Police Corps: Some Problems Resolved, But Most Positions Remain Unfilled
(Letter Report, 02/22/2000, GAO/GGD-00-69).
Pursuant to a congressional request for information regarding how the
Department of Justice (DOJ) has implemented the Police Corps program
under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) office and, more
recently, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), focusing on: (1) delays
in Police Corps program implementation; and (2) the provision of funds
by the Office of the Police Corps.
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, 4303 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.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-00-69
TITLE: Police Corps: Some Problems Resolved, But Most Positions
Remain Unfilled
DATE: 02/22/2000
SUBJECT: Police
Police training
Personnel recruiting
Federal aid for criminal justice
Federal/state relations
Federal aid to states
Law enforcement personnel
IDENTIFIER: DOJ Police Corps Program
Florida
Maryland
Oregon
Texas
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate
February 2000
GAO/GGD-00-69
POLICE CORPS
Some Problems Resolved, But Most Positions
Remain Unfilled
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.
Order by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
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:
info@www.gao.gov
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov
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)
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. G100
(182070)
Contents
Page 141 GAO/GGD-00-69 Police Corps Program Delays
Letter 1
Appendix I 16
Information on the
Police Corps Program
Law Enforcement Training 16
Financial Assistance to Law 16
Enforcement Agencies
Scholarship Assistance to Dependent 17
Children of Officers Killed In the
Line of Duty
Appendix II 19
Summary of State Police
Corps Programs Visited
by GAO
Appendix III 22
Participating State
Questionnaire
Appendix IV 30
Nonparticipating State
Questionnaire
Appendix V 34
GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
Tables Table 1: Status of Participant 6
Positions by State, as of September
30, 1999
Table 2: Police Corps Program 12
Appropriations and Obligations,
Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1999 (in
millions of dollars)
Table 3: Police Corps Law Enforcement 17
Assistance Payments to Four States,
Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999
Abbreviations
COPS Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (Justice)
DOJ Department of Justice
FSU Florida State University
OJP Office of Justice Programs
BPD Baltimore Police Department
B-282684
Page 4 GAO/GGD-00-69 Police Corps Program Delays
B-282684
February 22, 2000
The Honorable Judd Gregg
Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Police Corps program and the Federal Office of
the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education
(Office of the Police Corps) were established by
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 (P.L. 103-322).1 The overall goal of the
program is to address violent crime by helping
local and state law enforcement agencies increase
the number of officers with advanced education and
training assigned to community patrol. The program
provides competitive scholarships of up to $7,500
a year with a lifetime maximum of $30,000 to
college students who agree to earn a Bachelor's
Degree and subsequently to serve as police
officers on community patrol for at least 4 years
in an area with great need of additional law
enforcement officers and where they will be used
most effectively. The program also provides (1)
funding to pay for the 16 to 24 weeks of rigorous
law enforcement training that Police Corps
participants are required to undergo, either prior
to or following their graduation from college and
(2) financial assistance (i.e., $10,000 for each
of a participant's first 4 years of service) to
law enforcement agencies that hire program
participants. Finally, the Police Corps program
provides scholarships of up to $7,500 a year with
a lifetime maximum of $30,000 each to dependent
children of officers killed in the line of duty.2
This report responds to your request that we
review how the Department of Justice (DOJ) has
implemented the Police Corps program under the
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) office
and, more recently, the Office of Justice Programs
(OJP). Specifically, this report discusses delays
in Police Corps program implementation. It also
provides information on the provision of funds by
the Office of the Police Corps (see app. I).
Results in Brief
The Police Corps program got off to a slower than
expected start; as a result, the majority of
participant slots remained unfilled. As of
September 30, 1999, 4303 (or approximately 43
percent) of the 1,007 participant positions funded
for fiscal years 1996 through 1998 had been
filled.4 According to federal and state officials,
two of the factors that contributed to this slow
start were as follows:
� COPS dedicated insufficient staff to the
Police Corps program. COPS originally assigned one
staff person to the Police Corps, and had five
staff performing Police Corps work at the time of
the program's transfer to OJP. This understaffing
led to delays in providing program guidance,
processing program applications and payments, and
answering participants' questions about the
program. COPS officials said that they took a
conservative approach to interpreting the Police
Corps statute that did not allow the Police Corps
to use its funds to cover federal program
administrative costs. The Justice Department has
not provided the legal analysis underlying this
position. We believe, however, that they could
have used their line item appropriation for this
purpose.
� The Police Corps statute did not provide
funding to pay states' costs for program
administration or for recruitment and selection of
program participants. Several states cited this as
a reason for not participating in the program, and
several others cited it as a reason for the slow
growth of their Police Corps programs.
COPS' operation of the Police Corps as a direct
reimbursement program5 made determining program
status difficult, as it slowed the rate at which
funds were obligated. 6 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. For
example, a provision in the statute requires the
Police Corps director to make scholarship payments
"directly" to the institution of higher education
that the student is attending. 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 college or university, in-
service Police Corps officer, approved law
enforcement training provider, or participating
police department. According to COPS, $57.4
million of the $60 million appropriated for fiscal
years 1996 through 1998 had been committed7 to the
state programs, thus making it possible for them
to fill positions. However, COPS' reports to
Congress showed that COPS had obligated
approximately $6.4 million as of September 30,
1998.
On December 10, 1998, responsibility for the
Police Corps program was transferred from COPS to
OJP. OJP devoted seven full-time staff
positions-three of which were transferred from
COPS-to process program applications and payments
and respond to participant queries faster. Under
the authority granted OJP under 42 U.S.C. 3788(b), 8
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, among
other things, to help defray states' recruiting
and administrative costs.9 This authority was not
available to COPS. 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.
As of September 30, 1999, OJP had obligated $51.3
million of the $82.4 million available to the
program. 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.
Background
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.10
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 11
to transfer the Office of the Police Corps to OJP.
This transfer took place on December 10, 1998.
Scope and Methodology
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.12 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.
Police Corps Program Had a Slower Than Expected
Start
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.13
Table 1: Status of Participant Positions by
State, as of September 30, 1999
Positions under COPS Positions under OJP Cumulative positions
(fiscal years 1996- (fiscal year 1999) (as of September 30,
1998) 1999)
Year Approved Filled Approved Filled Approveda Filledb
program
started
1996
Arkansas 55 24 30 23 55 47
Maryland 140 61 30 19 140 78
Nevada 22 0 0 0 22 0
Oregon 80 78 100 0 80 69
North 55 48 34 14 55 62
Carolina
South 60 19 30 0 60 18
Carolina
1997
Connecticut 40 0 0 6 40 6
Georgia 20 0 20 0 20 0
Indiana 20 0 0 1 20 1
Kentucky 40 10 9 0 40 7
Michigan 40 0 12 25 40 25
Mississippi 85 0 40 20 85 16
Missouri 40 12 14 17 40 29
New Mexico 0 NA NA NA NA NA
c
Ohio 40 0 0 0 40 0
Texas 60 40 0 3 60 44
Washington 30 0 30 11 30 0
1998
Colorado 20 0 15 0 20 0
Florida 30 0 30 0 30 0
Illinois 20 0 20 0 20 0
Massachuset 20 0 0 0 20 0
ts
Oklahoma 20 0 20 0 20 0
Utah 60 0 90 28 60 28
Virgin 10 0 10 0 10 0
Islands
1999
American NA NA d NA NA NA
Samoa
District of NA NA d NA NA NA
Columbia
Idaho NA NA 20 NA NA NA
Maine NA NA d NA NA NA
Wisconsin NA NA 30 0 NA 0
Totals 1,007 292 584 167 1,007 430
Note: NA represents not applicable.
a The cumulative number of approved positions does
not include those positions approved for fiscal
year 1999, which OJP said it expects to fill by
September 30, 2000.
b Due to attrition, the cumulative number of
filled positions for a particular state may be
less than the combined numbers filled under COPS
and OJP.
c Originally, 25 positions were approved for New
Mexico. Following its withdrawal from the program
in 1999, the funds allocated for these positions
were returned to the Police Corps' general
accounts.
d Program participation was pending approval as of
September 30, 1999.
Source: GAO analysis of COPS and OJP data.
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.
COPS Devoted Insufficient Staff to Implement the
Program
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.14
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 Attributed Understaffing to Interpretation of
Police Corps Statute
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,"15 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.
States Believe Program Delays Caused by Lack of
State Administrative and Recruiting Funds
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.
Statutory Language Led COPS to Operate the Police
Corps as a Direct Reimbursement Program, Which
Made Determining Program Status Difficult
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."16 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 million17 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.
OJP Has Obligated Police Corps Funds More Quickly
and Is Making Funds Available for Administration
and Recruiting
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.18 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.
Table 2: Police Corps Program Appropriations and
Obligations, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1999 (in
millions of dollars)
1996 1997 1998 1999 Total
Appropriated $10.0 $20.0 $30.0 $30.0 $90.0
for Police
Corps program
Obligated by 0 1.5 4.9 1.2 7.6
COPS
Unobligated by 10.0 28.5 53.6 82.4 82.4
COPSa
Reimbursed to NA NA NA 82.4 82.4
OJP
Obligated by NA NA NA 51.3 51.3
OJP
Unobligated by NA NA NA 31.1 31.1
OJP
Note: NA represents not applicable.
aYearly sums include the carryover balance from
the COPS program.
Source: GAO analysis of COPS and OJP data.
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.
Conclusions
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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
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.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Stana
Associate Director
Administration of Justice Issues
_______________________________
1 The Police Corps statute is codified at 42
U.S.C. 14091 et seq.
2 Recipients of these scholarships are not
obligated to become police officers.
3 This number does not include Police Corps
participants who were removed or resigned before
September 30, 1999.
4 An additional 584 positions were approved in
fiscal year 1999 to be filled by September 30,
2000.
5 Under COPS, the Police Corps program paid
scholarship money directly to the educational
institution and payments directly to law
enforcement agencies. In addition, it provided
reimbursement for (1) the prior educational
expenses incurred by students who did not enter
the Police Corps program until their sophomore
year in college or later and (2) the costs
incurred by approved law enforcement training
providers.
6 Obligation means the amount of orders placed,
contracts awarded, services received, and similar
transactions during a given period that will
require payment.
7 Commitment is an administrative reservation of
an allotment of funds in anticipation of their
obligation. Such commitment of funds does not
constitute an obligation on the part of the
federal government.
8 The statute authorizes OJP to use, "on a
reimbursable basis when appropriate . the
available services, equipment, personnel, and
facilities of Federal, State, and local agencies
to the extent deemed appropriate after giving due
consideration to the effectiveness of such
existing services, equipment, personnel, and
facilities."
9 Under the formula, a state receives 8 percent of
the approved budget for scholarships,
reimbursements of educational expenses, stipends,
and payments to police agencies. Expenses for
Police Corps training are excluded from the
formula. The minimum payment to a state is
$40,000.
10 In subsequent discussions, we will refer to
these entities as states.
11 House Conference Report No. 105-825 at 1029
(1998).
12 Appendix II provides details on the Police Corps
programs in Florida, Maryland, Oregon, and Texas.
13 An additional 584 participant positions were
approved in fiscal year 1999 to be filled by
September 30, 2000.
14 In addition, in 1997, COPS temporarily hired two
consultants to develop a model training curriculum
for the Police Corps program. These consultants
stayed on for 1-1/2 months and 15 months,
respectively.
15 42 U.S.C. 14093.
16 42 U.S.C. 14095(a)(4)(A).
17 For fiscal years 1996-1998, COPS projected the
amount each participating state needed to run its
Police Corps program, based on estimates provided
by the states. This figure is the sum total of
these projections.
18 Under this formula, states are reimbursed for 8
percent of their total program costs (excluding
those associated with training), with a minimum of
$40,000.
Appendix I
Information on the Police Corps Program
Page 17 GAO/GGD-00-69 Police Corps Program Delays
Law Enforcement Training
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.1 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.
Financial Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies
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.
Table 3: Police Corps Law Enforcement Assistance
Payments to Four States, Fiscal Years 1998 and
1999
Statea Fiscal Organizati Number of Assistance What assistance paid for
year on Police received
Corps
graduates
on force
Oregon 1998 COPS 14 $140,000 Used to play for Police
Corps recruitment and
administrative costs.
1999 OJP 34 340,000
Maryland 1998 COPS 28 280,000 Used to pay salaries of
additional police
officers.
1999 OJP 0b 0b
North 1998 COPS 0 0 Placed in general fund
Carolina account to pay salaries
of police officers.
1999 OJP 4 40,000
South 1998 COPS 16 160,000 Placed in general fund
Carolina account to pay salaries
of corps officers.
1999 OJP 0b 0b
aAssistance is not provided until program
participants have served a full year on a police
force. At the time of our review, no participants
in the states of Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan,
Mississippi, and Missouri had served a full year.
bParticipants had not completed their full year of
service at the time of our review.
Source: GAO analysis of COPS and OJP data.
Scholarship Assistance to Dependent Children of
Officers Killed In the Line of Duty
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.2
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.
_______________________________
1 The Police Corps Act does, however, specifically
authorize the Director of the Office of the Police
Corps to authorize expenditures for "subsistence,
quarters, and medical care" to participants at
training centers. (42 U.S.C. 14097(a)(4).)
2 The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act
provides scholarships to dependents of fallen
officers. OJP officials said they coordinate
closely with the Public Safety Officer Benefits
program to preclude dual payments for the same
dependent's educational expenses.
Appendix II
Summary of State Police Corps Programs Visited by
GAO
Page 21 GAO/GGD-00-69 Police Corps Program Delays
State Background Program funding and Program
accomplishments limitations
Maryla Has participated in As of September 30,1999, the According to
nd the Police Corps Maryland Police Corps program Maryland
program since 1996. had been approved for $10.2 officials, the
million in funding and 140 lack of
Lead agency: The participant positions. Seventy-reimbursement
Governor's Office on eight of these positions had for
Crime Control and been filled as of that date. administrative
Prevention. The fiscal year 2000 OJP and recruitment
Interagency Agreement with costs limited
Other participants Maryland authorizes 30 the program's
include the additional participant ability to fill
Baltimore Police positions and approximately participant
Department (BPD) and $4.3 million for costs positions.
the University of associated with Operation of the
Maryland's the 170 participant positions program on a
Shriver Center, approved to date. reimbursable
which manages basis required
program training. The BPD had received $280,000 detailed voucher
in assistance payments, which support, which
The Police Corps it used to pay the salaries of increased both
program is seen as a the 28 Police Corps graduates the state's
vehicle for broad- it had hired. An additional 24 unfunded
based improvements officers had not served long administrative
in Maryland enough for BPD to be eligible burden and the
policing. for assistance payments. administrative
burden at the
As of September 30,1999, six COPS office,
dependent children of officers which was
killed in the line of duty had understaffed.
received The resulting
$84,584 in scholarships. 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.
Oregon Has participated in As of September 30, 1999, Oregon officials
the Police Corps Oregon's Police Corps program attributed slow
program since 1996. had been approved for $5.1 program progress
million in funding and 80 to the lack of a
Lead agency: The participant positions. Sixty- formal
Oregon State Police nine positions had been filled contractual
Criminal Justice as of September 30,1999. The agreement
Services Division. fiscal year 2000 OJP between COPS and
Interagency Agreement with the state, the
Other participants Oregon authorizes 100 lack of
include the Oregon additional positions and reimbursement
Board on Public approximately $2.8 million for for
Safety Standards and costs associated with the 180 administrative
Training and the participant positions approved and recruitment
Portland Police to date. costs, and
Bureau. delays in
The Portland Police Bureau had reimbursement of
The Police Corps received $380,000 for employing training-related
program is seen as a 38 Police Corps graduates as of expenses.
way to reduce that date. Financial support
juvenile gang from the Oregon Department of
violence through State Police ($50,000) and the
community Portland Police Bureau
policing. ($385,000) enabled Oregon's
Police Corps program
to overcome the lack of
reimbursement for
administrative and recruitment
costs.
As of September 30, 1999,
Oregon provided two dependent
children of officers killed in
the line of duty with $41,086
in scholarships.
Florid First participated As of September 30, 1999, According to
a in the program Florida's Police Corps program Florida program
in 1998. (The had been approved for $2.1 officials, the
Florida Department million in funding and 30 lack of
of Law Enforcement, participant positions. The agreement
which initially fiscal year 2000 OJP between Florida
considered the Interagency Agreement with and COPS on
program, declined to Florida authorizes 30 reimbursement of
participate in 1996 additional participant administrative
and 1997 due to the positions and approximately and recruitment
lack of $3.0 million for costs costs resulted
reimbursement of associated with the 60 in many of the
administrative positions approved to date. 30 participant
costs, the limiting positions
of the police In its 1998 plan, Florida authorized in
service requirement indicated its first 30 recruits the 1998 plan
to 4 years, and the would start community patrol in remaining
limited number of May/June 1999. However, various unfilled and
training slots, problems (see Limitations) have postponement of
among other pushed back Florida's Police planned training
reasons.) Corps program, and sessions. The
as of December 1999, a program FSU Contracts
Lead agency: Florida official indicated and Grants
State University's that 15 to 20 college graduates Department did
(FSU) School of were expected to not believe
Criminology and attend Florida' s first COPS' approval
Criminal Justice. training session, scheduled for of its plans was
March 2000. sufficiently
Other participants authoritative to
include the To overcome the lack of establish a
Duval and administrative and recruitment funded cost
Hillborough County cost reimbursement, FSU was account for the
Sheriffs Departments able to obtain $50,000 from the Police Corps
and the Florida Department of Law program.
Tampa and Enforcement to establish a
Tallahassee Police Police Corps account in the FSU
Departments. Contracts and Grants Department
and start recruitment and
The objectives of curriculum development.
the Florida Police
Corps program are to As of September 30, 1999,
(1) recruit college Florida had not awarded any
graduates of scholarships to children of
exceptional promise officers killed in the line of
into the Police duty.
Corps, (2) provide
an exemplary program
of training, and (3)
broaden the state's
commitment to
community policing.
Texas Texas has As of September 30, 1999, the According to
participated in the Texas Police Corps program had Texas officials,
Police Corps program been approved for $3.3 million state Police
since 1997. in funding and 60 participant Corps program
positions, 44 of which had been limitations
Lead agency: Texas filled. Six participants had included lack of
Commission on Law received their degrees but had administrative
Enforcement Officer yet to be trained. funding,
Standards and inadequate
Education. The state As of September 30, 1999, two procedures for
has responsibility dependent children of officers handling student
for curriculum and killed in the line of duty had vouchers, lack
training in 105 received $34,569 in of a
licensed academies. scholarships. standardized
The commission is training
also responsible for curriculum, and
Police Corps program inexperienced
administration. staff. According
to Texas
The Police Corps officials, as of
program is seen as a December 1999,
way to address the Texas had yet to
state legislature's conduct any
concerns about the training due to
need for more and the lack of a
better trained standard Police
officers in small, Corps training
rural, curriculum and
geographically the Police Corps
remote law residential
enforcement training
agencies. 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.
Source: Officials with the Maryland, Oregon,
Florida, and Texas Police Corps programs.
Appendix III
Participating State Questionnaire
Page 29 GAO/GGD-00-69 Police Corps Program 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.
Name:
Lead Agency: School of Criminology and Criminal
Justice FSU
Title:
Telephone:
E-Mail Address:
Police Corps Web site: _
Provide the following information about the
alternate point of contact.
Name:
_____________________________________________
Lead Agency:
________________________________________
Title:
______________________________________________
Telephone:
_________________________________________
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?
Year:
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?
Yes ....................5
No..................11
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?
Training ...............7
Recruitment .............3
Assignment of participants .......3
Other .................2
Not applicable ..............12
7. Did the changes required of your plan by DOJ
delay the start of your program?
Yes ...4 If yes, how long in
months?
No ...5
Not applicable ... 10
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.)
Very Major Minor Not a Don't
major reason reason reason know
reason
No provision for 10 = 53%5 = 26% 3 = 16% 1 = 05% 0
administrative cost
reimbursement
No provision for 8 = 42% 6 = 32% 3 = 16% 2 = 10% 0
recruitment and
screening costs
Difficulty in changing 4 = 21% 2 = 11% 4 = 21% 9 = 47% 0
from local law
enforcement
recruitment to
statewide Police Corps
program recruitment
Difficulty in 2 = 11% 4 = 21% 4 = 21% 9 = 47% 0
recruiting
participants
Difficulty in meshing 3 = 16% 1 = 05% 6= 32% 7= 37% 2 = 10%
Police Corps training
requirements with
state/local training
requirements
Difficulty in meeting 1 = 05% 5 = 26% 4 = 21% 9 = 48% 0
residential training
requirement
Other - Specify:
9. Did your state Police Corps program
experience delay by DOJ in any of the following
areas?
Yes No Not
Area applicable
Reimbursement for training 3 5 11
related expenses
Scholarship payments to 5 3 11
universities or students
Assistance payments to law 0 7 12
enforcement agencies
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?
Yes ..............3 If yes, please
explain:
No .............. 3
Not applicable........13
__________________________________________________
_____________
11. Is your state's Police Corps training
residential, nonresidential, or a combination of
both?
Residential.................17
Nonresidential...... .........(
)
Combination of residential and
nonresidential.. 2
12. Does DOJ require residential training?
Yes.............. 16 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?
Yes...................13
No......................4
Don't know................2
14. What is your state's training preference,
residential or nonresidential?
Residential................9
Nonresidential................2
Combination residential and
nonresidential.... 7
Don't know................. 1
Please explain your
preference________________________________________
_
15. Does Police Corps training cover your state's
POST requirements?
Yes..................17
No.....................2
Don't know...............( )
16. If not, is additional training required
for your state's Police Corps graduates?
Yes............. 2
No................. 0
Sometimes..........1
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. )
TV/Radio ............... 4
Print media ..............11
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)
Direct communication to
dependents....8
General state wide publicity
........0
Both ..................4
Other_________________________________2
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.
Appendix IV
Nonparticipating State Questionnaire
Page 33 GAO/GGD-00-69 Police Corps Program Delays
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?
Date and time:
_________________________________
INTERVIEWEE:
Enter the following information about the
interviewee.
Name:
_____________________________________________
Lead Agency:
________________________________________
Title:
______________________________________________
Telephone:
_________________________________________
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.
Reason Very major Major reason Minor reason Not a reason Don't know
reason
No provision 2 6 3 1 0
for
administrati
ve cost
reimbursemen
t
Sufficient 1 0 3 8 0
numbers of
college
graduates
already
entering law
enforcement
Difficulty 4 1 4 2 1
in meshing
Police Corps
training
requirements
with state
training
requirements
Requirement/ 1 2 4 4 1
emphasis on
residential
training
Difficulty 1 4 1 5 1
in meeting
assignment
requirements
for placing
graduates on
community
policing
assignments
in areas of
most need
Significant 1 7 2 2 0
up-front
recruitment
and
screening
costs for
each
candidate
Lack of 1 4 0 4 3
interest by
local law
enforcement
Other
(specify):
____________
____________
_______
____________
____________
____________
________
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.
Appendix V
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 34 GAO/GGD-00-69 Police Corps Program Delays
GAO Contacts
Richard M. Stana, 202-512-8777
Weldon McPhail, 202-512-8777
Acknowledgments
In addition to those named above, James
Moses, Marco Gomez, Jan Montgomery, Nancy Finley,
and Michael Little made key contributions to this
report.
*** End of Document ***