Community Policing: Information on the "COPS on the Beat" Grant Programs
(Letter Report, 10/25/95, GAO/GGD-96-4).

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-96-4
     TITLE:  Community Policing: Information on the "COPS on the Beat" 
             Grant Programs
      DATE:  10/25/95
   SUBJECT:  Crime prevention
             Crimes or offenses
             Federal aid for criminal justice
             Grant monitoring
             Law enforcement personnel
             Grant award procedures
             Federal aid to localities
             Community development programs
             Law enforcement
IDENTIFIER:  Community Oriented Policing Services Program
             COPS Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns Program
             COPS Accelerated Hiring, Education, and Deployment Program
             DOJ Police Hiring Supplement Program
             COPS Making Officer Redeployment Effective Program
             Troops-to-Cops Program
             
**************************************************************************
* 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.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary and the Chairman,
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, Committee on
the Judiciary, U.S.  Senate

October 1995

COMMUNITY POLICING - INFORMATION
ON THE "COPS ON THE BEAT" GRANT
PROGRAMS

GAO/GGD-96-4

"COPS on the Beat" Grant Programs

(182011)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AHEAD - Accelerated Hiring, Education, and Deployment
  BJA - Bureau of Justice Assistance
  COPS - Community Oriented Policing Services
  DOJ - Department of Justice
  FAST - Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns
  MORE - Making Officer Redeployment Effective
  OJP - Office of Justice Programs
  PHSP - Police Hiring Supplemental Program
  UCR - Uniform Crime Report

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-261200

October 25, 1995

The Honorable Orrin G.  Hatch
Chairman, Committee on the
 Judiciary
United States Senate

The Honorable Charles E.  Grassley
Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative
 Oversight and the Courts
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

This report responds to your April 3, 1995, request that we review
various aspects of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
Program, "Cops on the Beat." As agreed with the Committee and
Subcommittee, we are providing a description of the grant
application, selection, and monitoring processes for the COPS:  Phase
I, COPS Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns (FAST), and COPS
Accelerated Hiring, Education, and Deployment (AHEAD) programs.  We
are also providing for the COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD programs a
comparison of the crime rates in applicant and nonapplicant
jurisdictions, the reasons some jurisdictions chose not to apply for
COPS program grants, and the public safety issues identified by a
sample of jurisdictions applying for COPS FAST grants. 

At the Committee's request, we conducted telephone interviews of a
random sample of 289 nonapplicant jurisdictions to find out why they
did not apply for a grant.  In addition, we reviewed a random sample
of 207 COPS FAST approved applications to determine public safety
issues identified by applicant jurisdictions.  Appendix I contains
the details of our objectives, scope, and methodology. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Community policing is generally defined as a shift in police efforts
from a solely reactive response to crime to also proactively working
with residents to prevent crime.  Citizens, police departments, and
other agencies are to work together to identify problems and apply
appropriate problem-solving strategies.  The practice of community
policing began to emerge in the late 1970s.  The Department of
Justice (DOJ) has supported community policing efforts through
various implementation and research grants for about the last 15
years. 

The Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994
(Community Policing Act)--Title I of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994\1 --authorizes DOJ to make grants for the
hiring or rehiring of law enforcement officers to participate in
community policing.  In addition, the Community Policing Act
authorizes DOJ to award grants for the purchase of equipment,
technology, and support systems if the expenditures would result in
an increase in the number of officers deployed in community- oriented
policing.  It also authorizes grants for other programs such as
providing specialized training to enhance skills needed to work in
partnership with members of the community.  The purposes of the
grants are to increase police presence, expand and improve
cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies and members of
the community to address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise
enhance public safety. 

The Community Policing Act authorizes $8.8 billion in grants over a
6-year period to states, local governments, Indian tribal
governments, other public and private entities, and
multijurisdictional or regional consortia.  Fiscal year 1995
appropriated funds for the Community Policing Act totaled $1.3
billion.  The President's fiscal year 1996 budget requests about $1.9
billion for public safety and community policing grants. 

DOJ has used three programs to date--COPS:  Phase I, COPS FAST, and
COPS AHEAD--as part of its efforts to increase by 100,000 the number
of sworn law enforcement officers over current levels by providing
community policing grants.  COPS:  Phase I was open only to
jurisdictions not funded due to a scarcity of funds under DOJ's
1993-1994 Police Hiring Supplement Program (PHSP).\2 COPS FAST is
open to state, local, and other public enforcement agencies, Indian
tribal governments, other public and private entities, and
multijurisdictional or regional consortia that employ sworn law
enforcement officers and that serve populations under 50,000.  COPS
AHEAD is open to those agencies serving populations of 50,000 or
more. 

DOJ community policing guidelines provide that jurisdictions that had
received COPS:  Phase I funding were also eligible to receive
additional funding under COPS AHEAD if the combined hiring under both
programs did not exceed 3 percent of the actual October 1, 1994,
total police force level.\3 In addition, an agency that received
funding under COPS:  Phase I is eligible to receive additional
funding under COPS FAST.  DOJ has also announced additional
programs.\4

The guidelines also stipulate that federal grant funds awarded under
the COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD programs cannot exceed 75 percent of the
total salary and benefits of each officer up to a maximum of $75,000
per officer for a 3-year period.  Grantees are required to provide at
least 25 percent of officer costs and commit to retaining new
officers after the grant expires. 


--------------------
\1 Public Law 103-322. 

\2 DOJ created the PHSP in response to congressional passage of the
Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1993 that provided $150 million to
help pay for the salaries and fringe benefits of additional law
enforcement officers. 

\3 According to the DOJ COPS Office Assistant Director for Grants
Administration, based on the overwhelming number of letters of intent
received, the COPS Office decided that COPS AHEAD would fund 2.5
percent rather than 3 percent of sworn personnel as of October 1,
1994. 

\4 These additional programs include COPS Making Officer Redeployment
Effective (MORE) and Troops-to-COPS.  COPS MORE is designed to expand
the time available for community policing by current law enforcement
officers, rather than fund the hiring or rehiring of additional law
enforcement officers.  Troops-to-Cops grants may be used to hire
former members of the Armed Forces to serve as career law enforcement
officers for deployment in community policing. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The grant application and selection process for the COPS:  Phase I
program differed from that for COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD.  COPS: 
Phase I grants were awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA), which utilized a traditional competitive process.  DOJ created
the COPS Office to award Community Policing Act grants including COPS
FAST and COPS AHEAD grants.  This office instituted a noncompetitive,
two-step application and selection process to allow officers to be
hired more quickly.  The COPS Office is to monitor grants awarded
under all three programs. 

Overall, the higher the crime rate, the more likely a jurisdiction
was to apply for a COPS grant.  About 92 percent of jurisdictions
that applied for a grant received initial approval --93 percent of
COPS FAST applicants and 74 percent of COPS AHEAD applicants. 

The primary reasons jurisdictions we contacted chose not to apply for
COPS grants were cost related.  Specifically, these jurisdictions
expressed uncertainty about being able to continue officer funding
after the grant expired and about their ability to provide the
required 25-percent match. 

Property crimes and domestic violence were the most frequently
included crimes in the top five public safety issues among approved
COPS FAST applicants.  In addition, about half or more of COPS FAST
applicants ranked alcohol-related crimes, drug crimes, vandalism, and
violent crimes against persons among their top five public safety
issues. 


   GRANT AWARD AND OVERSIGHT
   PROCESS FOR COPS:  PHASE I,
   COPS FAST, AND COPS AHEAD
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The application and selection processes varied somewhat between the
COPS:  Phase I program and the COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD programs
because they were administered differently by separate offices within
DOJ.  BJA administered the application and selection of COPS:  Phase
I awards.  The Attorney General created a separate office, the COPS
Office, to administer the Community Policing Act grants.  This office
designed the application and selection processes for the COPS FAST
and COPS AHEAD grants.  The COPS Office is to monitor the grants
awarded under all three programs. 

The Community Policing Act requires that each application (1)
include, among other things, a long-term community policing strategy
and a detailed implementation plan; (2) demonstrate a specific public
safety need; and (3) explain the applicant's inability to meet its
public safety needs without federal assistance.  The act makes
special provisions for applications of local government or law
enforcement agencies in jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000 and for nonpolice hiring grants\5 of less than $1 million by
allowing the Attorney General to waive one or more of the grant
application requirements and to facilitate the submission,
processing, and approval of these applications. 


--------------------
\5 According to the COPS Office, nonpolice hiring grants are to
provide funds for innovative community policing programs, technology
and equipment, and the development and establishment of new police
administrative and managerial systems. 


      APPLICATION PROCESS FOR
      COPS:  PHASE I DIFFERED FROM
      THE PROCESS FOR COPS FAST
      AND COPS AHEAD GRANTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

The difference in the application process between COPS:  Phase I and
COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD grants is the stage at which jurisdictions
could begin recruiting and hiring additional officers.  In the
traditional grant process used for COPS:  Phase I, jurisdictions
submitted a detailed application to BJA for review and waited for
final grant approval and award before beginning officer recruitment,
hiring, and training.  For the COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD grant
programs, the COPS Office implemented a two-step application process
that allowed jurisdictions to recruit, hire, and train officers while
final grant applications were being reviewed. 

In response to a suggestion from the U.S.  Conference of Mayors to
expedite the grant application process for the COPS FAST and COPS
AHEAD programs, the COPS Office designed a two-step application
process to try to get new officers on the street months earlier than
they would be under traditional grant award processes.  First, for
COPS AHEAD, the COPS Office used a one- page initial application to
determine the number of officers jurisdictions could recruit and
train.  Approved jurisdictions were notified of proposed funding
levels, cautioned that the funding was tentative, and warned that if
the subsequent application was not approved, the COPS Office would
not be held liable for officers hired.  In COPS FAST, grant decisions
were made based upon one-page applications.  Second, the selected
jurisdictions in both programs were to submit additional information
to the COPS Office prior to issuance of formal awards.  COPS AHEAD
agencies were asked to submit detailed applications, while COPS FAST
supplied brief budget and community policing information. 

The type of information and amount of detail required in this second
application differed between COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD programs.  COPS
FAST applicants were allowed to provide less detailed information
because the Attorney General waived certain requirements for
communities serving under 50,000 residents. 


      SELECTION PROCESS FOR COPS: 
      PHASE I DIFFERED FROM
      PROCESS FOR COPS FAST AND
      COPS AHEAD GRANTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

BJA awarded the COPS:  Phase I grants based primarily on public
safety need, while the COPS Office used commitment to community
policing as the primary eligibility criterion for the COPS FAST and
COPS AHEAD grants.  COPS:  Phase I grantees were competitively
selected on the basis of the following five criteria used for PHSP
applicants:  (1) public safety need (40 percent), (2) community
policing strategy (30 percent), (3) implementation plan (10 percent),
(4) continuation and retention plan (10 percent), and (5) additional
resource commitments (10 percent). 

The eligible jurisdictions for COPS:  Phase I were those 2,507
jurisdictions that applied for the 1993-1994 PHSP but did not receive
funding.  BJA considered applications from both traditional law
enforcement jurisdictions--such as municipal, county, and state
police--and special law enforcement jurisdictions--such as airports,
parks, and transit authorities.  A BJA official said that most of the
COPS:  Phase I applicants demonstrating a high or moderate need based
on the above five factors received funding.  In addition, 16
jurisdictions received waivers of the local match requirement after
demonstrating extraordinary economic hardships. 

The Assistant Director for Grants Administration said the intent of
the COPS Office was to award COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD grants to as
many applicant jurisdictions as funds allowed.  However, after
receiving more applications than it had expected--about 8,000 of the
approximately 15,000 law enforcement jurisdictions applied--the COPS
Office decided to consider in COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD only
applications from traditional law enforcement jurisdictions.\6

Jurisdictions with satisfactory COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD applications
were approved for funds based on the number of officers on board on
October 1, 1994.  About 92 percent of jurisdictions that applied for
a COPS grant received initial award approval.  COPS Office staff said
that if an application was incomplete, a COPS Office grant adviser
contacted a local official for further information.  In some cases,
jurisdictions were referred for technical assistance to help them
plan and implement a community policing strategy.  On July 1, 1995,
the COPS Office and the Community Policing Consortium\7 entered into
a cooperative agreement for the provision of certain training and
technical assistance services. 

Table 1 shows the authorized hiring scale for approved jurisdictions. 



                                Table 1
                
                 Authorized Hiring Levels for COPS FAST
                      and COPS AHEAD Jurisdictions

                           (the COPS Program)

                                            Maximum number of officers
Number of officers currently on force     authorized to be hired under
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Less than 50                                                         1
50 to 100                                                            2
More than 100                                          2.5% of force\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a As of Oct.  1, 1994. 

Source:  DOJ. 

Table 2 summarizes information about the grant application and
selection process for the three COPS programs. 



                                Table 2
                
                Information Relating to the COPS Grants
                  Application and Selection Processes




                               Nonselected  Jurisdiction  Jurisdiction
                                      PHSP       s under   s of 50,000
Target population               applicants        50,000       or more
----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Number of jurisdictions            2,507\a        14,400           908
 eligible to apply
Number of applications             2,507\a         7,169           799
Number that received grant             392         6,656           632
 approval letters\b
Number that received waiver             16           N/A           N/A
 of local match requirement
Number that withdrew                    16            30            31
 application after receiving
 initial
 approval
Number of detailed                   2,507       6,679\c         508\c
 applications received
Number of officers funded\c          2,559         7,115         4,197
Number of officers hired\c           1,209         1,800         1,770
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A = Not applicable to this program because the COPS Office did not
consider requests for waivers of the 25-percent local match for COPS
FAST and COPS AHEAD grants. 

\a These included PHSP applicants that applied for but did not
receive PHSP funding. 

\b For the COPS:  Phase I program, these were final grant awards. 
For COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD, these were preliminary approvals
contingent on approval of the jurisdictions' detailed applications. 

\c Numbers are as of May 15, 1995. 

Source:  DOJ and GAO analysis of COPS Office and 1993 Uniform Crime
Report (UCR) data. 


--------------------
\6 The COPS Office concluded that a more thorough review of community
policing activities and plans in special jurisdictions would be
necessary but was not plausible under the expedited processes for
COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD programs.  Similarly, guidelines for COPS
FAST and COPS AHEAD did not permit waivers of the 25-percent local
match.  According to the Assistant Director for Grants
Administration, this was because more extensive review was necessary
to verify any extraordinary economic hardships cited by the
jurisdiction.  The special police jurisdictions will be eligible for
future COPS programs funded later this year, and requests for waivers
are also to be considered. 

\7 Established and funded by BJA, the Community Policing Consortium
includes representatives from the International Association of Chiefs
of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Police Executive
Research Forum, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives, and the Police Foundation.  The consortium's task is to
provide technical assistance and assist agencies in implementing
community policing. 


      THE COPS OFFICE IS TO
      MONITOR AND EVALUATE THE
      THREE GRANT PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

The Attorney General established the COPS Office to administer all
Community Policing Act grants, including monitoring and evaluation to
assess the financial and programmatic impact of the grants.  Grantees
are required to submit progress and accounting reports and are to be
contacted periodically by telephone.  Some of the financial
monitoring is to be done by DOJ's Office of Justice Programs (OJP). 
An intra-agency agreement between the COPS Office and OJP allows OJP
to provide certain accounting and financial monitoring to track
grantee compliance with audit requirements, as well as prepare
financial status reports. 

According to the Assistant Director for Grants Administration, the
frequency and extent of evaluation to assess a jurisdiction's grant
implementation process will depend on the amount of the grant award,
with the level of scrutiny increasing for larger awards.  A COPS FAST
jurisdiction, for example, which received a grant award for only one
law enforcement officer--about 6,200 jurisdictions--is to receive a
minimum of telephone contacts and have its periodic progress reports
reviewed.  A COPS AHEAD jurisdiction, however, which may have
received funding for a large number of officers, should expect site
visits, frequent telephone contacts, and close review of its
community policing efforts through its periodic progress reports. 
COPS Office staff said that each jurisdiction is to complete periodic
progress reports that will outline information on each officer hired
and the specific activities and achievements of its community
policing program.  The COPS Office is to conduct evaluations to
review how the jurisdiction interacts with the community, what kind
of training is provided to officers and residents, and what specific
strategies are used to prevent crime. 

The COPS Office is to select a sample of jurisdictions for continuous
impact evaluations.  The Policy Support and Evaluation Unit within
the COPS Office is to conduct these evaluations.  DOJ's National
Institute of Justice is also expected to conduct impact evaluations. 
Impact evaluations are to be conducted on fewer sites than the
process evaluations and are to assess how the quality of life in the
community has been affected by community policing efforts.  The COPS
Office is to examine, for example, crime and arrest data,
victimization surveys, and citizen surveys to evaluate the impact of
the grants.  The periodic progress reports are also to be used to
evaluate the impact of the grants. 


   THE HIGHER THE CRIME RATE, THE
   MORE LIKELY A JURISDICTION WAS
   TO APPLY FOR A COPS GRANT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

We estimated that about 42 percent of all law enforcement
jurisdictions applied for a COPS FAST or COPS AHEAD grant. 
Jurisdictions eligible for a COPS AHEAD grant were much more likely
to apply than were jurisdictions eligible for a COPS FAST grant. 
About 81 percent of the jurisdictions eligible for the COPS AHEAD
program applied; about 49 percent of those eligible for a COPS FAST
grant applied.  However, regardless of the program, generally, the
higher the crime rate, the more likely a jurisdiction was to apply
for a grant.  Table 3 shows the application rates for law enforcement
jurisdictions by program eligibility and number of crimes reported
per 1,000 population served.  Crimes reported in the 1993 UCR
included violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter,
forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault and the property
crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. 



                                     Table 3
                     
                     Application Rates for COPS FAST and COPS
                                   AHEAD Grants


Number
of
crimes
reported
per                    Number of               Number of
1,000                   eligible                eligible               Number of
populati   Percent  jurisdiction   Percent  jurisdiction   Percent  jurisdiction
on        applying             s  applying             s  applying             s
--------  --------  ------------  --------  ------------  --------  ------------
Under 25     39.0%         4,708     62.8%           199     40.0%         4,907
25 -<50       53.9         2,838      83.9           248      56.3         3,086
50 -<70       58.8         1,003      82.5           154      62.0         1,157
70 and        60.0           915      92.5           200      65.8         1,115
 above
Missing        N/A           N/A       N/A           N/A       5.7         3,487
 UCR
 data on
 populat
 ion\b
Missing       51.1         4,936      87.9           107      33.0         5,043
 UCR
 data on
 number
 of
 crimes
================================================================================
Total        48.8%        14,400     81.4%           908     42.4%        18,795
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Our determination of program eligibility for nonapplicant
jurisdictions is based on whether the UCR data showed a population of
less than 50,000 or 50,000 and over.  The 1993 UCR data and the COPS
Office data showed consistent population classification for 98.5
percent of the applicants (all but 30 COPS FAST applicants and 83
COPS AHEAD applicants). 

\b Jurisdictions (e.g., special police, some sheriffs, or state
police) that overlap other reporting jurisdictions are not assigned
population in the UCR database. 

Source:  GAO analysis of COPS Office and 1993 UCR data. 

As previously mentioned, an estimated 92 percent of all jurisdictions
that applied for a COPS FAST or COPS AHEAD grant received one.  The
eligibility criteria for these grant programs included the
jurisdiction's commitment to community policing, the type of law
enforcement jurisdiction, population, and number of sworn officers on
the force.  Overall, jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000 were more likely to receive a COPS grant than were larger
jurisdictions.  Approximately 93 percent of COPS FAST applicants were
accepted, while about 74 percent of the jurisdictions applying for a
COPS AHEAD grant were accepted (see table 4).  We found no relation
between crime rates and whether an applicant jurisdiction was awarded
the grant.  Table 4 shows the disposition of applications for
jurisdictions by program and crime rate. 



                                                                       Table 4
                                                       
                                                         Disposition of Applications for COPS
                                                              FAST and COPS AHEAD Grants



Number of
crimes                                                                    Initial                            Number   Initial
reported     Number of     Initial                           Number of      grant                          of grant     grant
per 1,000        grant       grant  Ineligible                   grant  approval\                Withdrew  applican  approval                Withdrew
population  applicants  approval\a          \b  Withdrew\c  applicants          a  Ineligible\d        \c        ts        \a  Ineligible\d        \c
----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ---------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  ------------  --------
Under 25         1,837       98.6%        0.2%        0.9%         125      71.2%         17.6%      9.6%     1,962     96.9%          1.3%      1.5%
25 -<50          1,529        98.7         0.1         0.9         208       84.1           7.2       7.2     1,737      96.9           1.0       1.6
50 -<70            590        99.0          .0         0.7         127       87.4           5.5       6.3       717      96.9           1.0       1.7
70 and             549        98.7          .0         1.1         185       79.5          13.0       7.6       734      93.9           3.3       2.7
 above
Missing\e        2,664        82.5        16.4         0.4         154       44.8          50.0       5.2     2,818      80.4          18.2       0.6
=====================================================================================================================================================
Total            7,169       92.7%        6.2%        0.7%         799      74.0%         18.3%      7.1%     7,968     90.8%          7.4%      1.3%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Percents may not add to 100 due to several reasons, such as an
incomplete application, applications not submitted on time, and
applications for which the award decision was unknown. 

\a Does not include jurisdictions that withdrew after being initially
awarded a grant. 

\b Applicants were deemed ineligible if they applied to the wrong
grant program, were a special law enforcement jurisdiction, or were
planning to use the grant to start a police department. 

\c Withdrawals included jurisdictions that withdrew before award
notification and jurisdictions that withdrew after being initially
awarded a grant. 

\d Applicants were deemed ineligible if they applied to the wrong
grant program, received a COPS:  Phase I grant that increased the
total number of officers to exceed 2.5 percent of sworn personnel as
of October 1, 1994, were a special law enforcement jurisdiction, or
were planning to use the grant to start a police department. 

\e Includes jurisdictions assigned zero population in the UCR that
applied to the grant program. 

Source:  GAO analysis of COPS Office and 1993 UCR data. 


   COST FACTORS WERE THE PRIMARY
   REASON JURISDICTIONS CHOSE NOT
   TO APPLY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

At the Committee's request, we conducted telephone interviews with a
random sample of 289 nonapplicant jurisdictions to find out why they
did not apply for a grant.\8 From our telephone survey, we estimated
that 62 percent (plus or minus 11 percent)\9 of the nonapplicant
jurisdictions did not apply for a COPS FAST or COPS AHEAD grant due
to cost-related factors.  For the following question:  "How important
was each of the following reasons in your agency's decision to not
apply for a COPS program grant?", we asked respondents to assign one
of five levels of importance to each of five reasons.\10 Next, we
asked respondents to indicate the most important reason for not
applying.  We also allowed respondents to identify any other reasons
that affected their jurisdiction's decision. 

The estimated 62 percent included about 40 percent (plus or minus 12
percent) of nonapplicants who said uncertainty about the
jurisdiction's ability to meet the requirement for continued officer
funding after the 3-year grant period was the most important reason
for not applying.  An additional 18 percent cited the 25-percent
local match requirement as the most important reason in their
decision; 4 percent cited other financial reasons.  An additional 8
percent said the jurisdiction did not apply either because of a lack
of information on the grants or because of problems meeting the
application deadlines, 3 percent mentioned local political or
management decisions, and 4 percent cited various other reasons.  In
addition, some respondents cited the inadequacy of the $25,000 per
year per officer grant to cover the full cost of new officers. 
According to DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, average starting
salaries for entry level officers range from $18,710 to $26,560, with
average operating expenditures per officer ranging from $31,500 to
$63,400.  Table 5 summarizes the results of the importance ratings. 



                                Table 5
                
                   Reasons Rated as Most Important in
                Jurisdictions' Decision Not to Apply for
                              a COPS Grant



Reason
------------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------
Cost-related factors                         4,215               62.2%
Could not ensure                   2,745               40.5%
 continued funding
Could not meet 25%                 1,198                17.7
 match requirement
Other cost reasons                   272                 4.0
Regulations for use of                         576                 8.5
 funds too restrictive
Lack of Information/deadlines                  572                 8.4
Did not need additional                        501                 7.4
 officers
Other reasons                                  265                 3.9
Political/city decision                        206                 3.0
Paperwork requirements                         153                 2.3
 too burdensome
All reasons equally important                   25                 0.4
Do not know                                    267                 4.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO analysis of telephone survey results. 


--------------------
\8 We did not undertake to determine whether any of the 289
nonapplicant jurisdictions surveyed subsequently applied for funding
under other COPS programs. 

\9 Because the telephone survey results come from a sample of
nonapplicants, all results are subject to sampling errors.  For the
62-percent estimate, the 95-percent confidence interval of plus or
minus 11 percent indicates that we are 95-percent confident that the
interval from 51 to 73 percent includes the actual percentage
considering cost-related factors.  All of the results in this report
for this survey have 95-percent confidence intervals of less than
plus or minus 12 percent. 

\10 The five levels of importance were "very greatly important,"
"very important," "moderately important," "somewhat important," and
"of little or no importance." The five reasons were "the requirement
for continued funding for the officer(s) after the federal grant
expired," "did not need additional officers," "the federal grant
paperwork requirements were too burdensome," "the federal grant
regulations for use of the funds were too restrictive," and "the
requirement for 25-percent local matching funds."


   APPROVED COPS FAST APPLICANTS
   CITED PROPERTY CRIMES AS THEIR
   TOP PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We reviewed a random sample of 207 COPS FAST approved applications
and found that approximately 84 percent (plus or minus 5 percent) of
these jurisdictions--serving populations of less than 50,000--cited
property crimes most frequently among their top five ranked public
safety issues (from the categories listed on the application form),
with almost half of the jurisdictions ranking it as their first or
second most important concern.\11 In addition, we estimated that at
least half the jurisdictions ranked the following public safety
issues among their top five:  domestic violence, alcohol-related
crimes, drug crimes, vandalism, and violent crimes against persons. 
Table 6 shows the rank order of the public safety issues. 



                                Table 6
                
                   Public Safety Issues as Ranked by
                 Jurisdictions Awarded COPS FAST Grants


Public safety issue                                 Number     Percent
----------------------------------------------  ----------  ----------
Property crimes                                        174       84.1%
Domestic violence                                      162        78.3
Alcohol-related crimes                                 131        63.3
 (including driving
 while intoxicated)
Drug crimes                                            126        60.9
Vandalism                                              106        51.2
Violent crimes against                                 105        50.7
 persons
Traffic violations                                      76        36.7
Disorderly conduct                                      41        19.8
Gangs                                                   40        19.3
Weapons                                                 33        15.9
Motor vehicle thefts                                    25        12.1
Other                                                    7         3.4
Prostitution                                             2         1.0
Wildlife crimes                                          2         1.0
Hate crimes                                              1         0.5
Agricultural crimes                                      1         0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  95-percent confidence interval for the estimates in this table
are all less than plus or minus 7 percent. 

Source:  GAO analysis of COPS Office data. 


--------------------
\11 Because we reviewed a sample of all applications, all results are
subject to sampling errors.  The 84-percent estimate is surrounded by
a 95-percent confidence interval of plus or minus 11 percent. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

On September 13, 1995, we received written comments from the Director
of DOJ's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services on a draft of
this report.  He said that the popularity of the COPS grant programs
continues to expand and provided technical clarifications, which we
incorporated where appropriate.  He also provided some updated
information on the progress of the programs since our audit work was
completed.  The Director's written comments are reproduced in full in
appendix II. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We are sending copies of this report to other interested
congressional committees and Members and to the Attorney General. 
Copies will also be made available to others upon request. 

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. 
Please call me on (202) 512-8777 if you have any questions concerning
this report. 

Norman J.  Rabkin
Director, Administration of
 Justice Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

As agreed with the Committee and Subcommittee, our objectives were to
review various aspects of the COPS programs and describe the grant
application, selection, and monitoring processes for COPS:  Phase I,
COPS FAST, and COPS AHEAD.  In addition, for COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD
we were to

  compare the crime rates for applicant and nonapplicant
     jurisdictions,

  determine why some jurisdictions chose not to apply for the grants,
     and

  determine the public safety issues of applicant jurisdictions. 

To describe the application, selection, and monitoring processes for
the COPS programs, we interviewed officials from BJA and the COPS
Office, including the Assistant Director for Grants Administration
and the co-chiefs of the Grant Monitoring sections.  In addition, we
reviewed documents used in the grants process, including application
forms, selection review forms, and draft monitoring guidelines. 

To determine and compare crime rates for COPS FAST and COPS AHEAD
applicant and nonapplicant jurisdictions, we used application data
provided by the COPS Office\12 and UCR data for 1993, which lists all
law enforcement jurisdictions that report crimes to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.\13 UCR data contained information on
population and numbers of reported crimes for jurisdictions.  We
merged the COPS Office's listing of applicant jurisdictions with UCR
data to identify nonapplicant jurisdictions.  Next, we used UCR data
to assign jurisdictions to population categories (less than 50,000
and 50,000 and over) and calculated the number of crimes reported per
1,000 population served.  We grouped jurisdictions into COPS FAST and
COPS AHEAD grant applicants and nonapplicants, and applicants into
those approved and those not approved. 

To determine why jurisdictions chose not to apply for COPS grants, we
surveyed a stratified, random sample of nonapplicants by telephone. 
We limited our survey population to city, local, county, and tribal
police.  These types of law enforcement agencies account for 91
percent of all jurisdictions.  Using UCR population data, we
stratified the population into three size groups and selected random
samples from each:  0 - <10,000 population (71 from 6,094
jurisdictions); 10,000 - <50,000 (143 from 1,375 jurisdictions); and
50,000 and over (all 170 jurisdictions).  We completed 334, or 87
percent, of our planned contacts with the sample of 384
jurisdictions.  Fifty contacts were not completed for various
reasons, including difficulty in reaching the appropriate respondent
and unwillingness of some jurisdictions to respond.  Of the 334
contacts made, we completed interviews with respondents in 289
jurisdictions.  We found that 45 did not belong in our study
population because they had applied for a COPS grant.  Mostly, these
jurisdictions were either covered under another jurisdiction's
application (and the application was identified by the other
jurisdiction) or not listed on the COPS program's applicant file as
an individual applicant.  All survey results have been weighted to
represent the total population. 

To determine the public safety issues of applicant jurisdictions, we
reviewed a random sample of 207 of the 3,258 COPS FAST applications
that had been received and graded or approved for funding as of April
25, 1995.  According to the Assistant Director for Grants
Administration, this represents about half of the 6,656 jurisdictions
that were given preliminary funding approval.  Applications were
stored at various locations in the COPS Office.  To obtain our
sample, we used a random starting point and then took every 16th
application from the files.  Jurisdictions applying for the COPS FAST
program were required to rank order their public safety issues from a
list of 16 issues.  We did not review COPS AHEAD applications because
their statements of public safety needs were included as part of a
narrative description of their community policing program, which
could be up to 18 pages.  It would have been difficult, if not
impossible, to identify or infer the relative importance of the
public safety concerns from such narrative sources. 

Our work was done primarily in Washington, D.C., from April to August
1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.  The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
provided written comments on a draft of this report.  The written
comments are reproduced in appendix II. 



(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II

--------------------
\12 We obtained data on all applications that had been received as of
April 18, 1995.  We conducted limited reliability checks of the COPS
program applicant computer files. 

\13 The most recent year for which UCR data were available was 1993. 
We performed no reliability checks of the UCR data. 


COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Weldon McPhail, Assistant Director, Administration of Justice
 Issues
David Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst
James M.  Fields, Senior Social Science Analyst
Donald E.  Jack, Staff Evaluator
Joanne M.  Parker, Senior Social Science Analyst
Dennise R.  Stickley, Staff Evaluator
Pamela V.  Williams, Communications Analyst

DETROIT FIELD OFFICE

Henry Malone, Core Group Manager
M.  Christine Dobrovich, Evaluator-in-Charge
Mary A.  Lee, Information Processing Assistant

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ann H.  Finley, Senior Attorney