Community Policing: Issues Related to the Design, Operation, and
Management of the Grant Program (Letter Report, 09/03/97,
GAO/GGD-97-167).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Justice Office of Community Policing Services (COPS) grant program,
focusing on: (1) Justice's implementation of the Community Policing Act
with special attention to statutory requirements for implementing the
COPS grants; (2) how COPS monitored the use of grants it awarded; (3)
the distribution of COPS grants nationwide by population size of
jurisdiction served, by type of grant, and by state; (4) how law
enforcement agencies used grants under the COPS Making Officer
Redeployment Effective (MORE) grant program; (5) the process the COPS
office used to calculate the number of officers on the street; and (6)
the funding distributions and uses of COPS hiring grants by special law
enforcement agencies.

GAO noted that: (1) under the Community Policing Act, grants are
generally available to any law enforcement agency that can demonstrate a
public safety need; demonstrate an inability to address the need without
a grant; and, in most instances, contribute a 25-percent match of the
federal share of the grant; (2) to achieve the goal of increasing the
number of community policing officers, the law required that grants be
used to supplement, not supplant, state and local funds; (3) the COPS
Office provided limited monitoring of the grants during the period GAO
reviewed; however, the office was taking steps to increase its level of
monitoring; (4) about 50 percent of the grant funds were awarded to law
enforcement agencies serving populations of 150,000 or less, and about
50 percent of the grant funds were awarded to law enforcement agencies
serving populations exceeding 150,000, as the Community Policing Act
required; (5) about $286 million, or 11 percent of the total grant
dollars awarded in fiscal years (FY) 1995 and 1996, were awarded under
the MORE grant program; (6) according to the results of a survey GAO did
of a representative national sample of those receiving grants under the
COPS MORE grant program in FY 1995 and 1996, grantees had spent an
estimated $90.1 million, or a little less than one-third of the funds
they were awarded; (7) they spent about 61 percent of these funds to
hire civilian personnel, about 31 percent to purchase technology or
equipment, and about 8 percent on overtime payments for law enforcement
officers; (8) the distributions of MORE program grant expenditures were
heavily influenced by the expenditures of the New York City Police
Department, which spent about one-half of all the MORE program grant
funds expended nationwide; (9) to calculate its progress toward
achieving the goal of 100,000 new community policing officers on the
street as a result of its grants, the COPS Office did telephone surveys
of grantees; (10) as of June 1997, the COPS Office estimated that a
total of 30,155 law enforcement officer positions funded by COPS grants
were on the street; (11) according to the results of GAO's review of
COPS Office files, special law enforcement agencies were awarded 329
community policing hiring grants in FY 1995 and 1996--less than 3
percent of the total hiring grants awarded; and (12) special agency
grantees applied most frequently to use officers hired with the COPS
funds to write strategic plans, work with community groups, and provide
community policing training to officers and citizens.

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

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-97-167
     TITLE:  Community Policing: Issues Related to the Design, 
             Operation, and Management of the Grant Program
      DATE:  09/03/97
   SUBJECT:  Federal aid for criminal justice
             Law enforcement agencies
             Police
             Grant monitoring
             Surveys
             Grants to local governments
             Eligibility criteria
             Human resources utilization
IDENTIFIER:  COPS Making Officer Redeployment Effective Grant
             Los Angeles County (CA)
             Oxnard (CA)
             Prince George's County (MD)
             St. Petersburg (FL)
             Window Rock (AZ)
             
******************************************************************
** 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.               **
**                                                              **
** 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.                         **
******************************************************************


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


Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Budget, and the Chairman,
Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives

September 1997

COMMUNITY POLICING - ISSUES
RELATED TO THE DESIGN, OPERATION,
AND MANAGEMENT OF THE GRANT
PROGRAM

GAO/GGD-97-167

Community Policing Grant Program

(182027)


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

  COPS - Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
  MORE - Making Officer Redeployment Effective

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


B-272329

September 3, 1997

The Honorable John R.  Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives

The Honorable Bill McCollum
Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives

The enactment of the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing
Act of 1994,\1 Title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act, established what officials described as the largest
grant program ever administered by the Department of Justice
(Justice).  The Community Policing Act authorizes $8.8 billion to be
used from fiscal years 1995 to 2000 to enhance public safety.  It has
goals of adding 100,000 officer positions, funded by grants, to the
streets of communities nationwide and of promoting community
policing. 

Under the Community Policing Act, the Attorney General had discretion
to decide which Justice component would administer community policing
grants.  Justice officials believed that a new, efficient
customer-oriented organization was needed to process the record
number of grants.  The result was the creation of the new Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).  At the end of fiscal
year 1997, the community policing grant program will be at the
midpoint of its 6-year authorization period. 

In view of the large size and scope of the COPS grant program, you
asked us in a November 15, 1996, letter to review several issues
related to the program's design, operation, and management.  You
asked us to review the implementation of the Community Policing Act
with special attention to statutory requirements for implementing the
COPS grants.  You also asked us to (1) assess how the COPS Office
monitored the use of grants it awarded; (2) describe the distribution
of COPS grants nationwide by population size of jurisdiction served,
by type of grant, and by state; (3) describe how law enforcement
agencies used grants under the COPS Making Officer Redeployment
Effective (MORE)\2

program; (4) describe the process the COPS Office used to calculate
the number of officers on the street; and (5) describe funding
distributions and uses of COPS hiring grants by special law
enforcement agencies.\3

You also requested that we describe how community policing was
implemented in several communities that received COPS grants.  The
results of this work are described in appendix II. 

We did our review at the COPS Office in Washington, D.C., and we
visited six law enforcement jurisdictions that received grants--Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County, and Oxnard, CA; Prince George's County,
MD; St.  Petersburg, FL; and Window Rock, AZ (Navajo Nation).  We
interviewed COPS officials, local law enforcement agency officials,
and representatives of local government and community groups.  We
also reviewed documentation and analyzed data files on grants awarded
in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and we surveyed a nationally
representative sample of agencies that had been awarded MORE grants
as of September 30, 1996.  Our work was done between July 1996 and
July 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.  A detailed description of our objectives, scope, and
methodology is contained in appendix I. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Attorney
General or her designee on July 24, 1997.  Justice provided both
written and oral comments that are incorporated where appropriate. 
The written comments are reproduced in appendix III. 


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

\2 The COPS MORE grant program is one of the specific grants
authorized by the Community Policing Act.  It is designed to expand
the time available for community policing by current law enforcement
officers, rather than fund the hiring of additional officers. 
Grantees can use the funds to purchase equipment and technology, hire
civilian personnel as support staff, and pay law enforcement officers
overtime. 

\3 These law enforcement agencies serve specialized populations, such
as Native Americans, college students, and mass transit passengers. 
The COPS Office also considered new police departments to be special
agencies. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Under the Community Policing Act, grants are generally available to
any law enforcement agency that can demonstrate a public safety need;
demonstrate an inability to address the need without a grant; and, in
most instances, contribute a 25-percent match of the federal share of
the grant.  The act requires that 50 percent of the grant funds
allocated go to law enforcement agencies serving populations of
150,000 or less, and that 50 percent of the grant funds go to law
enforcement agencies serving populations exceeding 150,000.  The act
does not require the COPS Office to target grants to those law
enforcement agencies that need the most assistance.  In previous
reports on grant design,\4

we have suggested that targeting federal aid on the basis of
measurable need and the ability to pay could help scarce federal
resources go further. 

To achieve the goal of increasing the number of community policing
officers, the law required that grants be used to supplement, not
supplant, state and local funds.  Grantees are also required to have
plans for the assumption of a progressively larger share of the cost,
looking toward the continuation of the increased hiring levels using
state or local funds at the conclusion of the period of federal
support. 

The COPS Office provided limited monitoring of the grants during the
period we reviewed; however, the office was taking steps to increase
its level of monitoring.  Justice also had some efforts under way to
review compliance with the requirement of the Community Policing Act
that grantees not supplant local funding, but rather use the federal
funds for additional law enforcement beyond what would have been
available without a grant.  However, as our prior work on grant
design has shown, it is difficult to establish with certainty that
supplanting has not occurred because of the lack of evidence to
determine what would have occurred in the absence of a grant.  In
April 1997, COPS Office officials said that they were also discussing
ways to encourage grantees to sustain hiring levels achieved by COPS
grants after the grant program expires. 

The majority of the 13,396 COPS grants awarded\5 in fiscal years 1995
and 1996 for about $2.6 billion went to law enforcement agencies
serving small populations.\6 Almost 50 percent of the grants were
awarded to agencies serving populations of fewer than 10,000, and 83
percent of the grants were awarded to agencies serving populations of
fewer than 50,000.  Communities with populations of over 1 million
were awarded less than 1 percent of the grants, although they were
awarded over 23 percent of the total grant dollars.  About 50 percent
of the grant funds were awarded to law enforcement agencies serving
populations of 150,000 or less, and about 50 percent of the grant
funds were awarded to law enforcement agencies serving populations
exceeding 150,000, as the Community Policing Act required. 

About $286 million, or 11 percent of the total grant dollars awarded
in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, were awarded under the MORE grant
program.  According to the results of a survey we did of a
representative national sample of those receiving grants under the
COPS MORE grant program in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, grantees had
spent an estimated $90.1 million, or a little less than one-third of
the funds they were awarded.  They spent about 61 percent of these
funds to hire civilian personnel, about 31 percent to purchase
technology or equipment, and about 8 percent on overtime payments for
law enforcement officers. 

The distributions of MORE program grant expenditures were heavily
influenced by the expenditures of the New York City Police
Department, which spent about one-half of all of the MORE program
grant funds expended nationwide.  Excluding a heavy New York City
Police Department expenditure for the hiring of civilian personnel,
the highest expenditures were for purchases of technology and/or
equipment, which represented about 48 percent of the MORE program
grant spending by all other grantees. 

To calculate its progress toward achieving the goal of 100,000 new
community policing officers on the street as a result of its grants,
the COPS Office did telephone surveys of grantees.  As of June 1997,
the COPS Office estimated that a total of 30,155 law enforcement
officer positions funded by COPS grants were on the street.  The COPS
Office counted in this estimate new officers on the street as a
result of hiring grants, as well as existing officers who were
redeployed to community policing as a result of time savings achieved
by MORE program grants, and 2,000 positions funded by another Justice
component before the COPS grant program was established.\7

According to the results of our review of COPS Office files, special
law enforcement agencies were awarded 329 community policing hiring
grants in fiscal years 1995 and 1996--less than 3 percent of the
total hiring grants awarded.  We reviewed 293 of the 329 special
agency grant application files\8 and found that almost 80 percent of
these files were from Native American and college or university law
enforcement agencies.  Special agency grantees applied most
frequently to use officers hired with the COPS funds to write
strategic plans, work with community groups, and provide community
policing training to officers and citizens. 


--------------------
\4 Federal Grants:  Design Improvements Could Help Federal Resources
Go Further (GAO/AIMD-97-7, Dec.  18, 1996) and Deficit Reduction: 
Better Targeting Can Reduce Spending and Improve Programs and
Services (GAO/AIMD 96-14, Jan.  16, 1996). 

\5 COPS Office officials define this point in the award process as
grant "acceptance." The data reflect numbers of grants for which
applicants had been advised they would receive funding and for which
they had received estimated award amounts.  Grantees are then to
submit completed budget worksheets in order to receive notification
of actual award amounts. 

\6 We considered communities with populations of fewer than 50,000 to
be small. 

\7 These officer hiring grants were administered by the Bureau of
Justice Assistance under the Police Hiring Supplement Program. 
According to a COPS Office official, the program was implemented in
1994 as a precursor to the COPS grant program. 

\8 The 36 files that we did not review were in use by COPS Office
staff at the time we did our work. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Community policing is a philosophy under which local police
departments develop strategies to address the causes of and reduce
the fear of crime through problemsolving tactics and community-police
partnerships.  According to the COPS Office program regulations,
there is no one approach to community policing implementation. 
However, community policing programs do stress three principles that
make them different from traditional law enforcement programs:  (1)
prevention, (2) problemsolving, and (3) partnerships (see app.  II). 
Community policing emphasizes the importance of police-citizen
cooperation to control crime, maintain order, and improve the quality
of life in communities.  The police and community members are active
partners in defining the problems that need to be addressed, the
tactics to be used in addressing them, and the measurement of the
success of the efforts. 

The practice of community policing, which emerged in the 1970s, was
developed at the street level by rank-and-file police officers. 
Justice supported community policing and predecessor programs for
more than 15 years before the current COPS grant program was
authorized.  Previous projects noted by Justice officials as
forerunners to the funding of community policing included Weed and
Seed, which was a community-
based strategy to "weed out" violent crime, gang activities, and
drugs and to "seed in" neighborhood revitalization. 

House and Senate conferees, in their joint statement explaining
actions taken on the Community Policing Act, emphasized their support
of grants for community policing.\9 The conferees noted that the
involvement of community members in public safety projects
significantly assisted in preventing and controlling crime and
violence. 

As shown in table 1, $5.2 billion was authorized for the COPS grant
program from its inception in fiscal year 1995 to the end of fiscal
year 1997; $4.1 billion of which was appropriated over this period. 



                                Table 1
                
                 Authorizations and Appropriations for
                 COPS Grant Program, Fiscal Years 1995-
                                   97

                         (Dollars in billions)

                                          COPS Grant Program
                                --------------------------------------
                                                                Amount
Fiscal year                      Amount authorized        appropriated
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
1995                                          $l.3                $1.3
1996                                           1.9                 1.4
1997                                           2.0                 1.4
======================================================================
Total                                         $5.2                $4.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act and
COPS Office data. 


--------------------
\9 H.R.  Conf.  Rep.  No.  103-694, at 402.(1994). 


   COPS GRANTS NOT TARGETED TO
   SPECIFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT
   AGENCIES AND SUPPLANTING IS
   PROHIBITED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The Community Policing Act does not target grants to law enforcement
agencies on the basis of which agency has the greatest need for
assistance.  Rather, agencies are required to demonstrate a public
safety need and an inability to address this need without a grant. 
Grantees are also required to contribute 25 percent of the costs of
the program, project, or activity funded by the grant, unless the
Attorney General waives the matching requirement.  According to
Justice officials, the basis for waiver of the matching requirements
is extraordinary local fiscal hardship. 

In one of our previous reports,\10 we reviewed alternative
strategies, including targeting, for increasing the fiscal impact of
federal grants.  We noted that federal grants have been established
to achieve a variety of goals.  If the desired goal is to target
fiscal relief to areas experiencing greater fiscal stress, grant
allocation formulas could be changed to include a combination of
factors that allocate a larger share of federal aid to those states
with relatively greater program needs and fewer resources. 

The Community Policing Act also requires that grants be used to
supplement, not supplant, state and local funds.  To prevent
supplanting, grantees must devote resources to law enforcement beyond
those resources that would have been available without a COPS grant. 
In general, grantees are expected to use the hiring grants to
increase the number of funded sworn officers above the number on
board in October 1994, when the program began.  Grantees are required
to have plans to assume a progressively larger share of the cost over
time, looking toward keeping the increased hiring levels by using
state and local funds after the expiration of the federal grant
program at the end of fiscal year 2000. 

Assessing whether supplanting has taken place in the community
policing grant program was outside the scope of our review.  However,
in our previously mentioned report on grant design, our synthesis of
literature on the fiscal impact of grants suggested that each
additional federal grant dollar results in about 40 cents of added
spending on the aided activity.  This means that the fiscal impact of
the remaining 60 cents is to free up state or local funds that
otherwise would have been spent on that activity for other programs
or tax relief.\11


--------------------
\10 GAO/AIMD-97-7. 

\11 The studies we reviewed generally looked at the fiscal impact of
grants in the aggregate or for broad categories of grants.  Like the
COPS grant, some of the grants studied incorporated nonsupplant
requirements.  Others did not incorporate such requirements. 


   COPS OFFICE GRANT MONITORING
   WAS LIMITED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Monitoring is an important tool for Justice to use in ensuring that
law enforcement jurisdictions funded by COPS grants comply with
federal program requirements.  The Community Policing Act requires
that each COPS Office program, project, or activity contain a
monitoring component developed pursuant to guidelines established by
the Attorney General.  In addition, the COPS program regulations
specify that each grant is to contain a monitoring component,
including periodic financial and programmatic reporting and, in
appropriate circumstances, on-site reviews.  The regulations state
that the guidelines for monitoring are to be issued by the COPS
Office. 

COPS Office grant-monitoring activities during the first 2-1/2 years
of the program were limited.  Final COPS Office monitoring guidance
had not been issued as of June 1997.  Information on activities and
accomplishments for COPS-funded programs was not consistently
collected or reviewed.  Site visits and telephone monitoring by grant
advisers did not systematically take place. 

COPS Office officials said that monitoring efforts were limited due
to a lack of grant adviser staff and an early program focus on
processing applications to get officers on the street.  According to
a COPS Office official, as of July 1997, the COPS Office had about
155 total staff positions, up from about 130 positions that it had
when the office was established.  Seventy of these positions were for
grant administration, including processing grant applications,
responding to questions from grantees, and monitoring grantee
performance.  The remaining positions were for staff who worked in
various other areas, including training; technical assistance;
administration; and public, intergovernmental, and congressional
liaison. 

In January 1997, the COPS Office began taking steps to increase the
level of its monitoring.  It developed monitoring guidelines, revised
reporting forms, piloted on-site monitoring visits, and initiated
telephone monitoring of grantees' activities. 

As of July 1997, a COPS Office official said that the office had
funding authorization to increase its staff to 186 positions, and it
was in the process of hiring up to this level.  In commenting on our
draft report, COPS officials also noted that they were recruiting for
more than 30 staff positions in a new monitoring component to be
exclusively devoted to overseeing grant compliance activities. 

COPS Office officials also said that some efforts were under way to
review compliance with requirements of the Community Policing Act
that grants be used to supplement, not supplant, local funding.  In
previous work,\12 we reported that enforcing such provisions of grant
programs was difficult for federal agencies due to problems in
ascertaining state and local spending intentions.  According to the
COPS Office Assistant Director of Grant Administration, the COPS
Office's approach to achieving compliance with the nonsupplantation
provision was to receive accounts of potential violations from
grantees or other sources and then to work with grantees to bring
them into compliance, not to abruptly terminate grants or otherwise
penalize grantees.  COPS Office grant advisers attempted to work with
grantees to develop mutually acceptable plans for corrective actions. 

Although the COPS Office did not do proactive investigations of
potential supplanting, its three-person legal staff reviewed cases
referred to it by grant advisers, grantees, and other sources.  COPS
Office officials said that they also expected that referrals to
Justice's Legal Division will result from planned monitoring
activities.  Of the 506 inquiries that required follow-up by the
Legal Division as of December 1996, about 70 percent involved
potential supplanting. 

In addition, Justice's Inspector General began a review in fiscal
year 1997 that was to assess, among other things, how COPS grant
funds were used, including whether supplanting occurred.  In the
course of this review, the Inspector General planned to complete 50
audits of grantees by the end of fiscal year 1997.  The Office of
Justice Programs also conducted financial monitoring of COPS grants,
which officials said is to include review of financial documents and
visits to 160 sites by the end of fiscal year 1997. 

In April 1997, COPS Office officials said that they were discussing
ways to encourage grantees to sustain hiring levels achieved under
the grants, in light of the language of the Community Policing Act
regarding the continuation of these increased hiring levels after the
conclusion of federal support.  The COPS Office officials also noted
in commenting on our draft report that they had sent fact sheets to
all grantees explaining the legal requirements for maintaining hiring
levels.  However, the COPS Office Director also noted that the
statute needed to be further defined and that communities could not
be expected to maintain hiring levels indefinitely.  A reasonable
period for retaining the officers funded by the COPS grants had not
been determined. 


--------------------
\12 Proposed Changes in Federal Matching and Maintenance of Effort
Requirements for State and Local Governments (GAO/GGD-81-7, Dec.  23,
1980). 


   SMALL COMMUNITIES WERE AWARDED
   MOST COPS OFFICE GRANTS, BUT
   LARGE CITIES RECEIVED THE
   LARGEST AWARDS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Law enforcement agencies in small communities were awarded most of
the COPS grants.  As shown in figure 1, 6,588 grants--49 percent of
the total 13,396 grants awarded--were awarded to law enforcement
agencies serving communities with populations of fewer than 10,000. 
Eighty-three percent--11,173 grants--of the total grants awarded went
to agencies serving populations of fewer than 50,000. 

   Figure 1:  Number of COPS
   Grants Awarded by
   Jurisdictional Population,
   Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note 1:  Thirty-nine of 13,396 grantees for which we lacked
population data are excluded. 

Note 2:  Number of grants awarded are shown in thousands. 

Source:  GAO analysis of COPS Office data, as of September 30, 1996. 

Large cities--with populations of over 1 million--were awarded only
about 1 percent of the grants, but these grants made up over 23
percent--about $612 million--of the total grant dollars awarded. 
About 50 percent of the grant funds were awarded to law enforcement
agencies serving populations of 150,000 or less, and about 50 percent
of the grant funds were awarded to law enforcement agencies serving
populations exceeding 150,000, as the Community Policing Act
required.  As shown in figure 2, agencies serving populations of
fewer than 50,000 also received about 38 percent of the total grant
dollars--over $1 billion. 

   Figure 2:  Amount of COPS Grant
   Dollars Awarded by
   Jurisdictional Population,
   Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Thirty-nine of 13,396 grantees for which we lacked population
data are excluded. 

Source:  GAO analysis of COPS Office data, as of September 30, 1996. 

In commenting on our draft report, the COPS Office noted that these
distributions were not surprising given that the vast majority of
police departments nationwide are also relatively small.  The COPS
Office also noted that the Community Policing Act requires that the
level of assistance given to large and small agencies be equal. 

As of the end of fiscal year 1996, after 2 years of operation, the
COPS Office had issued award letters to 8,803 communities for 13,396
grants totaling about $2.6 billion.  Eighty-six percent of these
grant dollars were to be used to hire additional law enforcement
officers.  MORE program grant funds were to be used to buy new
technology and equipment, hire support personnel, and/or pay law
enforcement officers overtime.  Other grant funds were to be used to
train officers in community policing and to develop innovative
prevention programs, including domestic violence prevention, youth
firearms reduction, and antigang initiatives.  The Community Policing
Act specifies that no more than 20 percent of the funds available for
COPS grants in fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and no more than 10 percent
of available funds in fiscal years 1997 through 2000 were to be used
for MORE program grants.  Table 2 shows the number and amount of the
COPS grants (awarded in fiscal years 1995 and 1996) by the type of
grant. 



                                Table 2
                
                Number and Amount of COPS Grants Awarded
                  by Grant Type, Fiscal Years 1995 and
                                  1996

                         (Dollars in billions)

                                          COPS Grant Program
                                --------------------------------------
                                  Number of grants
Grant type                                 awarded      Amount awarded
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Hiring                                      11,434               $2.26
MORE program                                 1,565                 .29
Other\a                                        397                 .08
======================================================================
Total                                       13,396               $2.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Other grants include domestic violence, youth firearms reduction,
and antigang initiatives. 

Source:  GAO analysis of COPS Office data, as of September 30, 1996. 

Figure 3 shows the distribution of community policing grant dollars
awarded by each state and Washington, D.C. 

   Figure 3:  Total Amount of
   Community Policing Grants
   Awarded by State and
   Washington, D.C., Fiscal Years
   1995 and 1996

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Grant amounts to four U.S.  territories are not shown.  Puerto
Rico was awarded $47 million, and American Samoa, Guam, and the
Virgin Islands were each awarded $2.7 million or less. 

Source:  GAO analysis of COPS Office data, as of September 30, 1996. 


   WE ESTIMATED THAT 61 PERCENT OF
   MORE PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS WERE
   SPENT TO HIRE CIVILIAN
   PERSONNEL
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Our survey results showed that in fiscal years 1995 and 1996,
grantees were awarded an estimated $286 million (plus or minus 3
percent)\13 in MORE program funds to use for purchases of technology
and equipment, hiring of support personnel, and/or payment of law
enforcement officers' overtime.  We estimated that, as of the end of
fiscal year 1996, 61 percent of these funds had been spent to hire
civilian personnel. 

According to our survey, MORE grantees had spent an estimated $90.1
million in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, a little less than one-third
of the $286 million in MORE funds they were awarded.  Overall, we
estimated that about 61 percent of the MORE program grant funds spent
during the first 2 years of the program was to hire civilian
personnel.  About 31 percent of the funds went for the purchase of
technology and/or equipment, primarily computers, and about 8 percent
was spent on overtime for law enforcement officers.  Figure 4 shows
how these funds were spent. 

   Figure 4:  Estimated MORE
   Program Grant Funds Spent for
   Technology and/or Equipment,
   Civilian Personnel, and
   Overtime, Fiscal Years 1995 and
   1996

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Total spending was an estimated $90.1 million. 

Source:  GAO survey of a nationally representative sample of 366 of
1,524 MORE program grant recipients. 

Time savings achieved through MORE program grant awards were to be
applied to community policing.  Allowable technology and equipment
purchases were generally computer hardware or software.  Some
technology/equipment items, such as police cars, weapons, radios,
radar guns, uniforms, and office equipment--such as fax machines and
copiers--could not be purchased with the grant funds.  Additional
support resources for some positions, such as community service
technicians, dispatchers, and clerks, were allowable.  Law
enforcement officers' overtime was to be applied to community
policing activities.  Overtime was not funded for the 1996
application year. 

Distributions of MORE program grant expenditures were heavily
influenced by the expenditures of one large jurisdiction, the New
York City Police Department.  This police department was awarded
about one-third of the total amount of MORE grant funds awarded and
had spent about one-half of all MORE grant funds expended nationwide. 
About 86 percent of the money that the department spent, or $38.7
million, was for the hiring of civilian personnel.  Excluding the New
York City Police Department's expenditures, the highest percentage of
expenditures went for purchases of technology and/or equipment, which
represented about 48 percent of the MORE program grant spending by
all other grantees. 

Table 3 shows the percentages of MORE grant funds expended for all
survey respondents, the New York City Police Department, and all
other survey respondents after excluding the New York City Police
Department. 



                                Table 3
                
                Percentage of MORE Grant Funds Expended
                by Survey Respondents, Fiscal Years 1995
                                and 1996

                         (Dollars in millions)

                                Percentage of MORE program grant
                               expenditures, by survey respondents
                           -------------------------------------------
                                                                Survey
                                                          respondents,
                                                         excluding the
                                          New York City  New York City
                              All survey         Police         Police
Type                         respondents     Department     Department
-------------------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Hire civilian personnel              61%            86%            38%
Purchase technology and/              31             12             48
 or equipment
Pay law enforcement                    8              2             14
 officers overtime
======================================================================
Total                               100%           100%           100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In commenting on our draft report, COPS officials noted that nearly
two-thirds of the MORE program funds awarded nationwide were for
purchases of technology and/or equipment.  The officials believed
that significant local procurement delays may explain our finding
that most expenditures through fiscal year 1996 were for civilian
personnel hiring. 


--------------------
\13 Because the mail survey results came from a sample of 366 MORE
program grant recipients out of a universe of 1,524 recipients, all
results were subject to sampling errors, along with other potential
sources of errors associated with surveys, such as nonresponse and
question misinterpretation.  For the $286 million estimate, the
95-percent confidence interval of plus or minus 3 percent indicates
that we are 95-percent confident that the interval from $279 million
to $293 million includes the actual dollar amount grantees had been
awarded.  Unless otherwise noted, all dollar estimates in this report
for this survey have 95-percent confidence intervals of plus or minus
4 percent or less of the dollar value of the estimate.  All
percentage estimates have 95-percent confidence intervals of plus or
minus 6 percentage points or less.  Number estimates have 95-percent
confidence intervals of plus or minus 9 percent of the number. 


      SURVEY RESPONDENTS REPORTED
      REDEPLOYMENTS TO COMMUNITY
      POLICING RESULTING FROM MORE
      PROGRAM GRANTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We asked survey respondents to calculate the number of officer
full-time-equivalent positions that their agency had redeployed to
community policing as a result of MORE program grant funds spent in
fiscal years 1995 and 1996.  The respondents were asked to do these
calculations using instructions provided to them in the original MORE
program grant application package.  (See p.  18 for a discussion of
how these calculations were to be made.)

We estimated that nearly 4,800 (plus or minus 9 percent) officer
full-time-equivalent positions had been redeployed.  Of these, about
40 percent of the positions were redeployed as a result of technology
and/or equipment purchases, about 48 percent of the positions were
attributable to hiring civilian personnel, and about 12 percent of
the positions were a result of law enforcement officers' overtime. 
The total full-time-equivalent positions were associated with an
estimated $82 million, or about 91 percent of the MORE program grant
funds spent, because some survey respondents reported that they were
not able to calculate positions redeployed to community policing. 
The most common reasons the respondents cited for not being able to
do so were that equipment that had been purchased had not yet been
installed, and/or that it was too early in the implementation process
to make calculations of time savings. 

We estimated based on our mail survey responses that about 2,400
full-time civilian personnel were hired with MORE program funds spent
in fiscal years 1995 and 1996.  The most frequently reported
technology or equipment purchases were mobile data computers or
laptops, personal computers, other computer hardware, and crime
analysis computer software. 


   NEW OFFICERS AND REDEPLOYMENTS
   TO COMMUNITY POLICING COUNT
   TOWARD THE GOAL OF 100,000 NEW
   OFFICERS ON THE STREET
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

As of June 1997, a total of 30,155 law enforcement officer positions
funded by COPS grants were estimated by the COPS Office to be on the
street.  COPS Office estimates of the numbers of new community
policing officers on the street were based on three funding sources: 
(1) officers on board as a result of COPS hiring grants; (2) officers
redeployed to community policing as a result of time savings achieved
through technology and equipment purchases, hiring of civilian
personnel, and/or law enforcement officers' overtime funded by the
MORE grant program; and (3) officers funded under the Police Hiring
Supplement Program, which was in place before the COPS grant program. 

According to COPS Office officials, the office's first systematic
attempt to estimate the progress toward the goal of 100,000 new
community policing officers on the street was a telephone survey of
grantees done between September and December, 1996.  COPS Office
staff contacted 8,360 grantees to inquire about their progress in
hiring officers and getting them on the street. 

According to a COPS Office official, a follow-up survey, which
estimated 30,155 law enforcement officer positions to be on the
street, was done between late March and June, 1997.  The official
said that this survey was contracted out because the earlier in-house
survey had been extremely time consuming.  The official said that, as
of May 1997, the office was in the process of selecting a contractor
to do three additional surveys during fiscal year 1998. 

In addition to collecting data through telephone surveys on the
numbers of new community policing officers hired with hiring grants,
the COPS Office reviewed information provided by grantees on officers
redeployed to community policing as a result of time savings achieved
by MORE program grants.  To receive MORE program grants, applicants
are required to calculate the time savings that would result from the
grants and apply the time to community policing activities.  To
assist applicants in doing these calculations, the COPS Office
provided examples in the grant application package. 

The following is an excerpt from one sample calculation: 

     "Hessville is a rural department with 20 sworn law enforcement
     officers.  Officers in the Hessville Police Department spend an
     average of three hours each per shift typing reports by hand at
     the station.  Based on information collected from similar
     agencies that have moved to an automated field-report-writing
     system, the department determines that if all of the patrol cars
     are equipped with laptop computers, the same tasks will take the
     officers only two hours each per shift to complete--a [time
     savings] of one hour per officer, per shift. 

     "On any given day, 10 officers in the Hessville Police
     Department will use the four laptop computers being requested
     (some laptops will be reused by officers on different shifts) to
     complete paperwork in their patrol cars.  Since each officer is
     expected to save an hour of time each day as a result of using
     the computers, 10 hours of sworn officer time will be saved by
     the agency each day, which would equal approximately 1.3 FTEs
     (full time equivalents) of redeployment over the course of one
     year, using a standard of 1,824 hours (228 days) for an FTE."

The COPS Office also counted toward the 100,000-officers goal 2,000
positions funded under the Police Hiring Supplement Program, which
was administered by another Justice component before the COPS grants
program was established.  An official said that a policy decision had
been made early in the establishment of the COPS Office to include
these positions in the count. 


   SPECIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
   AGENCIES WERE AWARDED LESS THAN
   3 PERCENT OF ALL HIRING GRANTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

Special law enforcement agencies, such as those serving Native
American communities, universities and colleges, and mass transit
passengers, were awarded 329 hiring grants in fiscal years 1995 and
1996.  This number was less than 3 percent of the 11,434 hiring
grants awarded during the 2-year period. 

We reviewed application files for 293 of these grants and found that
almost 80 percent were awarded to Native American police departments
and university or college law enforcement agencies.  Other special
agencies included mass transit, public housing, and school police. 
The COPS Office also considered new police departments as special
agencies.  The awards to special agencies averaged about $291,000 per
grant. 

The 293 special agency grantees applied most frequently to use
officers hired with the COPS funds to (1) write strategic plans for
community policing, (2) provide community policing training for
citizens and/or law enforcement officers, (3) meet regularly with
community groups, and (4) develop neighborhood watch programs and
antiviolence programs. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

We provided a draft of this report for comment to the Attorney
General and received comments from the Director of the COPS Office. 
The comments are reprinted in appendix III.  The COPS Office also
provided some additional information and oral technical comments. 

The COPS Office generally agreed with the information we presented
and provided updates on the progress of the office on some of the
issues addressed in the report.  These comments are incorporated in
the report where appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Members
of your Committee and Subcommittee and other interested parties.  We
will also make copies available to others on request. 


The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. 
Please feel free to call me at (202) 512-3610 if you have questions
or need additional information. 

Norman J.  Rabkin
Director, Administration of
 Justice Issues


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

To determine grant program design features in the Public Safety
Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994, we reviewed the act
and its legislative history and discussed the results of our review
with COPS Office officials. 

To determine how the COPS Office monitored the use of grants it
awarded, we reviewed documentation on monitoring procedures and
interviewed officials about actions taken and planned. 

To determine how COPS grants were distributed nationwide, we obtained
COPS Office data files on all grants awarded in fiscal years 1995 and
1996, and we analyzed the distributions by grant type; by population
size reported to the COPS Office; by recipient jurisdictions
according to COPS data; and by state.  The data reflect the number of
grants for which applicants have been advised that they will receive
funding and for which they have received estimated award amounts. 
They do not reflect dollar amounts of funds obligated by the COPS
Office or actually spent by agencies that received the grants. 

To determine how law enforcement agencies used grants under the MORE
program, we surveyed by mail a stratified, random sample of 415 out
of a total of 1,524 agencies that had been awarded MORE grants as of
September 30, 1996.  Using COPS Office application data, we
stratified the grant recipients into four population categories,
according to the population of the jurisdiction served, and six total
MORE grant award amount groups.  The population categories were: 
fewer than 50,000; 50,000 to fewer than 100,000; 100,000 to fewer
than 500,000; and 500,000 and over.  The MORE grant award amount
categories were:  fewer than $10,000; $10,000 to fewer than $25,000;
$25,000 to fewer than $50,000; $50,000 to fewer than $75,000; $75,000
to fewer than $150,000; and $150,000 or more.  Regardless of
population size, we selected all agencies that had accepted grants of
$150,000 or more.  We received usable responses from 366, or 88
percent, of our contacts with the sample of 415 agencies.  All survey
results were weighted to represent the total population of 1,524 MORE
program grant recipients. 

Our questionnaire asked agencies to provide the following information
as of September 30, 1996:  (1) the total amount of MORE program grant
funds accepted; (2) the categories under which grant funds were
spent--technology and/or equipment, civilian personnel, or law
enforcement officer overtime; (3) the types of technology and
equipment purchases made or contracted to make; (4) the types of
civilian personnel hired; and (5) the number of officer positions
redeployed to community policing, according to calculations of time
savings achieved through MORE program grant spending. 

We pretested the questionnaire by telephone with officials from
judgmentally selected MORE program grant recipients, and we revised
the questionnaires on the basis of this input.  To the extent
practical, we attempted to verify the completeness and accuracy of
the survey responses.  We contacted respondents to obtain answers to
questions that were not completed and to resolve apparent
inconsistencies between answers to different questions. 

To determine the process the COPS Office used to calculate the number
of officers on the street, we interviewed officials and reviewed
documentation on how calculations were made. 

To describe funding distributions and uses of COPS hiring grants in
special law enforcement agencies, we used a data collection
instrument to review the COPS Office's grant application files of
hiring grants accepted by special law enforcement agencies.  We
reviewed 293 of the 329 (89 percent) hiring grants that were awarded
to special agencies in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, according to COPS
Office data.  The 36 files that we did not review were in use by COPS
Office staff at the time we did our work. 


COMMUNITY POLICING PROJECTS IN
LOCATIONS WE VISITED EMPHASIZED
PREVENTION, PROBLEMSOLVING, AND
PARTNERSHIPS
========================================================== Appendix II

We looked at how community policing was implemented in six locations
that had received COPS grants.  The locations we visited were Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County, and Oxnard, CA; Prince George's County,
MD; St.  Petersburg, FL; and Window Rock, AZ (Navajo Nation). 

These locations were judgmentally selected to include four city or
county police departments and two special law enforcement agencies. 
The departments we visited were in varying stages of implementing
community policing activities.  They served communities with
populations ranging from 155,000 to over 1 million.  Table II.1
provides additional information about the locations we visited. 



                                    Table II.1
                     
                               Locations We Visited

                                                                        Officers
                                                                    dedicated to
                                                                       community
Locatio                    Law enforcement                              policing
n              Population  agency              Sworn officers   at time of visit
-------  ----------------  ----------------  ----------------  -----------------
Los             3,600,000  Los Angeles                  8,915              1,093
 Angele                     Police
 s, CA                      Department
Los             1,500,000  Los Angeles                    329                 12
 Angeles                    County
 County                     Metropolitan
 , CA                       Transit
                            Authority
                            Police
                            Department
Oxnard,           155,000  Oxnard Police                  179                 18
 CA                         Department
Prince            758,000  Prince George's              1,283                120
 George                     County Police
 's                         Department
 County
 , MD
St.               240,000  St. Petersburg                 480                 52
 Peters                     Police
 burg,                      Department
 FL
Window            186,000  Navajo                         253                  0
 Rock,                      Department of
 AZ                         Law Enforcement
 (Navaj
 o
 Nation
 )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Numbers of community policing officers are those serving in
positions dedicated for community policing.  Officials noted that
officers in nondedicated positions also used community policing
practices. 

Source:  Law enforcement agency officials in the locations we
visited. 

In each law enforcement jurisdiction, we did structured interviews
with the police chief or community policing coordinator, a panel of
community policing officers, and representatives of local government
agencies and community groups involved in community policing
projects.  We discussed community policing projects and asked
interviewees to characterize the level of support by their
organization for community policing and to discuss what they viewed
as major successes and limitations of community policing for their
communities.  Table II.2 lists the interviewees by job title. 



                               Table II.2
                
                  Interviewees Commenting on Community
                   Policing Implementation in the Six
                          Locations We Visited

Location            Interviewees
------------------  --------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles, CA     ï¿½Commander, Los Angeles Police Department
                    ï¿½Panel of community policing officers, Los Angeles
                    Police Department
                    ï¿½District Director, City Council, 3rd District
                    ï¿½Program Coordinator, Criminal Justice Planning
                    Office
                    ï¿½Chief Inspector, Los Angeles, Department of
                    Building & Safety
                    ï¿½Executive Director, Barrio Action Group
                    ï¿½Executive Director, Challenger Boys & Girls Club
                    ï¿½Executive Director, Los Angeles Free Clinic
                    ï¿½Co-Chair, Rampart Community Police Advisory
                    Board
                    ï¿½Co-Chair, 77th Street Community Police Advisory
                    Board
                    ï¿½Co-Chair, West Valley Community Police Advisory
                    Board
                    ï¿½Researcher, California State University,
                    Fullerton, Department of Criminal Justice
                    ï¿½Researchers, University of Southern California,
                    Social Science Research Institute

Los Angeles         ï¿½Chief, Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA)
County, CA          Police Department
                    ï¿½Panel of community policing officers, MTA Police
                    Department
                    ï¿½Senior Code Law Enforcement Officer, City of
                    Lawndale
                    ï¿½Probation Officer, County of Los Angeles
                    ï¿½Project Director, Esteele Van Meter Multi-
                    Purpose Center
                    ï¿½Assistant Principal, Manchester Elementary School
                    (MTA officers work with students on campus)

Oxnard, CA          ï¿½Police Chief, Oxnard Police Department
                    ï¿½Panel of community policing officers, Oxnard
                    Police Department
                    ï¿½Assistant City Manager, City of Oxnard
                    ï¿½Chair, Inter-Neighborhood Community Committee
                    (liaison between neighborhood councils and city
                    departments)
                    ï¿½Marketing Director, AT&T
                    ï¿½President, Channel Islands National Bank
                    ï¿½President, Colonial Coalition Against Alcohol and
                    Drugs
                    ï¿½Executive Director, El Concilio (Latino
                    multiservice nonprofit)
                    ï¿½Coordinator, Interface Children and Family
                    Services
                    ï¿½Director, Instructional Support Services at the
                    Oxnard High School District
                    ï¿½Member, Sea Air Neighborhood Watch

Prince George's     ï¿½Community Policing Director, Prince George's
County, MD          County Police Department
                    ï¿½Panel of community policing officers, Prince
                    George's County Police Department
                    ï¿½Public Safety Director, Prince George's County
                    ï¿½Prince George's County Multi-Agency Services Team
                    (county agencies and the police address crime
                    concerns in communities)
                    ï¿½Chair, Public Safety Issues, Interfaith Action
                    Committee (consortium of churches involved in
                    social service issues)
                    ï¿½Vice President, Government Affairs, Apartment and
                    Building Owners Association
                    ï¿½Resident Manager, Whitfield Towne Apartments

St. Petersburg, FL  ï¿½Chief and Director of Special Projects, St.
                    Petersburg Police Department
                    ï¿½Panel of community policing officers, St.
                    Petersburg Police Department
                    ï¿½Neighborhood Partnership Director, Office of the
                    Mayor
                    ï¿½Executive Director and staff, St. Petersburg
                    Housing Authority
                    ï¿½Administrator and staff, St. Petersburg
                    Department of Leisure Services
                    ï¿½Chief, St. Petersburg Fire Department
                    ï¿½Executive Director and staff, Center Against
                    Spouse Abuse
                    ï¿½Coordinators, Black on Black Crime Prevention
                    Program and Intervention Program, Pinellas County
                    Urban League
                    ï¿½Director, Criminal Justice Administration,
                    Operations Parental Awareness and Responsibility
                    (PAR), Inc.

Window Rock, AZ     ï¿½Chief and Captain, Navajo Department of Law
(Navajo Nation)     Enforcement
                    ï¿½Panel of community policing officers, Navajo
                    Department of Law Enforcement
                    ï¿½Executive Director, Division of Public Safety,
                    Navajo Nation
                    ï¿½Program Coordinator; Navajo Housing Authority;
                    Window Rock, AZ
                    ï¿½Security Chief; Window Rock Unified School
                    District; Fort Defiance, AZ
                    ï¿½Program Coordinator; Sanders School District;
                    Sanders, AZ
                    ï¿½Coordinators; Positive Alternatives for Youth/
                    ACES (a nonprofit organization which sponsors
                    activities for Navajo youth); Window Rock, AZ
                    ï¿½Community Planning Committee; Navajo, AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Six law enforcement agencies we visited--three city police
departments, one county police department, a Native American police
department, and a mass transit police department--had a variety of
community policing projects under way.  The projects illustrated
three key principles of community policing identified by the COPS
Office:  prevention, problemsolving, and partnerships. 
Representatives of community groups and other local government
agencies working with the police on community policing activities
were generally supportive of the community policing concept. 

Table II.3 provides examples of community policing projects in these
locations.  The projects ranged from starting 18 community advisory
boards in neighborhoods throughout a major city to curbing drug
activity by working with the resident manager and residents of an
apartment complex. 



                               Table II.3
                
                Selected Examples of Community Policing
                    Projects in Locations We Visited

Law enforcement
agency              Project description
------------------  --------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles, CA,    The police department established 18 Community
Police Department   Police Advisory Boards. Each board consisted of 25
                    volunteers whose roles were to advise and inform
                    area commanding officers of community concerns
                    (e.g., enforcement of curfew laws and education on
                    domestic violence). Each board used community and
                    police support to address the problems that had
                    been identified. Interviewees said the boards had
                    been effective in helping the police to build
                    trust, involve citizens, solve problems, and
                    reduce citizens' fear of crime.

Los Angeles         The transit authority was part of a task force
County, CA,         that addressed problems associated with loitering
Metropolitan        and drinking by day laborers on railroad property.
Transit Authority   Using community policing techniques such as
Police Department   problem identification and specific actions, such
                    as clearing shrubs, painting over graffiti, and
                    securing railroad ties that were being used to
                    build tents for shelter, the task force resolved
                    the problems.

Oxnard, CA, Police  "Street Beat" was an award-winning cable
Department          television series sponsored by local businesses
                    and the cable company. Interviewees said the
                    weekly series had been one of the department's
                    most effective community policing tools. Over 500
                    programs had been aired since 1985. Street beat
                    offered crime prevention tips and encouraged
                    citizens to participate in all of the department's
                    community policing activities. Over 300
                    departments contacted the Oxnard Police Department
                    for information on replicating the television
                    series in their cities.

Prince George's     Citizens, the resident manager, and a community
County, MD, Police  policing officer worked to remove drug dealers
Department          from an apartment complex. The community policing
                    officer used several successful tactics, including
                    citing suspected drug dealers, most of whom were
                    not residents, for trespassing and taking
                    photographs of them. Citizens formed a coalition
                    that met with the community policing officer in
                    her on-site office, thereby increasing the
                    willingness of residents to come forward with
                    information on illegal activities. Some disorderly
                    tenants were evicted. The resident manager
                    estimated that drug dealing at the complex was
                    reduced by 90 percent.

St. Petersburg,     Community policing helped to improve relations
FL, Police          between police officers and the residents of a
Department          shelter run by the Center Against Spouse Abuse.
                    Interviewees said that the shelter had a policy,
                    until about 1992, that police could not enter the
                    property. Residents were distrustful of the
                    police. Some had negative experiences when
                    officers went to their homes to investigate
                    complaints of abuse. For example, residents
                    reported that officers failed to make arrests when
                    injunctions were violated. Since the inception of
                    community policing, interviewees said that
                    officers were more sensitive to victims when they
                    investigated spouse abuse cases. Officers visited
                    the shelter to discuss victims' rights, and
                    residents were favorably impressed by their
                    openness. The community policing officer in the
                    neighborhood was praised by the shelter director
                    for his responsiveness. On two occasions, he
                    responded quickly to service calls, arresting a
                    trespasser and assisting a suicidal resident.

Window Rock, AZ     A police official noted that the department was in
Navajo Department   the early development phase of community policing,
of Law Enforcement  attempting to demonstrate a few successful
                    projects that could be used in locations
                    throughout the over 26,000-square-mile
                    reservation. One interviewee said that gang
                    activity was partially a result of teens having
                    nothing to do on the reservation. A community
                    policing project had officers working with youth
                    groups to develop positive activities and
                    encourage participation by organizing a blood
                    drive, sponsoring youth athletic teams, and
                    recruiting young people to help elderly citizens.
                    Another community policing project was the
                    development of a computer database on gang
                    activities and membership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

   COMMUNITY GROUPS AND LOCAL
   GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
   GENERALLY SUPPORTED COMMUNITY
   POLICING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

We asked interviewees representing community groups and local
government agencies participating in community policing activities to
characterize the level of support their organization had for
community policing in their neighborhoods.  Thirty-two of the 39
interviewees said that they were supportive of their local community
policing programs.  Seven other interviewees offered no specific
response to this question, except to say that they felt it was too
early in their implementation of community policing to make
assessments. 

We also asked interviewees representing law enforcement agencies,
community groups, and local government agencies what they felt were
the major successes and limitations of community policing.  Responses
on community policing successes emphasized improved relationships
between the police and residents and improvements in the quality of
life for residents of some neighborhoods.  Responses on limitations
emphasized that there was not enough funding and that performance by
some individual community policing officers was disappointing. 

Summaries of several responses on the major successes of community
policing were the following: 

  -- "I have seen a big turnaround in some apartment complexes.  The
     entire atmosphere of these places has changed.  People are
     outside.  Children are playing.  This is due to efforts of
     community policing officers to get drug buyers and sellers off
     of the properties." (A community group representative.)

  -- "There have been big-time changes here as a result of community
     policing.  The police have developed a much higher level of
     trust from public housing residents than existed before. 
     Residents will work with the police now and provide them with
     information.  In this public housing complex, the sense of
     safety and security has increased.  Before the community
     policing officers were on patrol, residents did not want to walk
     past the basketball courts into the community center.  That is
     not a problem any longer.  The police worked with the Department
     of Parks and Recreation to improve lighting and redesign a
     center entrance.  We are now offering a well-attended course on
     computers at the center.  People are enjoying the parks.  They
     are even on the tennis courts.  Our community policing officer
     has been successful in working with problem families and the
     housing authority staff.  We provide referrals, counseling, and
     other resources.  We have either helped families address their
     problems or had them evicted from our units.  There are many
     individual success stories of young people developing better
     self-esteem and hygiene as a result of interacting with the
     community policing officer." (A housing authority director.)

  -- "Community policing has changed how we practice law enforcement
     in a substantial way.  We applied community policing strategies
     to a distressed neighborhood plagued by crime.  The area had
     prostitution and drug dealing, and service calls to the police
     were high.  We worked with residents and landlords to improve
     the situation.  Closer relationships developed, and we began
     working on crime prevention with community groups, schools, and
     parents.  Property managers provided better lighting for their
     property, cut their weeds, and screened tenants more carefully."
     (A community policing officer.)

Summaries of several responses on major limitations to community
policing were: 

  -- "Community policing is working here, but we still have a long
     way to go.  The challenge for the department is to convince the
     force that community policing is not a fad and is not a select
     group of officers doing touchy/feely work, but that it is a
     philosophy for the whole department.  I think we need to
     reengineer the entire police department structure to fully
     integrate community policing into the community.  I don't
     believe we have decentralized the department enough.  For
     example, I think detectives should be out in the community with
     community policing officers, instead of at police headquarters. 
     They should know the people in the areas to which they are
     assigned." (A director of public safety.)

  -- "We don't have "Officer Friendly" yet, even though overall
     attitudes have improved.  The concept is good.  The limitations
     are in the individuals doing the work.  Some are good.  Some are
     not." (A community group member.)

  -- "Some residents have an unrealistic expectation of what
     community policing can do and what it cannot do.  The majority
     of calls for service involve social problems.  Some residents
     expect the police to solve all their social problems, such as
     unemployment and mediating family and neighbor disputes." (A
     local government official.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE U.S.  DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Weldon McPhail, Assistant Director
Deborah Knorr, Evaluator-in-Charge
David Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst
Catherine M.  Hurley, Computer Analyst
Charlotte Moore, Communications Analyst
Pamela V.  Williams, Senior Communications Analyst
Dirk Schumacher, Evaluator

ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Elizabeth H.  Curda, Senior Evaluator

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

Ann H.  Finley, Senior Attorney

LOS ANGELES FIELD OFFICE

Janet Fong, Senior Evaluator
Lisa Shibata, Evaluator

*** End of document. ***