Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS): Background and Funding
Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
June 2, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33308
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background and Funding
Summary
The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program was created by Title I of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). The mission of the COPS
program is to advance community policing in all jurisdictions across the United States. The
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162)
reauthorized the COPS program through FY2009 and changed it from a multi-grant program to a
single-grant program.
Between FY1995 and FY1996, the annual appropriation for the COPS program averaged more
than $1.4 billion. The relatively high levels of funding during this time period were largely the
result of Congress’s and the Clinton Administration’s efforts to place 100,000 new law
enforcement officers on the street. Appropriations for the program started to wane in FY2002
before increasing again for the four-year period between FY2007 and FY2010. Congress started
to reduce funding for the COPS program as it moved away from providing funding for hiring new
law enforcement officers and changed COPS into a conduit for providing federal assistance to
support local law enforcement agencies. Starting in FY1998, an increasing portion of the annual
appropriation for COPS was dedicated to programs to help law enforcement agencies purchase
new equipment, combat methamphetamine production, upgrade criminal records, and improve
forensic sciences. One issue Congress might consider is the appropriate funding level for COPS,
especially in light of concerns about federal spending and possible reductions to appropriations
for the Department of Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background and Funding
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
COPS Funding............................................................................................................................ 3
Figures
Figure 1. COPS Funding, FY1995-FY2011 ................................................................................. 4
Figure 2. Funding for Hiring Programs, FY1995-FY2011............................................................ 5
Tables
Table A-1. COPS’ Requested Funding, Total Enacted Funding, Funding for Hiring
Programs, and Authorized Appropriation, FY1995-FY2011...................................................... 7
Appendixes
Appendix. COPS Funding History............................................................................................... 7
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 8
Congressional Research Service
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background and Funding
Background
The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program was created by Title I of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 19941 (the ‘94 Crime Act). The mission of the COPS
program is to advance community policing in all jurisdictions across the United States.2 The
COPS program awards grants to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies throughout the
United States so they can hire and train law enforcement officers to participate in community
policing, purchase and deploy new crime-fighting technologies, and develop and test new and
innovative policing strategies.3 COPS grants are managed by the COPS Office, which was created
in 1994 by Department of Justice (DOJ) to oversee the COPS program.
According to the COPS Office, it has awarded more than $11.4 billion to over 13,000 law
enforcement agencies across the United States since it started awarding grants in 1994.4 The
COPS Office also reported that it has funded more than 117,000 community policing officers
throughout the United States as of the end of FY2004.5
Authorized funding for the COPS program expired in FY2009. Legislation to reauthorize the
COPS program was introduced in both the 110th and 111th Congresses and has been reintroduced
in the current Congress (see below). There are several issues Congress might consider as it
debates legislation to reauthorize the program. These issues are the subject of another CRS
report.6 Another issue Congress might consider is the appropriate funding level for COPS,
especially in light of concerns about federal spending and possible reductions to appropriations
for DOJ.
As originally authorized under Title I of the ‘94 Crime Act, the COPS program had three separate
grant programs. Under the first program, the Attorney General was authorized to make grants to
states, units of local government, Indian tribal governments, other public and private entities, and
multi-jurisdictional or regional consortia to increase the number of police officers and focus the
officers’ efforts on community policing. Grant funds under this program could have been used to
• hire new police officers;
• rehire police officers who have been laid off; and
• obtain equipment or support systems and provide overtime pay, if it results in an
increase of the number of officers deployed in community-oriented policing.
1 P.L. 103-322; 42 U.S.C. §3796dd.
2 While there are different definitions of “community policing” the COPS Office defines “community policing” as “ ...
a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-
solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime,
social disorder, and fear of crime.” U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services Office,
Community Policing Defined, http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=36.
3 U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services Office, About Community Oriented Policing
Services Office, http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=35.
4 Carl Peed, “Message from the Director,” http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=37.
5 U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services Office, About Community Oriented Policing
Services Office, http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=35.
6 See CRS Report R40709, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Current Legislative Issues, by Nathan
James.
Congressional Research Service
1
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background and Funding
Grant funds under a second program could have been used to hire former members of the armed
services to serve as career law enforcement officers engaged in community policing.
Grant funds under a third program could have also been used for other non-hiring purposes such
as
• training law enforcement officers in crime prevention and community policing
techniques;
• developing technologies that emphasize crime prevention;
• linking community organizations and residents with law enforcement;
• supporting the purchase of weapons for police officers;
• decreasing the amount of time police must spend away from the community
while awaiting court appearances; and
• facilitating the establishment of community-oriented policing as an organization-
wide philosophy.7
In 1998, P.L. 105-302 amended the ‘94 Crime Act to allow COPS funding to be used for school
resource officers. In 2003, P.L. 108-218 also amended the ‘94 Crime Act to allow COPS funding
to be used for assisting states to enforce sex offender registration laws.9
The ‘94 Crime Act authorized funding for the COPS program through FY2000. Debate on Title I
of the ‘94 Crime Act focused on whether the COPS program would be able to meet its goal of
putting 100,000 new police officers on the beat by the end of FY2000.10 Starting in 1999,
Congress turned its attention to reauthorizing the COPS program. There was support from some
Members of Congress for continuing the COPS program.11 During this period, Congress
7 This list represents the types of activities that were originally authorized in P.L. 103-322, which also included (1)
hiring programs such as Universal Hiring Program and Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE), and (2) other
activities such as Police Corps, methamphetamine “hot spot” clean-up, law enforcement technology, and tribal law
enforcement grants.
8 See §341 of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act (PROTECT)
of 2003 (P.L. 108-21).
9 For additional information on sex offender registering laws, see CRS Report RL32800, Sex Offender Registration and
Community Notification Law: Recent Legislation and Issues, by Garrine P. Laney.
10 See Senate debate, “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994—Conference Report,” Congressional
Record, vol. 140 (August 25, 1994), pp. S12496-S12557; Rep. Manzullo, “Examining the Centerpiece of the Crime
Bill,” Congressional Record, vol. 140 (August 18, 1994), pp. H8691-H8694; Sen. Orrin Hatch, “The Signing of the
Crime Bill,” Congressional Record, vol. 140 (September 13, 1994), p. S12799; Rep. William J. Coyne, “The Right
Tools for Fighting Crime—Extension of Remarks,” Congressional Record, vol. 140 (August 26, 1994), p. E1808;
Senate debate, “The Crime Bill,” Congressional Record, vol. 140 (August 22, 1994), pp. S12285-S12288; Senate
debate, “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,” Congressional Record, vol. 140 (August 22,
1994), pp. S12250-S12284.
11 See Senate debate, “Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriation
Act,” Congressional Record, vol. 145 (July 22, 1999), pp. S8988-S9014; Rep. Bart Stupak, “COPS Program Good for
Communities,” Congressional Record, vol. 145 (May 12, 1999), p. H3070; Rep. Rush Holt, “Reauthorize COPS
Program,” Congressional Record, vol. 145 (May 12, 1999), p. H3003; Senate debate, “Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for Fiscal Year 2000,” Congressional Record, vol. 145 (March 24, 1999) pp. S3301-S3308; Senate debate,
“Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000,”
Congressional Record, vol. 145 (July 21, 1999), pp. S8940-S8947.
Congressional Research Service
2
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background and Funding
discussed using COPS hiring programs to put another 50,000 police officers on the streets.12 After
COPS initial authorization expired, several bills were introduced in Congress that would have
reauthorized the COPS program; however, Congress continued to appropriate funding for the
program through FY2006, when reauthorizing legislation was enacted (see discussion below).
On January 5, 2006, the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-162) was signed into law. The act reauthorized the COPS program through
FY2009. Along with reauthorizing the COPS program, the act amended current law13 to change
the COPS program into a single-grant program. When Congress reauthorized COPS, it took many
of the purposes for which COPS grants could be awarded (see above) and made them program
purpose areas under the new single grant program. As currently authorized, state or local law
enforcement agencies may apply for a “COPS grant,” which could be used to hire or re-hire
community policing officers or fund non-hiring programs.14
COPS Funding
This section of the report only discusses the new budget authority enacted for the COPS program
in the annual appropriation bills. Between FY1998 and FY2002, Congress directed the COPS
Office to use unobligated balances from previous fiscal years to fund grant programs, which
included grants for hiring, school safety, law enforcement technology, combating
methamphetamine, armor vests for law enforcement officers, improving tribal law enforcement,
and combating domestic violence.
As shown in Figure 1, between FY1995 and FY1996, the annual appropriation for the COPS
program averaged more than $1.4 billion. The relatively high levels of funding during this time
period were largely the result of Congress’s and the Clinton Administration’s efforts to place
100,000 new law enforcement officers on the street. Appropriations for the program started to
wane in FY2002 (the average annual appropriation for COPS between FY2002 and FY2006 was
$780.4 million) before increasing again for the four-year period between FY2007 and FY2010.
Congress started to reduce funding for the COPS program as it moved away from providing
funding for hiring new law enforcement officers and changed COPS into a conduit for providing
federal assistance to support local law enforcement agencies. Starting in FY1998, an increasing
portion of the annual appropriation for COPS was dedicated to programs to help law enforcement
12 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, Making America’s
Streets Safer: The Future of the COPS Program, 107th Cong., 1st sess., December 5, 2001 (Washington: GPO, 2002);
Senate debate, “Statement on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 145 (January 19,
1999), pp. S345-S470; House debate, “Democratic Legislative Agenda Held Hostage by Do-nothing/Do-wrong
Republican Congress,” Congressional Record, vol. 145 (November 3, 1999) pp. H11452-H11459; U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2001, report to accompany H.R. 4690, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 106-
680 (Washington, GPO, 2000), p. 8; House debate, “Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002,” Congressional Record, vol. 147 (July 18, 2001), pp. H4167-H4202;
Senate debate, “Statement on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 145 (March 25,
1999), pp. S3440-S3457; Sen. Orrin Hatch, “Hatch Amendment No. 246,” Congressional Record, vol. 145 (April 12,
1999), p. S3600.
13 42 U.S.C. §3796dd(d).
14 Even though current law states that law enforcement agencies that receive a COPS grant could use the funding for
hiring or re-hiring law enforcement officers, the authority for the Attorney General to make grants for hiring or re-
hiring law enforcement officer ended on September 13, 2000 (42 U.S.C. §3796dd(i)).
Congressional Research Service
3
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background and Funding
agencies purchase new equipment, combat methamphetamine production, upgrade criminal
records, and improve forensic sciences. As shown below, the reduction in overall COPS funding
between FY2002 and FY2006 roughly coincides with reduced funding for hiring programs. On
the other hand, overall funding for COPS increased in both FY2009 and FY2010 when Congress
started to provide funding for hiring programs again.
Figure 1. COPS Funding, FY1995-FY2011
$1,800
$1,600
) $1,400
f $
o
$1,200
illions
m $1,000
in
(
n
$800
io
riat
p
$600
o
pr
p
$400
A
$200
$0
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Fiscal Year
Appropriations
Caryover
ARRA
Source: FY1995 through FY2010 enacted amounts provided by U.S. Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services; FY2011 amount based on a CRS analysis of P.L. 112-10.
In the early years of the COPS program, a majority of the program’s enacted appropriations went
to grant programs specifically aimed at hiring more police officers (see Figure 2). Beginning in
FY1998, however, enacted appropriations for COPS hiring grants began to decline, whereas non-
hiring grants started to see an increase in appropriations. Congress has traditionally specified
what amounts of the COPS appropriation each fiscal year are to be used for hiring grants and
non-hiring grants. In FY2008, Congress appropriated $20 million for hiring grants; this was the
first time Congress appropriated funding for hiring grants since FY2005. As discussed above, the
ARRA included $1 billion for COPS hiring grants, the most funding Congress appropriated for
hiring grants since FY1999. For FY2010, Congress included $298 million for COPS hiring
programs as a part of the annual COPS appropriation. Congress continued its support for COPS
hiring programs, albeit at a reduced rate, by appropriating $247 million for FY2011.
Appropriations for hiring programs in FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011 were the result of
Congress’s efforts to help local law enforcement agencies facing budget cuts as a result of the
recession either hire new law enforcement officers or retain officers they might have to layoff.
Congressional Research Service
4
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background and Funding
Figure 2. Funding for Hiring Programs, FY1995-FY2011
$1,600
$1,400
)
f $
o $1,200
ns
$1,000
illio
m
in
$800
(
n
io
$600
riat
p
o
$400
pr
p
A
$200
$0
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Fiscal Year
Annual Appropriation
ARRA
Source: Hiring appropriation for FY1995 to FY2010 amounts were provided by U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Congressional Affairs Office; FY2011 hiring amount is based on
a CRS analysis of P.L. 112-10.
Recently, debate in Congress regarding annual appropriations has focused on the need to reduce
federal spending as a means of reining-in budget deficits. In general, non-defense discretionary
spending has been the most frequently discussed target for budget cuts. For FY2011, Congress
reduced funding for COPS by 17%. In addition, COPS funding was subject to a 0.2% across-the-
board rescission of non-defense discretionary spending.
It appears unlikely that debate over discretionary spending levels will subside in the near future.
In addition, it appears that grant funding will be the most likely target for reductions if further
cuts are made to DOJ’s budget. Under the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10), Congress made a total of $1.02 billion in cuts to several
DOJ accounts, of which $883.1 million (87%) were to grant accounts.15 As Congress moves
forward with deliberations on appropriations for DOJ generally, and DOJ grant programs
specifically, it might consider what the appropriate funding level for COPS is.
One potential question facing Congress as it considers the annual appropriation for the COPS
program is whether the federal government should continue to provide grants to state and local
law enforcement agencies to hire additional officers at a time of historically low crime rates.
Opponents of the program stress that state and local governments, not the federal government,
should be responsible for providing funding for police forces.16 They also argue that the purported
15 Under P.L. 112-10, Congress increased FY2011 funding for the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and the Bureau of Prisons, resulting in a $796.4 million reduction in FY2011 appropriations
for DOJ.
16 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Markup of H.R. 1139, the “COPS Improvement Act of 2009,”
and H.R. 985, the “Free Flow of Information Act of 2009,” 111th Cong., 1st sess., March 25, 2009, pp. 20-21, hereafter
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background and Funding
effect of COPS hiring grants on crime rates in the 1990s is questionable.17 They maintain that it is
not prudent to increase funding for the program at a time when crime is decreasing and the
federal government is facing annual deficits.18
Proponents of the COPS program assert that COPS hiring grants contributed to the decreasing
crime rate in the 1990s.19 They contend that the federal government might need to provide
temporary aid to local government because law enforcement agencies might have to lay off
officers due to the recession. Proponents believe that the federal government has a role to play in
supporting local law enforcement because it is the federal government’s responsibility to provide
for the security of U.S. citizens, which means protecting citizens from crime.20 They also
maintain that the federal government should support local law enforcement because it has become
more involved in homeland security and immigration enforcement.21
(...continued)
“March 25 Markup of H.R. 1139.”
17 March 25 Markup of H.R. 1139, pp. 7-9. U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Markup of: H.R. 1107,
to Enact Certain Laws Relating to Public Contracts as Title 41, United States Code, “Public Contracts;” H.R. 1139,
the “COPS Improvement Act of 2009;” and H.R. 1575, the “The End GREED Act,” 111th Cong., 1st sess., March 18,
2009, p. 47, hereafter “March 18 Markup of H.R. 1139.”
18 Ibid.
19 Rep. Conyers et al., “COPS Improvement Act of 2007,” House Debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
153 (May 15, 2007), pp. H4985-H4995.
20 March 18 Markup of H.R. 1139, p. 52.
21 Rep. Conyers et al., “COPS Improvement Act of 2007,” House Debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
153 (May 15, 2007), pp. H4985-H4995. March 25 Markup of H.R. 1139, p. 7
Congressional Research Service
6
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background and Funding
Appendix. COPS Funding History
Table A-1. COPS’ Requested Funding, Total Enacted Funding, Funding for Hiring
Programs, and Authorized Appropriation, FY1995-FY2011
(In millions of dollars)
Carryover
Fiscal
President’s
New Budget
(from prior
Hiring
Year
Request
Authority
fiscal years)
Total
Programs
Authorized
1995 $1,720
$1,300
$—
$1,300 $1,057 $1,332
1996 1,903
1,400
—
1,400 1,128 1,850
1997 1,976
1,420
—
1,420 1,339 1,950
1998 1,545
1,430
203
1,633 1,338 1,700
1999 1,420
1,430
90
1,520 1,201 1,700
2000 1,275
595
318
913
481
268
2001 1,335
1,037
5
1,042
408
—
2002 855 1,050
55 1,105 385
—
2003 1,382
978a — 978 199 —
2004 164b 748c — 748 114 —
2005 97d 598e — 598 10 —
2006 118f 472g — 472 —
1,047
2007 102h 542i — 542 —
1,047
2008 32j 587k
—
587
20
1,047
2009 —l 551m — 551
1,000n 1,047
2010 760 792o — 792 298 —
2011 690
495
—
495 247
—
Source: CRS presentation of the Administration’s budget requests for the respective years. FY1995-FY2010
appropriations provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,
Congressional Affairs Office; FY2011 appropriation based on a CRS analysis of P.L. 112-10. Authorized funding
taken from P.L. 103-322 and P.L. 109-162.
a. Includes a $929 million appropriation and a $55 million supplemental appropriation.
b. The Administration proposed a $6.4 million rescission of unobligated balances.
c. Does not include a $6.4 million rescission imposed by Congress on all COPS unobligated balances.
d. The Administration proposed a $53.5 million rescission of unobligated balances.
e. Does not include a $99 million rescission imposed by Congress on all COPS unobligated balances.
f.
The Administration request proposed a $99.5 million rescission of unobligated balances.
g. Does not include a $86.5 million rescission imposed by Congress on all COPS unobligated balances.
h. The Administration proposed a $127.5 million rescission of unobligated balances.
i.
Does not include an across-the-board rescission of 0.5% to OJP and COPS programs to fund the Office of
Audit, Assessment and Management (OAAM).
j.
The Administration proposed a $87.5 million rescission of unobligated balances.
Congressional Research Service
7
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background and Funding
k. Does not include a $87.5 million rescission imposed by Congress on all COPS unobligated balances, or a
$10.3 million rescission imposed by Congress on appropriations for the COPS program that were
appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
l.
For FY2009, the Administration did not request funding for any specific COPS grant program. Rather, the
Administration requested $4 million for community police training and technical assistance under the State
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance account in the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill.
m. Does not include $100 million rescission imposed by Congress on all COPS unobligated balances.
n. The $1 billion COPS received for hiring grants for FY2009 was appropriated under the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).
o. Does not include $40 million rescission imposed by Congress on all COPS unobligated balances.
Author Contact Information
Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
njames@crs.loc.gov, 7-0264
Congressional Research Service
8