminary funding approval. Applications were stored at various locations in the COPS Office. To obtain our sample, we used a random starting point and then took every 16th application from the files. Jurisdictions applying for the COPS FAST program were required to rank order their public safety issues from a list of 16 issues. We did not review COPS AHEAD applications because their statements of public safety needs were included as part of a narrative description of their community policing program, which could be up to 18 pages. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to identify or infer the relative importance of the public safety concerns from such narrative sources.
Our work was done primarily in Washington, D.C., from April to August 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services provided written comments on a draft of this report. The written comments are reproduced in appendix II.
section_title: Comments From the Department of Justice
section_title: Major Contributors to This Report
subsections: section_title: General Government Division, Washington, D.C.
section_title: Detroit Field Office
section_title: Office of the General Counsel, Washington, D.C.
paragraphs: Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000  or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony.  To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone.  A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.