The Police Corps program was established to provide federal financial assistance to (1) prospective police officers who participate in the program (i.e., in the form of college scholarships for baccalaureate or graduate studies); (2) the entity selected and approved to provide basic training to the state’s Police Corps participants, either prior to or following completion of a bachelor’s degree; (3) the state and local law enforcement agencies that ultimately hire these individuals (i.e., they receive $10,000 per year during each of a participant’s first 4 years on the force); and (4) the dependent children of fallen officers. As of September 30, 1999, Police Corps programs were approved for 24 states and the Virgin Islands. Congress first appropriated funding of $10 million for the Police Corps program in fiscal year 1996. Police Corps funding increased to $20 million in fiscal year 1997 and to $30 million each in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. For fiscal year 2000, the appropriation directed that $30 million of available unobligated balances from COPS program funds were to be used for the Police Corps. As currently operated under OJP, the Office of the Police Corps provides funds to participating states, who in turn provide the funds to individual program participants, colleges, approved law enforcement training providers, and law enforcement agencies. In states that wish to participate, the governors must designate a lead agency that will submit a state plan to the Office of the Police Corps and administer the program in the state. Each year the Police Corps invites submission of state Police Corps program plans through a letter to the governor of each state and the appropriate official in the other eligible jurisdictions. States already approved for the program are to submit plans that describe their status, progress, and need for additional participants. Other states apply to participate by submitting a comprehensive state plan. The state plan must provide that the designated state lead agency will work in cooperation with local law enforcement liaisons, representatives of police labor and management organizations, and other appropriate agencies to develop and implement interagency agreements. The state also must agree to advertise the availability of Police Corps funds and make special efforts to seek applicants among members of all racial, ethnic, and gender groups but may not deviate from competitive standards for selection. DOJ originally placed the Office of the Police Corps under COPS, which DOJ established in 1994 pursuant to statute with the goal of funding 100,000 new community police officers by the end of the year 2000. However, because the COPS program is legislatively scheduled to end at the close of fiscal year 2000, DOJ asked for and received approval in the Conference report accompanying the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Appropriation Bill to transfer the Office of the Police Corps to OJP. This transfer took place on December 10, 1998. To determine the extent of, and causes for, delays in Police Corps implementation, we (1) assessed COPS’ and OJP’s respective financial and management practices, (2) reviewed COPS’ and OJP’s respective legal interpretations of Police Corps’ statutory authority, (3) analyzed COPS and OJP reimbursement payment data, (4) reviewed program files at COPS and OJP, and (5) interviewed current and former Police Corps program officials as well as DOJ officials responsible for oversight. To obtain certain states’ perspective on implementation delays, we visited four states— Florida, Maryland, Oregon, and Texas. We selected Maryland and Oregon because they started their programs during the first year that the Police Corps program was funded and received the most funding. We selected Florida because a state university had been delegated state lead agency responsibility. We selected Texas because it experienced difficulty becoming fully operational due to issues concerning training program requirements. In each state we interviewed program officials representing the lead agency and the training program; in Maryland and Oregon, we interviewed representatives of law enforcement agencies that had employed Police Corps graduates. To broaden our understanding of the implementation of the Police Corps program, we also conducted structured telephone interviews with Police Corps lead agency representatives of the other 19 states participating in the program at that time (see app. III for the questions we asked). We asked officials to rate possible program problem areas on a four-point scale ranging from “not a reason” to a “very major reason.” Additionally, we conducted telephone interviews with cognizant officials in the governors’ offices of 12 nonparticipating states (see app. IV for the questions we asked). We used the same four-point scale that was used with the participating states to determine whether the possible problems affected program participation. We included an open-ended question that gave respondents the opportunity to identify problem areas not included among those we listed. To obtain information on the provision of Police Corps basic law enforcement training, determine how much assistance was being provided to law enforcement agencies and what it was being used for, and determine how many scholarships had been awarded to dependent children of fallen officers, we reviewed files and interviewed officials at COPS and OJP. In addition, we reviewed Police Corps program legislation, program guidance, correspondence files, participating states’ files, and available studies of the Police Corps program. We also interviewed current and former COPS officials and current officials at OJP. We performed our work between March 1999 and January 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. During its first 4 years of operation, the Police Corps program failed to fill most of the available participant slots. As shown in table 1, as of September 30, 1999, 430 (or approximately 43 percent) of the approved 1,007 participant positions had been filled. According to federal and state officials, two of the factors that contributed to this slow start were that (1) COPS dedicated insufficient staff to implement the program, which resulted in delays in providing program guidance and backlogs in processing program applications and reimbursements and (2) the Police Corps statute did not provide funding for states’ administrative or recruiting costs, which slowed program growth in some states and led several states to decline to participate in the program. In addition, statutory language led COPS to operate the Police Corps as a direct reimbursement program, which in turn made it difficult for Congress to determine the status of program funds. The Police Corps statute was enacted in 1994, and funds were specifically appropriated for the program in fiscal year 1996, when Congress provided $10 million. COPS hired a program director for the Police Corps in September 1996. In January 1997, COPS hired a program specialist to (1) receive and process student applications and service agreements; (2) develop standardized forms for student participant applications and requests for reimbursement from participants and institutions; (3) receive, record, and review requests for reimbursements; and (4) respond to inquiries from states and the general public. State officials said that the lack of COPS office staff led to delays in providing formal program guidance. According to state officials, COPS did not provide program guidance for recruiting and selecting participants until May 1997. Several state officials said that their attempts to get directions from COPS in writing or by telephone had failed. Similarly, state officials complained about backlogs in reviewing funding applications, conducting state budget reviews, and processing requests for reimbursable payments. For example, officials in all four states that we visited said that their programs experienced significant delays in receiving reimbursement from COPS for training expenditures. In an effort to secure more staffing for the program, in March 1998, COPS notified the House Committee on Appropriations of a proposed reprogramming action that would allow for an increase in staffing for the Office of the Police Corps. In April 1998, the Committee approved this proposed action. As a result COPS dedicated three full-time positions to the Police Corps to supplement the two COPS staff who were already performing Police Corps duties on a full-time basis. COPS officials said that the reason they did not devote more staff to the Police Corps program is that they interpreted their legal authority as not authorizing the payment of federal program administration costs with Police Corps funds. The Department of Justice has not provided us with the legal analysis underlying this position. As a result of this interpretation, COPS determined that it had to pay such costs from COPS operating funds. COPS officials said that, while they made an effort to provide staffing to the Police Corps program, their options were limited because the entire COPS Office was understaffed. COPS officials acknowledged that Police Corps program delays resulted in part from this understaffing. The Police Corps statute states, “There is established in the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney General, an Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education,” and the statute lays out the responsibilities of the Office. Although the Police Corps statute is silent regarding the payment of federal administrative costs, we believe that options were available to the COPS office for the payment of these costs. In our view, the COPS office could have charged the Police Corps line-item appropriations for fiscal years 1996 through 1998 to pay for these costs. A primary statute dealing with the use of appropriated funds, 31 U.S.C. 1301(a), provides that “Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law.” However, it does not require, nor would it be reasonably possible, that every item of expenditure be specified in an appropriation act. The spending agency has reasonable discretion in determining how to carry out the objects of the appropriation. This concept is known as the “necessary expense” doctrine. For an expenditure to be justified under the necessary expense doctrine, three tests must be met: (1) the expenditure must bear a logical relationship to the appropriation to be charged; (2) the expenditure must not be prohibited by law; and (3) the expenditure cannot be authorized if it is otherwise provided for under a more specific appropriation or statutory funding mechanism. Under the first test, the key determination is the extent to which the proposed expenditure will contribute to accomplishing the purposes of the appropriation the agency wishes to charge. Clearly, any administrative costs incurred by COPS in implementing the Police Corps program should contribute to accomplishing the purposes of that program. Concerning the second and third tests, the payment of federal administrative costs is not prohibited by law, nor were federal administrative costs otherwise provided for under a more specific appropriation. Thus, the COPS office could have paid these administrative costs from the Police Corps’ line item appropriations. According to COPS officials, the Police Corps statute did not allow for federal reimbursement of states’ administrative or recruiting costs. State officials told us that this lack of reimbursement was the primary reason for slow progress in their programs. Under the Police Corps, a state’s designated lead agency is responsible for administering the Police Corps program in that state. The lead agency is obligated to provide overall program management, which includes developing and monitoring the state plan as well as the outreach, selection, and placement of the participants. COPS and state officials said that the lack of administrative and recruiting funds made it difficult for the state lead agencies to meet all of the statutory and policy requirements of the program. Officials in a few states said they discussed withdrawing from the Police Corps program for this reason; however, they did not do so. Officials in the four states that we visited told us that the lack of administrative and recruiting funds slowed the progress of their programs. For example, officials in both Maryland and Oregon indicated that the most serious problem they faced was lack of money for recruitment. Officials in 15 of the 19 participating states in our telephone survey said that the lack of administrative cost reimbursement was a major or very major reason for slow progress in their programs. Also, officials in 8 of the 12 nonparticipating states we contacted said that the lack of administrative cost reimbursement was a primary reason for their decision not to participate in the program. COPS officials said that they were concerned about this shortcoming of the program and made attempts to address it. In each of its three annual reports to the President, the Attorney General, and Congress, the Office of the Police Corps pointed out the need for state recruiting funds for the Police Corps program. In its April 1998 annual report, for example, the Office of the Police Corps at COPS noted that many participating states were working with limited resources and that some states were hesitant to apply to the Police Corps program because of the lack of reimbursement for expenses associated with outreach and selection. Similarly, in its April 1999 annual report, the Office of the Police Corps at OJP noted that it would be helpful if states could submit budgets and receive payment for expenses directly associated with recruitment and selection. Under COPS, the Police Corps program was operated as a direct reimbursement program. That is, program payments were made directly to an educational institution, in-service Police Corps officer, approved training provider, or participating law enforcement agency, rather than first being obligated to a state agency for subsequent disbursement. According to DOJ’s Associate Attorney General, COPS based its decision to operate the Police Corps program as a direct reimbursement on the language in the provisions of the statute itself. For example, the statute required the Director to “make scholarship payments . . . directly to the institution of higher education that the student is attending.” According to COPS officials, this resulted in large amounts of unobligated funds being carried over from one fiscal year to the next in each of the first 3 years of the program. As of March 1998, when the appropriations hearings for COPS fiscal year 1999 budget request were held, $57.8 million of the $60 million appropriated for the first 3 years remained unobligated. Under direct reimbursement, funds were not considered obligated when state plans were approved. Instead, COPS considered funds obligated only when an individual check had been sent to a participating college or university, in-service Police Corps officer, approved training provider, or police department. While COPS had committed $57.4 million of the $60 million in remaining funds, the funds were not obligated and thus were still available during annual appropriations. This caused concern during the appropriation hearings on COPS’ budget for the Police Corps. Upon assuming responsibility for the Police Corps program in December 1998, OJP increased the Police Corps staff from five to seven positions with the intention of allowing faster processing of applications and response to participants’ questions. In addition, OJP used its authority under 42 U.S.C. 3788(b) to begin establishing interagency agreements with the lead agencies in participating states. These agreements have enabled OJP to (1) obligate Police Corps’ funds at a much faster rate than COPS and (2) begin to make a formula-based payment that may be used to, among other things, help defray states’ administrative and recruiting costs. While these agreements should help, OJP continues to hold to the view, expressed in its 1999 annual report to Congress, that it would be helpful if states could submit budgets and receive payment for expenses directly associated with recruitment and selection. Once a state plan was approved by OJP, the state was to submit a budget to cover estimated payments to participants, colleges or universities, approved training providers, and police departments during the upcoming fiscal year. The interagency agreement contractually allowed for transfer of these funds, along with the formula-based payment, from OJP to the state lead agency once the budget had been approved. Funds were to be obligated at the time an agreement was signed. The interagency agreements obligated money that was committed but unobligated in the previous years under COPS, as well as money from the 1998 and 1999 appropriations. As of September 30, 1999, OJP had signed interagency agreements with 16 states. As shown in table 2, COPS obligated $7.6 million of the $90 million appropriated for the Police Corps program in fiscal years 1996 through 1999. OJP was reimbursed for the remaining $82.4 million in unobligated funds beginning in December 1998. As of September 30, 1999, OJP had obligated $51.3 million of these available funds, which left $31.1 million still unobligated. As a part of its interagency agreements with state lead agencies, OJP has begun to make formula-based payments to state lead agencies that can be used to help defray their administrative and recruiting costs. OJP is doing this under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 3788(b), which allows it to enter into interagency agreements with states on a reimbursable basis. Because 42 U.S.C. 3788(b) did not apply to the COPS office, this method of making reimbursements was not available to COPS. Under these interagency agreements, the state lead agencies are to assume primary responsibility for approving and paying Police Corps program expenditures. Under COPS, implementation of the Police Corps program got off to a slower than expected start, and the majority of participant slots remained unfilled. This state of affairs was due to a variety of causes, some of which stemmed from COPS failure to provide federal administrative funds and adequate staffing for the program, and others—such as the fact that the Police Corps statute did not provide funding for states’ administrative and recruiting costs—that were out of its control. COPS transferred the Office of the Police Corps to OJP in December 1998. While OJP has made significant progress in obligating funds and establishing interagency agreements with the participating states, it is too soon to tell whether OJP will succeed in increasing the number of participant slots filled and continue to provide guidance. We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for comment. DOJ responded that it had no official comment. However, we met with representatives of the COPS Office and OJP, who provided technical comments on the draft. We incorporated their technical comments where appropriate. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 10 days from the date of this report. At that time we will send copies of this report to the Honorable Ernest F. Hollings, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies; and the Honorable Strom Thurmond, Chairman, and the Honorable Charles Schumer, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight. We will also send copies to the Honorable Harold Rogers, Chairman, and the Honorable Jose E. Serrano, Ranking Minority Member, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies; the Honorable Bill McCollum, Chairman, and the Honorable Robert C. Scott, Ranking Minority Member, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime; and the Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General. We will make copies available to others upon request. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me or Weldon McPhail on (202) 512-8777. Major contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix V. The Police Corps Act provides funding for basic law enforcement training that is to go well beyond the “minimum standards” training available to police officers in many states. The philosophy of Police Corps training is that to serve effectively on the beat in some of America’s most challenged communities, Police Corps officers must have a solid background in traditional law enforcement, strong analytical abilities, highly developed judgment, and skill in working effectively with citizens of all backgrounds. Police Corps training is to emphasize ethics, community and peer leadership, honesty, self-discipline, physical strength and agility, and weaponless tactics—tactics to protect both officer and citizen in the event of confrontation. This philosophy is reinforced through a statutory requirement that Police Corps participants receive a minimum of 16 weeks of basic law enforcement training either prior to or following college graduation. This was being carried out or planned in all of the participating states. In 1998, the Police Corps Act was amended to give states the option of providing an additional 8 weeks of federally funded Police Corps training. While not specifically required by statute, the Guidelines for Training issued by the Office of the Police Corps require participating states to provide law enforcement training in a residential, live-in facility. All of the participating states required or planned to require such training. However, officials in 6 of the 19 states we surveyed indicated that the requirement that training be conducted on a live-in basis, rather than in an 8-hours-per- day nonresidential facility, was a major reason for the slow progress of their Police Corps programs, as they did not have facilities readily available for this purpose. Nine of the 19 participating states in our telephone survey indicated that their Police Corps training preference would be nonresidential or a combination of both residential and nonresidential. The Office of the Police Corps provides financial assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies as an incentive to employ Police Corps participants. Law enforcement agencies that employ Police Corps officers are to receive $10,000 per participant for each year of required service, or $40,000 for each participant who fulfills the 4-year service obligation. As of September 30, 1999, 163 Police Corps participants had completed their degrees and training and were serving in police agencies in 7 states— Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, and South Carolina. As of this same date, state and local police departments with Police Corps officers on the beat had received $960,000 in assistance. The Police Corps statute did not place any restrictions on how police departments could use this provided assistance. As a result, the police departments we contacted were using these funds for various purposes. Officials in one police department, for example, said they used the assistance money to cover the expenses of recruiting and selecting officers. Another police department used the funds to employ 10 additional police officers. Officials in one state said they placed assistance money in the general funds to pay police officers’ salaries. Table 3 shows Police Corps law enforcement payments to the states that had received payment at the time of our review and how these states used the provided funds. The Police Corps program offers college scholarships to dependent children of police officers killed in the line of duty after the date a participating state joins the program. An eligible dependent may receive up to $30,000 for undergraduate study at any accredited institution of higher education in the United States. Dependent children in this category incur no service or repayment obligation. The application process is noncompetitive. For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the Office of the Police Corps budgeted sufficient funds to provide 68 scholarships. As of September 30, 1999, 26 of these scholarship positions remained unfilled. According to Police Corps officials, the program was making a strong effort to identify and inform qualified persons about the availability of these scholarships. State Maryland Has participated in the Police Corps Lead agency: The Governor’s Office on Crime Control and Prevention. Program funding and accomplishments As of September 30,1999, the Maryland Police Corps program had been approved for $10.2 million in funding and 140 participant positions. Seventy-eight of these positions had been filled as of that date. The fiscal year 2000 OJP Interagency Agreement with Maryland authorizes 30 additional participant positions and approximately $4.3 million for costs associated with the 170 participant positions approved to date. Other participants include the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) and the University of Maryland’s Shriver Center, which manages program training. The Police Corps program is seen as a vehicle for broad-based improvements in Maryland policing. The BPD had received $280,000 in assistance payments, which it used to pay the salaries of the 28 Police Corps graduates it had hired. An additional 24 officers had not served long enough for BPD to be eligible for assistance payments. As of September 30,1999, six dependent children of officers killed in the line of duty had received $84,584 in scholarships. Program limitations According to Maryland officials, the lack of reimbursement for administrative and recruitment costs limited the program’s ability to fill participant positions. Operation of the program on a reimbursable basis required detailed voucher support, which increased both the state’s unfunded administrative burden and the administrative burden at the COPS office, which was understaffed. The resulting delays in reimbursement resulted in loss of interest income by the state for the up-front funding of training expenditures. At the beginning of the program, Maryland assumed the task of developing a Police Corps model-training program. The contractor, Science Applications International Corporation, failed to produce a curriculum acceptable to the Office of the Police Corps at COPS. This resulted in COPS’ deferral of approval of Maryland’s 1997 request for 240 additional participant positions and postponement of its scheduled training. Background Has participated in the Police Corps program since 1996. Lead agency: The Oregon State Police Criminal Justice Services Division. Program funding and accomplishments As of September 30, 1999, Oregon’s Police Corps program had been approved for $5.1 million in funding and 80 participant positions. Sixty-nine positions had been filled as of September 30,1999. The fiscal year 2000 OJP Interagency Agreement with Oregon authorizes 100 additional positions and approximately $2.8 million for costs associated with the 180 participant positions approved to date. Other participants include the Oregon Board on Public Safety Standards and Training and the Portland Police Bureau. Program limitations Oregon officials attributed slow program progress to the lack of a formal contractual agreement between COPS and the state, the lack of reimbursement for administrative and recruitment costs, and delays in reimbursement of training- related expenses. The Police Corps program is seen as a way to reduce juvenile gang violence through community policing. The Portland Police Bureau had received $380,000 for employing 38 Police Corps graduates as of that date. Financial support from the Oregon Department of State Police ($50,000) and the Portland Police Bureau ($385,000) enabled Oregon’s Police Corps program to overcome the lack of reimbursement for administrative and recruitment costs. First participated in the program in 1998. (The Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which initially considered the program, declined to participate in 1996 and 1997 due to the lack of reimbursement of administrative costs, the limiting of the police service requirement to 4 years, and the limited number of training slots, among other reasons.) As of September 30, 1999, Oregon provided two dependent children of officers killed in the line of duty with $41,086 in scholarships. As of September 30, 1999, Florida’s Police Corps program had been approved for $2.1 million in funding and 30 participant positions. The fiscal year 2000 OJP Interagency Agreement with Florida authorizes 30 additional participant positions and approximately $3.0 million for costs associated with the 60 positions approved to date. Lead agency: Florida State University’s (FSU) School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. In its 1998 plan, Florida indicated its first 30 recruits would start community patrol in May/June 1999. However, various problems (see Limitations) have pushed back Florida’s Police Corps program, and as of December 1999, a program official indicated that 15 to 20 college graduates were expected to attend Florida’ s first training session, scheduled for March 2000. Other participants include the Duval and Hillborough County Sheriffs Departments and the Tampa and Tallahassee Police Departments. According to Florida program officials, the lack of agreement between Florida and COPS on reimbursement of administrative and recruitment costs resulted in many of the 30 participant positions authorized in the 1998 plan remaining unfilled and postponement of planned training sessions. The FSU Contracts and Grants Department did not believe COPS’ approval of its plans was sufficiently authoritative to establish a funded cost account for the Police Corps program. To overcome the lack of administrative and recruitment cost reimbursement, FSU was able to obtain $50,000 from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to establish a Police Corps account in the FSU Contracts and Grants Department and start recruitment and curriculum development. The objectives of the Florida Police Corps program are to (1) recruit college graduates of exceptional promise into the Police Corps, (2) provide an exemplary program of training, and (3) broaden the state’s commitment to community policing. As of September 30, 1999, Florida had not awarded any scholarships to children of officers killed in the line of duty. Background Texas has participated in the Police Corps program since 1997. Program funding and accomplishments As of September 30, 1999, the Texas Police Corps program had been approved for $3.3 million in funding and 60 participant positions, 44 of which had been filled. Six participants had received their degrees but had yet to be trained. Lead agency: Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. The state has responsibility for curriculum and training in 105 licensed academies. The commission is also responsible for Police Corps program administration. As of September 30, 1999, two dependent children of officers killed in the line of duty had received $34,569 in scholarships. The Police Corps program is seen as a way to address the state legislature’s concerns about the need for more and better trained officers in small, rural, geographically remote law enforcement agencies. Program limitations According to Texas officials, state Police Corps program limitations included lack of administrative funding, inadequate procedures for handling student vouchers, lack of a standardized training curriculum, and inexperienced staff. According to Texas officials, as of December 1999, Texas had yet to conduct any training due to the lack of a standard Police Corps training curriculum and the Police Corps residential training requirement. One graduate is slated to attend training in Mississippi while Texas is in the process of establishing its own training academy. As of December 1999, several participants had withdrawn from the program because of training delays. Following is an example of the questionnaire for participating states. Interviews were conducted by telephone. Hello. My name is __________ and I’m with the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative agency of the U.S. Congress. I’m calling to speak with ______________________, whose name was provided by the Department of Justice as a point of contact for your state’s Police Corps Program. Initial Point of Contact: Provide the following information about the initial point of contact. Lead Agency: School of Criminology and Criminal Justice FSU Police Corps Web site: _ Provide the following information about the alternate point of contact. When you have the right person on the phone, proceed with. Hello. My name is ___________, and I’m with the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative agency of the U.S. Congress. We are conducting a study of the Police Corps Program, which was part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Senator Judd Gregg, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies requested this study. The Chairman is most interested in knowing how the Department of Justice (DOJ) has managed program funds. Specifically, the subcommittee is concerned about how funds were obligated during the first 3 years of the program. We were also asked to review the program areas of training, assistance to law enforcement agencies, scholarships to dependent children, and student education. Are you the person I should interview? ( If not, obtain alternate interviewee information and provide above.) A. I’d like to conduct a structured interview with you that should take about 20 minutes. Do you have time to speak with me now? Yes ( ) No ( ) B. When would be a good time for me to call you back? Date and time: ___________________________________ 1. In what year did your state first apply for participation in the Police Corps Program? 2. When was your state plan first approved? Date (mo. and yr.) 3. Did your state conduct a feasibility study or any other analysis for participating in the Police Corps Program? Don’t Know…………………………………...3 4. Request a copy of the feasibility study (and/or other supporting data that is available) be sent to: U.S. General Accounting Office Suite 1010 World Trade Center 350 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 5. Was your first plan approved in full or was approval conditional? Full approval ……………6= 32% Conditional approval ….13 = 68% 6. In what areas did DOJ impose conditions? 7. Did the changes required of your plan by DOJ delay the start of your program? If yes, how long in months? 8. I am going to read to you a list of reasons why states may not have made faster progress in the start-up of their Police Corps program. For each reason I read, please indicate whether it was a very major reason, a major reason, a minor reason, or not a reason at all. (Comments provided below.) 9. Did your state Police Corps program experience delay by DOJ in any of the following areas? If yes, to any area please provide comment(s) and also send any available supporting documentation to Marco Gomez (see question 4 above). 10. Also, if “yes,” did any of the delays cause adverse impact to your state’s Police Corps program? If yes, please explain: 11. Is your state’s Police Corps training residential, nonresidential, or a combination of both? Nonresidential……………… .……………….…( ) Combination of residential and nonresidential.. 2 12. Does DOJ require residential training? Cont. with qst. 13. No……….……………………..….. 1  Skip to qst. 15. Don’t know……………………...…2  Skip to qst. 15. 13. If “yes,” does your state agree with the emphasis on residential training? 14. What is your state’s training preference, residential or nonresidential? Combination residential and nonresidential…... 7 Don’t know……………………………………….. 1 15. Does Police Corps training cover your state’s POST requirements? Don’t know………………………………….…( ) 16. If not, is additional training required for your state’s Police Corps graduates? Not applicable …………………. .16 17. In which of the following ways does your state promote the Police Corps program? ( Read options, and check all that apply. ) Job fairs …………………………………...11 Campus recruitment ……………………. ..8 Other(s) …………………………………….7 List other(s) Recruitment is continuous, on-going 18. Does your state conduct outreach to children of officers killed in the line of duty? Yes……………………………….16 Cont. with qst. 19 No………..……………………….. .2 Skip to qst. 20 Don’t know………………………...0 Skip to qst. 20 Not applicable…………………….1 19. Does your state do outreach to dependent children through: (Read options) General state wide publicity ……………..…0 Please explain how your state meets the requirement to recruit minorities and women? Do you have any other comment about the program you care to share with us? Thank you very much for your help, good-bye. Following is an example of the questionnaire for nonparticipating states. Interviews were conducted by telephone. Hello. My name is ______________, and I’m with the U.S. General Accounting Office, the investigative agency of the U.S. Congress. At the request of Congress, we are conducting a study of the Department of Justice Police Corps Program that was included as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. I would like to speak with a representative of name state who could answer questions about the Department of Justice’s outreach to name state and the reasons name state is not participating in the program. Are you the right person to speak with? (If not, determine who is. ) A. I’d like to conduct a structured interview with you that should take about 10 minutes. Do you have time to speak with me now? Yes…………………………( ) Go to question 1 No………………………….( ) B. When would be a good time for me to call back? Enter the following information about the interviewee. 1. I am going to read to you a list of reasons why states may not participate in the Police Corps program. For each reason I read, please indicate whether it was a very major reason, a major reason, a minor reason, or not a reason at all for why your state decided not to participate in the program. 2. Did name state prepare a feasibility study for participating in the Police Corps Program? Yes…………………………. ………..(4) No…………………………………….(7) Don’t know…………………………..(1) If “yes” in question 2, read: 3. Are there data available, other than the feasibility study, in support of the reasons cited above? Yes……………………(0) next page No……………………(12) If yes, request that a copy of the feasibility study (and/or other supporting data that is available) be sent to: Marco F. Gomez USGAO Suite 1010 World Trade Center 350 Figueroa St. Los Angeles, Calif. 90071 OR faxed to 213-830-1180 Ask if there are any other comments about the Police Corps program you care to share with us: _________________________________________________________________ _____________ Thank you very much for your help. In addition to those named above, James Moses, Marco Gomez, Jan Montgomery, Nancy Finley, and Michael Little made key contributions to this report. Ordering Copies of GAO Reports 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. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. 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 37050 Washington, DC 20013 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 (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. 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 (202) 512-6000 using a touch- tone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send e-mail message with “info” in the body to: or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at: Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs To contact GAO FraudNET use: Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-Mail: fraudnet@gao.gov Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of Justice's (DOJ) implementation of the Police Corps program under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) office and, more recently, the Office of Justice Programs. GAO noted that: (1) the Police Corps program got off to a slower than expected start resulting in the majority of participant slots remaining unfilled; (2) as of September 30, 1999, 433 of the 1,007 participant positions funded for fiscal years 1996 through 1998 had been filled; (3) according to federal and state officials, two of the factors that contributed to this slow start were as follows: (a) COPS dedicated insufficient staff to the Police Corps program, which led to delays in providing program guidance, processing program applications and payments, and answering participants' questions about the program; and (b) the Police Corps statute did not provide funding to pay states' costs for program administration or for recruitment and selection of program participants; (4) COPS operation of the Police Corps as a direct reimbursement program made determining program status difficult, as it slowed the rate at which funds were obligated; (5) according to a DOJ official, COPS based its decision to operate the Police Corps program as a direct reimbursement program on the language of the statute; (6) under direct reimbursement, funds were not considered obligated when state plans were approved; (7) instead, COPS considered funds obligated only when an individual check had been sent to a college or university, in-service Police Corps officer, approved law enforcement training provider, or participating police department; (8) on December 10, 1998, responsibility for the Police Corps program was transferred from COPS to OJP; (9) OJP devoted seven full-time staff positions to process program applications and payments and respond to participant queries faster; (10) under the authority granted OJP under 42 U.S.C. 3788(b), which allowed OJP to enter into interagency agreements with states on a reimbursable basis, OJP opted, through the use of such agreements, to make a formula payment that can be used to help defray states' recruiting and administrative costs; (11) this authority was not available to COPS; (12) while these interagency agreements only recently went into effect, they should make money more readily available to states trying to implement their Police Corps programs; (13) as of September 30, 1999, OJP had obligated $51.3 million of the $82.4 million available to the program; and (14) it is too early to determine the effects of the transfer of the Police Corps program from COPS to OJP on the factors contributing to the slow start.